Seeing the World Through the Lens of Others – An Answer for Anima Possession

Nothing is more lacking today than understanding the position of those with whom we disagree. And there is one major obstacle to doing so. Many wish for simple, two dimensional solutions to complex multivariate problems. Few are willing to subject their own reasoning to the scrutiny of rigorous argument to examine its weaknesses and flaws, and fewer still wish to understand their opponent’s argument. The result of this should be obvious but unfortunately, I believe I must point it out. It makes debating impossible! The root of the problem lies partly in the “is versus ought” question. “What is” has NOTHING to do with “what ought” to be. Empirical reality does not care about your feelings. This applies equally to all who have skin in the game, whether they are of the so called left, centre or right on the political spectrum. A spectrum which in my mind has little utility for two reasons; it divides people into categories which serves to end discourse rather than encourage it and the left versus right divide is overly and dangerously simplistic. We cannot understand complexities unless we are able to discuss them. Which is why postmodernists are working overtime to shut down debate and freedom of speech. Since they are what I might define as my natural opposition I am not surprised. They are angry with anyone who like me wishes to raise the level of public discourse. That stated what truly frustrates me are those who claim to identify with me who are completely unwilling to think rationally and debate me without using ad hominem arguments and logical fallacies. I will develop this problem shortly since it is something the so called right had best correct if it intends to make itself heard by those who are not of the right.

Postmodernism has successfully worked its magic. In this age we are infected (for there is no better term) with the notion that everything is relative. You have your own reality and I have mine. And the thing which most often defines a postmodernist reality is what they believe “ought to be”. This is the reason so many vegans and vegetarians are of the left. They ignore the fact that as a species we evolved as hunter gatherers with canine teeth. They also ignore the fact that we grew a brain which allowed us to finally become self aware because we eat meat. These facts offend their notion of what ought to be. Perhaps they also have never spent time in the out of doors to learn about nature. We live in a world of predator versus prey. No animal in the wild succumbs to death by old age unless its at the very apex of the food chain and even then, rarely. Most die miserably of starvation, disease or being eaten. That is reality. It is a fact that cares nothing for your feelings. Human biology was shaped by this reality which, since it is millions of years in the making, IS NOT SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. The relativism inherent to postmodern doctrine goes as deep as claiming that the nature of human sexuality is not defined by X and Y chromosomes at the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. Being a woman or a man is merely a social construct. Yet, in Scandinavia, which is the home of the most radical forms of postmodern thought, where they have done the most to remove all obstacles for men and women to enter STEM versus the Humanities the difference in choices between men and women maximized not minimized! This is the reason it is necessary for them to have such enormous and intrusive state mechanisms to sustain unnatural systems by fiat and force. It also the reason debate is eschewed since if facts were brought to bear, those facts might reveal the weaknesses in their postmodern ideology. Scandinavia is rife with cognitive dissonance therefore. Watch this amusing clip I have posted about the last Swedish election; https://www.facebook.com/TaetPaaSandheden/videos/197182687835485/UzpfSTkwNDc5NTUyMDoxMDE2MTA1MTAxODMzMDUyMQ/

Discussing the unintegrated psyche is the reason for blog. Consider why anima possession has become a societal problem. I quote from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-guest-room/201802/jordan-peterson-knows-what-you-re-thinking

“AB: So what do you think of our society, with spirits quite literally afoot – I think you mean that the psyche is a real entity, in and of itself, that it’s not just the consequence of neurons, and that it can’t just be described at a physiochemical level.

JP: Even if it can be described at a physiochemical level, our understanding of what “physiochemical” means will transform as we get more sophisticated in our attempts to understand consciousness. Even if it is an entirely reducible phenomena, ideas still inhabit us like personalities, and they inhabit us as a collective like personalities as well. You can think of the entire Internet as a place where ideas embodied in cyberspace are having a war, and it’s not much different than the war of Gods in heaven, which has been taking place since there’s been human beings. If you think of individuals as neurons in a web, you can think of Gods as entities that inhabit that web. They’re embodied ideas that persist across long periods of time, and they do go to war; that’s how polytheism turns into monotheism across time. Sometimes these wars are real, they aren’t just conceptual; people actually die to determine which God is going to rule. So, there’s a hyperspace consisting of networked minds in which these archetypal ideas exist, at the same time that they exist in each person. You’re a mirror of the broader social reality. You’re a node in it, but you’re a mirror of it as well.”

