At the beginning of October, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban denounced the European Union's 1984 inspired manipulation of language:
"Brussels is creating an Orwellian world in front of our eyes. They buy and supply weapons through the European Peace Facility. They want to control the European Peace Facility. They want to control the media through The Media Freedom Act. We did not fight the communists to end up in 1984!"
The "Peace Facility" is responsible for transferring billions of dollars worth of artillery and ammunition to Ukraine. The Media Freedom Act gives European bureaucrats extraordinary powers to sensor any speech or ideas they dislike.
As if recognizing that Europe's embrace of censorship, surveillance, and social control inconveniently mirrors Orwell's condemnation of Big Brother and Big Government to perfection, the British "ruling class" attempted this month to "cancel" Orwell by using an article in The Telegraph to accuse the prophetic genius of being "sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, and sometimes violent"-in other words, someone who should not be "tolerated" and no longer "deserves" to be read. If "cancelling" the author who warned the world about such forms of slithery government tyranny is not "peak Orwell," then the crazy train still barreling down the tracks promises to be a doozy.
Canadians, of course, are similarly under siege from an Orwellian deep state that manipulates the public by distorting history and accepted meanings of words. The Canadian government fights racism by institutionalizing racial preferences. It supports Black Lives Matter, Palestinian protestors, and Antifa domestic terrorists while locking up Canadian patriots as "domestic enemies." It replaces impartial justice with "social justice"and equality under the law with "equitable" special privileges. "Climate change" communism kills property rights. Gene-altering serums are called "vaccines". And generations of judges have replaced the Canadian Constitution with their own postmodern revisions.
Anytime a majority of Canadians express a preference for something at odds with the permanent "ruling class' occupying Ottawa-curbing illegal immigration, profligate government spending, and support for endless wars, as examples-the Trudeau government rejects these as "threats to democracy". They insist that their government bureaucrats represent the people's will while expressing dismay that the people's will could differ from that of the bureaucrats. In other words, an "oligarchy" of "elites" now calls itself a "democracy", and majority public opinion is ridiculed as "anti-democratic."
Pretending that authoritarianism is "democratic" makes it much easier to assist dictators overseas who do the same thing. While Ukrainian President Zelensky shuts down opposition political parties and free elections, church services led by priests pleading for peace, and the prospect of free speech, the Canadian government claims that money for Ukraine supports "Western values." While the Gazan people overwhelmingly support Hamas terrorist attacks on helpless Jewish civilians, Western leaders falsely claim that their bloodlust is actually peaceful. The Canadian government has provided financial support for Iran's theocratic dictatorship, which threatens Israel's existence and supports the torture and killing of girls accused of violating Shia law. In Orwellian fashion, tyranny is defended as "democratic" and "Western"-which should serve as a warning to Western citizens of the direction their "leaders" are heading.
Of course, if Orwell prophetically captured the malicious spirit of our present age, it was Aldous Huxley who foresaw its moral degradation. He understood that promiscuity, drug addiction, and other pleasure-seeking obsessions are not only gateways to eroding religious conviction but also the perfect tools for any authoritarian government seeking to keep the public mentally enslaved and subdued. If a free-thinking individual can be relegated to a hallucinogenic state of narcotic dependency, then that person will never again possess the free will to challenge anything. If adolescents can be taught to embrace a revolving door of sexual partners while joyfully "shouting their abortions", then they can be prevented from ever creating stable families of their own. Healthy marriages produce happy families with thoughtful children who grow to be self-sufficient productive adults. Governments that demand obedience are strongest when its citizens remain 'dependent' upon government for life. Drug-addled, psychologically confused adults incapable of taking care of their own families are thus ideal candidates for state servitude.
In Brave New World, Huxley describes a tyrannical society wherein sex has been stripped of love, intimacy, and its childbearing purpose. In a scene where an authority figure attempts to explain the West's forgotten notions of morality to a group of astonished children, he explains:
"Erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!); and had therefore been rigorously suppressed."
In a world where babies are "decanted" in "hatcheries", women use abortion to end pregnancies, and people are fed a diet of pills to keep them docile and compliant, the government has no trouble maintaining control over people's lives.