People who are possessed with an ideology are not wholly integrated human beings rather they are anima possessed. They are unable to see anything outside of their own perspective. That is why they will vilify any and all who hold contrary opinions to that of their own. When you attempt to debate with them, they do not see you as an individual, but rather who they think you are based on their preconceptions, biases and most of all your group identity. This is the result of anima possession. At the same time, when you listen to their position, there is little need for them at all. All one needs to understand them is to understand the ideology which possesses them. Run that through your head and you will instantly have the answer to every multivariate complex problem with which we are confronted. As Justin Trudeau just stated in a news conference, we cannot develop pipelines because the work force would employ a disproportionate number of men. A reasonable person would only concern themselves with hiring the most qualified however postmodern idealists have replaced what is with what should be (in their minds). In all of this the sovereign individual has lost out to their collective consciousness. Which is why this ideology resonates with the collectivist left who loath individuality.

But if sharing the same brain isn’t your bag, I suggest a solution. Develop your own ability to defend your line of reasoning by first examining it thoroughly for flaws and weaknesses. This can only be achieved through careful study, a lot of reading, and by listening critically to others without using ad hominem arguments. Study philosophy and psychology sufficiently to understand at least something about those who do not share your views. For those of you who were taught to debate, please remember that in order to defend your position you must also be able to defend your opponent’s position in an argument. Now here is where I return to my previous assertion regarding the so called right. Few of you have any notion whatsoever of how to develop a reasoned argument. In this you are every bit as guilty and more so as the radical postmodern left because you should know better! You often aren't really listening, nor carefully weighing what others are asserting. Worse, simply because someone is on your political team you assume that they are on your side. Politics is a corrupting business. And I don’t care what party you support or what the ideology is to which you may lay claim. If you think simply because someone is a member of your ingroup that they are your friend and ally you are both anima possessed and hopelessly naïve! Please pain me less with your low resolution, two dimensional arguments. Many who should be carrying the torch for reasoned discourse are no better than the postmodern leftists whom they claim to loath.

How to know if you are reasoning with the ideologically possessed

One of the most disheartening aspects of modern discourse is an apparent and complete misunderstanding of the function of debating. Ideas must bear up under scrutiny. If they cannot then there is something lacking in our understanding of a belief we hold or the belief system to which we lay claim. The most important thing any debater can do is to attempt to tear apart their own thesis by breaking it down into its smallest components then examine each thoroughly and critically. And of course, those who have learned to argue critically must also thoroughly examine other lines of reasoning which contradict their own so that they may be thoroughly examined to the point where they are able to defend them in an argument. This requires mental and emotional discipline because in a debate there is no such thing as a, “sacred cow’. The only ‘no go’ zones in a debate are logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments.

Debate and reason provide the very foundation for western academia. It is also the foundation for sound governance. Yet today we are encountering a generation so weak and insulated from challenge that the very foundation upon which academia and government rests has been torn down by weak minded devotees of irrational arguments that cannot hold up under scrutiny or critical examination. Which is exactly what Critical Theory aimed at doing when it first infected academia. The extent to which it has succeeded is deeply troubling. And it follows as night does to day that it has corrupted our system of governance so badly that all the limits and checks and balances our ancestors created to prevent fools from doing too much damage have been bypassed. I will leave that for the issue for the moment though.

Back to my purpose in writing this short but important blog. If you are reasoning with someone, pushing against their line of reasoning using sound arguments and facts, and they become enraged it is because they are ideologically possessed. If they accuse you of being a mad man, or of “sewing socks that smell”, to paraphrase the movie “The Exorcist”, they do so because they have reached the limits of their ability to defend their position. Just look at the repeated attacks, almost invariably from the postmodern left (although undoubtedly the identarian alt right will do the same at some point), against Dr. Jordan Bent Peterson as an example. The stunning, remarkable and utterly confounding aspect of this being the fact that they misconstrue and misquote the man constantly proving they haven’t even listened to his line of reasoning or to the scientific evidence he provides in support of his position. Now I most certainly do not compare myself to Peterson yet nevertheless have had experiences where my argument was completely and deliberately misconstrued. Once that has happened a personal attack will be immediately impending. At that point it is of no value to continue discussion since a debate can only either be won or lost IF the principles of debating are equally followed by both debaters. Sadly, it is no comfort to know that once the attack becomes personal that they have lost the debate since the way forward for all parties is through civil discourse. Somehow, in some manner, this most vital component of reasoned discussion must be restored if we are to have functional homes and civil society.

Identity politics: Victim or Victor? Either way, we all lose.

As with many things, life’s experiences change perspectives. Or perhaps I should say bring into focus old suspicions while disabusing us of prejudices and naivety. I was fortunate enough to have attended a high school where the teaching staff taught us how to think. We were required to investigate all the major totalitarian ideologies. Note I said how to think rather than what. Our teachers allowed us to draw our own conclusions. The opposite appears to be true today. From nursery school to postgraduate school students are being told how they should view the world, particularly with regard to the role the state should play in shaping and guiding society. And therein lies the problem, reshaping society is NOT the proper role of the state. Somehow many have forgotten that our elected representatives were elected to represent their constituents, NOT redefine them. Which is exactly what was wrong with every single totalitarian ideology we studied.

How did we go so wrong? Where did the idea that government should reshape us originate? In partial answer to that question I invite you to read a previous blog of mine, “The coopting of liberalism by social progressives”: https://therealistsadvocate.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-coopting-of-liberalism-by-social.html . We have a great deal of confusion as to the actual meaning of words today. Words are powerful tools. We should choose to use them precisely and carefully. Words hold profound meanings. Words not only serve to help define but also to create a new reality. I cannot think of another time in history when words have taken on such radically new meanings. Gay no longer means happy. Tolerance has come to mean tolerating the intolerable. Postmodern liberals have become both illiberal and authoritarian. The alt-right is suffering from its own delusional pursuit of identity politics by claiming the superiority of one group above that of another. Few today have an understanding of Classical Liberalism and the importance it places on the sovereign individual, which is why liberal has taken on the opposite meaning from its original one.

In the not too distant past, that is in my pre-Norway days of hosting and booking music, I paid little attention to any of this unless I was confronted with something so contradictory that I would comment on it yet do little else. I was naïve and hopelessly lost in my own pursuit of good times or too busily engaged with quality improvement training with industry, something which I took very seriously and still do. But that ended as most things inevitably do. I had met my Norwegian wife while developing a course for improving business leadership. Since I was retired and in love, it was possible for me to move to Norway to be with her where I also hoped to sell our program to industry. Norway woke me up, however. To say that no one was interested in first time quality in Norway is an understatement. However, I saw something there which I feared could fracture their society. I was so disturbed by it that I had to dig deeper. Well, watch out what you wish for! Little by little I began to see the role that identity politics was playing in reshaping Scandinavia. It was becoming more and more evident that the postmodern left was waging a culture war against traditional Norwegian society and its values. In the face of this I saw the emergence of alt-right activism. I saw frightening parallels from Europe’s pre-WWII past. The potential for modern day leftists and the radical right to renew their fight over which version of collectivism is superior. Neither group understood the concept of the sovereign individual. Neither understood why constitutional law which limits the power of the state by recognizing the primacy of the individual is vital in creating responsible, limited, good governance. Which still seems to me very peculiar since Norwegians make such a big fuss over Syttende Mai, their national constitution holiday.