Compare Huxley's dystopian world and how the drug Soma (meaning 'body') is used to tranquilize the public to our own world today. Recent figures show that nearly a quarter of Scotland's adult population is being prescribed anti-depressants, while fifteen percent of Canadians are prescribed some form of powerful selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors known to cause dangerous side-effects-including loss of sexual function, insomnia, brain fog, suicidal ideation, and self-harm. Roughly 50% of our population over the age of 12 has used illegal drugs. Overdose deaths have tripled since the dawn of this century. Millions of Canadians, including minors, currently use marijuana, which the Trudeau government has legalized. Whether through alcohol, opioids, marijuana, or hallucinogens (also decriminalized) Canadians are walking around in a Soma-like haze.
We are in the mouth of the Marxist madness where Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" and Huxley's recipe for enfeebling the masses in a hedonistic stupor have combined to usher in a twisted new era of Western totalitarianism. The real danger, though, is that their dire warnings will be accepted as fait accompli. Instead, they should be used as stark rallying cries for resisting government tyranny.
Meanwhile, Canadians are seeing that we are going broke, and that unchecked immigration is killing the nation's homogeneity, jeopardizing our national existence. That is just foundational, but someone has to say it, more are recognizing it, and everyone needs to act on it, especially those in powerful positions.
One thing is clear: the forces aligned against acting are powerful and entrenched. To effect change will mean completely upsetting the apple cart from which Pierre Pollievre takes his interview props. That will require courage, perseverance, the willingness to endure scorn and-most crucially-the preparedness to wage the good fight and do battle irrespective of the personal consequences.
Everyone is worried about BRICS but, at some point, the debt load worldwide will be so great it will not matter whose currency is being used because no currency will be worth the paper upon which it is printed. As in Venezuela, the cost of printing the money will become too expensive. That is why cryptocurrency is likely to be imposed upon humanity. That is a bad thing because cryptocurrency is a system for corruption beyond imagination.
The simple fact is that the people in charge of the nation's money have no idea what they are doing. Our Prime Minister has stated publicly that he has no regard for monetary policy, and that budgets simply balance themselves. Consequently, we face massive public and private debt, unrestrained borrowing, massive spending, inflation at a 40 year high, a banking crisis, the frozen housing market, de-dollarization abroad, massive corruption, massive government activity that is blatantly criminal, international political and social instability, and corruptible cryptocurrency. Things are not wonderful, and there is no logical reason to be happy about it.
One of the chief threats to the survival of our nation is mass immigration. No matter which prominent side wins in our immigration debates, Canada loses for a simple reason: the contest pits people who hate the point against people who miss the point.
On one side are the large-I Immigrationists, holding that immigration is always good, always necessary, can never be questioned, and must be the one constant in an otherwise ever-changing universe of policy. They are usually identified as "leftists". On the other, are small i-immigrationists, who believe immigration to be mostly beneficial, generally necessary, should never be questioned in principle, and must in some form be the one constant in an otherwise ever-changing universe of policy. They are usually identified as "conservatives".
The debate between the two sides often goes like this: Leftists welcome inundation with even uneducated, unskilled foreigners (so long as aliens are not sent to their neighbourhood) with the argument "our strength lies in our diversity!" Conservatives counter this by reassuring us that they are "all for immigration!" But, they add "it should be done legally and merit-based, with possession of economically valuable skills a pre-requisite for entry."
The problem with this is that it is the battling of a nonsensical argument with a one-dimensional argument. After all, there is a name for entities defined merely by the job-related role they can perform: robots. There is also a name for thus characterizing people: a Marxist mistake.
The point is that man is not just an economic creature. He also has intellectual, emotional, psychological, moral, and spiritual dimensions. The late Pope Benedict XVI mentioned this when critiquing Karl Marx, saying that the latter's mistake was his view of man as a purely economic creature. For Marx, human behaviour was explicable, and problems remedial- solely via an economic approach (eg. eliminating economic inequality will end human strife).
The essential point is this: once we instinctively treat man as a purely economic being, we repeat Marx's mistake. Yet this is common today, even among conservatives. Do you see how easily such errors can be mainstreamed to deform and distort our thoughts?
Now let us return to the immigration question. Do the work skills and ethic of newcomers define them? Are such qualities the most important things they bring to our shores? Since they are not robots or mere cogs in the economy, the answer is clearly no; instead, the most important things they import are their values and beliefs. That is the real point of diversity, and a multi-ethnic society.
To further illustrate this Marxist folly, let us apply the purely economic standard not to our national family, but to our actual one. If your family contemplated taking an outsider into your home, would you consider just economics? Would it matter only that they were going to contribute another $1k to the monthly family budget? Or would you first consider what beliefs and behaviors and values would be brought into your home? How these, for instance, would influence your kids?