Scandinavia is particularly prone to a collectivist mindset. There is a principle deeply imbedded in the Scandic psyche known as “Janteloven” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante . This simply put is "tall poppy syndrome" or “crab in a bucket syndrome" where if one crab tries to crawl out of a fisherman's bucket to avoid being eaten other crabs will pull it back down. In Norway you must avoid at all costs thinking you are special or sticking your head above the herd. The idea of the “sovereign individual” is viewed with great suspicion. Those who know me can possibly understand how this affected me, I was horrified. And, I needed to understand why I was so bothered by it. Fortunately, I am married to a woman who has struggled with Janteloven her entire life. She is uniquely remarkable which sets her apart for criticism from her peers yet very Norwegian as well, which is why I will say little else about her other than to state this. She explained how Postmodernism combined with Cultural Marxism was undermining her culture. She also explained that due to the Nazis appropriating Norwegian culture as some perverse symbol of Germanic perfection too much interest in cultural heritage and history might get you labelled a neo-Nazi. What to me seemed even odder is that there is no such stigma attached to being a communist.

To explain the radical leftist position, when it became obvious that capitalism had been far too successful in raising the masses out of poverty a proletarian uprising in the western world became very unlikely. As a result, communism needed to be reinvented if its proponents were to continue to promote it. No longer would it be defined as a class struggle of worker versus the boss. The Critical Theory of Cultural Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory redefined the communist struggle as one of victim versus victimizing oppressor. Critical Theory pits what they define as oppressed identity groups against the white European male patriarchy which has been labelled as the oppressor. Therefore this explains how the radical left perceives the identity game. It also goes without saying that under this new paradigm an oppressive hierarchy will still exist. The new hierarchy has now become one of a powerful postmodern political elite (insert Justin Trudeau) who use a very thinly veiled guise of defending the little guy while becoming wealthy on the backs of the common citizen. If a citizen complains about this they are accused of bigotry or worse, being "a deplorable"! However, there is no reason that the identity politics game should be played to lose. After all why be a victim? If the radical postmodern left is going to paint the victimizer as the white male patriarchy, why not be a part of that patriarchy and play the identity politics game to win? In this we see the emergence of the same sort of insanity that infected Europe in the 1930’s which led up to WWII resulting in the death and oppression of countless millions.

The alternative to this madness is obvious yet, so few seem to see it. The difference between individuals is far greater than the differences between groups of individuals. True diversity lies ONLY at an individual level. Which is why I identify as a Classical Liberal, a philosophy which places primacy on the sovereign individual. I believe that the law must remain blind to race, creed, sex, colour, affiliations, status and wealth for all to be treated equally and fairly. Assigning special status to certain groups whom the state deems to be oppressed cannot create equity by favouring one identity group above that of another. Yet this is exactly what is happening all throughout the western world. For this reason I believe in the complete separation of church and state. We must ensure all matters of faith remain personal. I believe in an end to all government cronyism and favourtism of special interest groups. Diversity is not achieved through promoting a society where people look different yet sound the same. Neither is the solution a society where people all look the same while promoting a common cultural identity. The solution is the Rule of Law. A Constitutional Law which defends the inherent God given rights of each sovereign person AND his or her obligations to society. Rights are not a licence to do whatever you wish. To you so called alt-righters, IF you really think your culture defines the epitome of civil society then this places an enormous burden upon you to carry that tradition on nobly and improve upon it just as your ancestors did! You have no right to take pride in what they did simply because you share their DNA! I invite both the postmodern left and the alt-right to stop playing the identity game! It is ONLY by changing ourselves as sovereign individuals that we will change society for the better. Identity politics and collectivism are not only divisive, they are the fundamental reasons for all the murderous and brutal conflicts of the 20^th Century. Learn to think for yourselves and stop marching with your posse believing you understand the problem. I invite you to first find out just who you are as a sovereign person prior to attempting to change the world since neither the postmodern left or the alt-right are changing it for the better!

The Agora versus the Pork Barrel: the collapse of real political discourse

There is a reason that wise leaders once studied the Classics. There’s a reason democracy was born in the Agora where open debate and discourse were first heard in ancient Greece. It was in the Agora on Mars Hill in Athens where Paul first preached Christ to the Greeks. And, as importantly in Plato’s work on political philosophy, “The Republic” Plato warns of the dangers of democracy decaying into tyranny.