It is likewise with the national family, of course. Absorb 10 million Muslim jihadists or 10 million Nazis over time, and it will have some major political and social effect, whether they are low-skilled or high-skilled. Either way, their skill at "being Canadian" will be fatally poor.
For a real-life example, consider radical Marxist NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh. Himself a product of migration, he was vaulted to power in his home riding of Burnaby largely by other Sikh immigrants from his native country, India. Now, would you feel better if Singh and his voter enablers were "highly skilled"? Would you aver, "Oh, who cares that they are undermining our political system? Can they code!"?
Some may now say such immigrants would vote differently were they skilled and wealthy, but history proves otherwise. Consider that Hindus are the highest earning religious group in North America next to Jews, out earning native born white North Americans markedly. Yet unlike GOP Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, they are mostly Marxist in their politics.
None of this, however, means that there is no difference between low-skilled and high-skilled socialist immigrants. The wealthy, high-skilled ones far more likely to be politically active and influential will more aggressively alter our national landscape. Mr. Singh, a Canadian law school graduate, rather proves this point.
Between 85-90 percent of our post 1967 immigrants have come from the Third World, and nearly all of them vote for socialist policies and political parties upon naturalization. This has led the Liberals in Canada and the Democrats in the U.S. to fall in love with their voter-importation scheme, AKA mass immigration. This also reveals why the economic-being approach falls flat even in its calculation of economic benefit. How much will "highly-skilled" immigrants improve the economy if, over time, their influence transforms it into a socialist one? They will be coding while wealth erodes.
In this respect, there is much to be learned from the utter failure of multiculturalism in Europe. In his 2017 book, The Strange Death of Europe, British conservative author and commentator Douglas Murray provides a highly personal account of a continent and culture caught in the act of self-murder. Declining birth rates, mass immigration, and cultivated self-distrust and self-loathing have come together to make Europeans unable to argue for themselves and incapable of resisting their own comprehensive alteration as a society headed for an eventual end.
This is not just an analysis of demographic and political realities; it is also an eyewitness account of a continent in self-destruct mode. It includes accounts based upon travels across the entire continent, from the places where migrants land to the places they end up, from the people who pretend they want them to the places which cannot accept them.
Murray takes care to step back at each stage and look at the bigger and deeper issues beneath a continent's impeding doom, from an atmosphere of mass terror attacks to the steady erosion of individual freedoms. The disappointing failure of multiculturalism, Angela Merkell's about face on migration, the lack of repatriation, and the Western guilt fixation all form part of this landscape. Murray travelled to Berlin, Paris, Scandinavia, Lampedusa, and Greece to uncover the malaise at the very heart of the European culture and to hear the stories of those who have arrived in Europe from far flung lands. What emerges is a cautionary tale for North America.
Ultimately, Murray ends up with two visions for a new Europe-one hopeful and the other fatalistic-which paint a picture of Europe in crisis and offer a choice as to what, if anything, we can do next. But perhaps Spengler was right:
"Civilizations, like humans, are born, briefly flourish, decay, and die."
So should all immigration to Canada be halted, given how Balkanized we already are? Insofar as we do allow it, the aforementioned underscores why beliefs must always come first when vetting newcomers.
A nation does not live on bread alone, and what does it profit a land to gain the world but lose its soul?
Robert Spencer is an American author who has written several books critical of Islam. In his best-selling 2008 book, Stealth Jihad, Spencer explains why most terrorism experts agree that it is merely a matter of time before another major attack occurs in the West. Indeed, the assault has already begun. A silent battle is being waged on our nation every day. Not with guns or bomb, but via covert sources. They are all pawns in a stealth holy war, unwittingly advancing a jihadist agenda not by violence but through endeavours designed to acclimate and subject us to Islamic law. Spencer exposes how a silent but lethal movement is advancing on the West and calls upon us to resist before it is too late.
While most of the Western world fights an active war against Islamic terrorism, we remain in deep denial about who is truly the enemy. Elites across North America and Europe fight to silence those who compellingly argue that the roots of terrorism are within Islam itself, which has evolved into much more than just a religion-it is a radical and dangerous political ideology that consciously, if not tacitly, places itself in opposition to democracy and basic human rights.
According to Spencer, one of the foremost critical scholars of Islam, there needs to be a thoroughgoing and honest public discussion of the acceptable parameters of criticism of Islam in light of genuine interests not only of national security but of civilizational survival. Our lives, quite literally, could depend upon it, as could those of our children.
Did you know Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Sharia law on non-Muslim states? Or that Western Muslim groups are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine? Spencer traces the source of these politically incorrect facts through the history of Islam, the teachings of the Qur'an, and the Crusades, and reveals the myths and realities related to Islamic law, the treatment of women, and the continuing Jihad.
Spencer also explains why leftists insist that there is a religion bent upon stripping us of our liberties and imposing religious rule upon us, and that this religion is-you guessed it-Christianity. The left is however silent about Islam, except to claim a moral equivalency with Christianity. If Islam has terrorists today, then that is nothing compared to the Christian Crusades, inquisitions, and religious wars of the past. Spencer refutes such charges with hard facts and examples of how Christianity helped build the West, and how Islam is bent upon destroying it.
In truth, it might be better if our immigrants were robots. Machines are poised to fill many jobs in the coming years, a fact underlining why immigration is unnecessary. Robots, after all, really just perform an economic function and do not come equipped with beliefs, intellect, and free will-at least not yet. Immigrants do because they are humans.
The lesson here is to treat them as such. This means evaluating them based upon all of their human dimensions and not just reckoning them as economic cogs, or voting machines. To do so is fundamentally Marxist and subscribes to the bankruptcy of victim ideology.
Once our educated overlords and rulers rose to power through the bloody revolutions of the 17th & 18th centuries, the great question arose: how should they rule?
The answer that crystallized between 1850-1950 was that our rulers would fight for the victims. And what a parade of victims: workers, women, people of colour, the indigenous, LGBT, and now Palestinians.
The fate of the Palestinians is instructive. After the defeat of the Arab attack on the Jews in Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel by the victorious Jews in 1948, the Arab Palestinians went on welfare, supported as helpless victims by the UN, the U.S., and other interested parties. And there they have lingered ever since.
The questions is: what good has all this TLC done for the Palestinians?
It has manifestly made things much worse. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have chosen leaders who promised to fight the Israelis and return them to the lands that they "know" belong to them.
There is a sophisticated word for this kind of politics: Irredentism. Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once commented that Eastern Europe was a morass of irredentism, with the people of every state or country fervently asserting that some borderland presently ruled by the other guys really belonged to them. This was Hitler's Lebensraum or 'living room' concept, which he used to justify annexation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and parts of Poland. Irredentism is great for sauntering politicians: it keeps the populace agitated, bellowing for revenge, and it keeps the politicians in power. But what about ordinary people? What do they get out of it? Well, not much.
Here in Canada, victim politics work great for our ruling class, but not so much for the victims, as you might have noticed. Life is fine for the elites, but no so for the working class. Our rulers promise to fight for workers against their employers. They promise to fight for women against the patriarchy. They promise to fight racism. They promise to fight for the gays against homophobes. They declare solidarity with Ukraine, and now with Palestine.
But let us stop for a moment to think this through. Does it really help the workers to fight the employers? Or is it true to say that workers and employers need each other and would benefit from working together rather than being locked in class conflict? Does it really help to fight the patriarchy? Or is it true to say that men and women need each other, because children need their own mothers and fathers? Does it really help to point out racists behind every tree? Or would it help work on truth and reconciliation outside of a reparations feedback loop that will eventually bankrupt Canada? Consider for a moment the recent $43B settlement paid by Canadian taxpayers to indigenous people 'victimized' by the Manitoba child welfare system.
I am increasingly convinced that politics do nothing except conjure up enemies where none actually exist, and loot the economy to pay off the government's supporters. For example, right now, our rulers are fighting for the transgendered against women and parents. Why? Because transgenders are victims.
According to Nazi Jurist Carl Schmitt's book Political Theology, the way that modern academics construct political doctrines is akin to the process by which ancient theologians once constructed systems of religious belief. Back then, theologians convinced us that the king was God's anointed, which is what the word "Christ" means. Today, we are told that political activists are adjacent to gods because they fight for social justice on behalf of the oppressed. And just as God wrought miracles in olden times, our political activists are all just about to manifest the miracle of social justice in our time.
The problem with politics is that it cannot get beyond its obsession with the enemy, whether it is a Czar attacking the Kaiser next door (his cousin) or activists fighting the white oppressors. Of course, each ruling class demands a princely ransom that comes out of the lives and earnings of working class citizens. That is why the West has seen populist uprisings against the ruling class in recent decades. While the elites pay professors and DIE administrators to design new ways to propagandize this compassion for the victims, import mass numbers of unskilled immigrants, and develop universal basic income schemes to reward the indolent, we ordinary working people are left to worry about how to pay for the next fill up at the gas pump.
This is Marxist Madness.