I quote from https://classicalwisdom.com/plato-and-the-disaster-of-democracy/ , “At this point, the newly appointed leaders become very nervous. It was so easy to depose their predecessors, so why not them? These democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind. And so the democratic leaders will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people. To ensure their power, the leaders will create laws to bolster their position. The rulers will impose heavy taxes against the commoners to ensure they are unable or unwilling to fight back against this. And any who do oppose the leaders will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy. It is for this reason that there must always be some enemy combatant that the leader can cast blame upon.

Plato continues in his discussion by explaining that these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result. Those who once supported this ruling class begin to rebel against the would be tyrant. At this point the citizens will try to get rid of whatever man is currently in office, either by exile or impeachment. If this is not possible, the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition he may have.

Hated by the people, these leaders will request the presence of a body guard. And now he is a tyrant, the leader has no choice if he wishes to rule. Elected by the people, yet now he is protected from them. Plato predicts that this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen. He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster.”

How prophetic and appropriate given the current situation. Our common quest to live together as good citizens is hitting some illiberal and authoritarian roadblocks. Currently we live in a society where many claim to laud tolerance while becoming increasingly intolerant of open political and philosophical discourse. Our political leaders eschew real debate since they’ve been overtaken by ideologies, pork barreling and towing the “party line”. Our elected representatives no longer represent their constituents, rather they represent their party and its leaders. Votes are bought and sold with the taxpayers’ own money. Philosophies have decayed into ideologies which in turn have devolved into party policies. Elected representatives who speak out on behalf of their constituents are forcibly removed from their posts, yes Mad Max Bernier, I am writing about you. Liberals have become the opposite of Classically Liberal, conservatives are growing their tent to include those who hold values which run contrary to small 'c' conservatism, the socialists not only do not defend the rights and needs of workers, socialist policies have driven the very businesses which once employed blue collar workers out of the provinces and country, the green's policies are so unfounded in real science that they are unable to present actual data which can demonstrate that their policies work, and the libertarians have deserted Classical Liberalism to pursue a practically anarchist agenda. Everywhere we are witnessing the stifling of debate from our High Courts, to the floors of parliament where valid answers are seldom forthcoming in question period through to our institutions of higher education where grad students like Lindsay Shepherd are silenced by those who have been given the sacred duty of enlightening rather than indoctrinating OUR children. Worse, the Fourth Estate is the cheerleading squad for the silencing of diverse opinions while hiding behind ridiculously false claims of supporting “diversity”. Diversity to those who attempt to censor the actually diverse opinions of others means accepting people who look different but sound exactly the same. Diversity of opinion is labelled as hateful, far right, intolerant, and fascist despite the censors behaving exactly like fascists.

My wife often provides me with little sound bites of wisdom. The one which struck me most emphatically was her observation that we are in desperate need of a New Age of Enlightenment. Remarkably it was not long after she made this remark that Dr. Jordan B Peterson began his meteoric rise to prominence. Equally remarkably is the misquoting and misunderstanding of what it is Dr. Peterson is actually saying in his lectures. Certainly, there is nothing in them that was not told to us as a matter of course by our parents, grandparents and teachers when I was young. OK, well that was some time ago, I grant you. What makes Peterson remarkable is his ability to frame his discussions intelligently and, in a manner which affords all of us an opportunity for self examination and improvement. Odd that he and others who advocate for open discourse in good faith are now labelled (after all this is what the radical left does best, namely divide individuals into groups and label them) as the “Intellectual Dark Web” when their goal is to create enlightenment. Moreover, and most importantly, their goal is to put primacy back where it belongs, on the individual. This was the greatest achievement of English Common Law. The law is blind to our group identity. The law only cares about the individual. And so does God. Each of us are accountable alone for our actions. If there is hope for a balance and an open and tolerant future it will be found in the restoration of the individual to his/her proper place of pre-eminence and accountability. Every single attempt at collectivism has invariable resulted in tyranny. The needs of the many never trump the need for the voice of the individual to be heard free of censor!

The final straw: ideology driven politics are taking over Canada

From the Trans-Mountain scandal to legislated use of speech to social justice warriors who hope to end freedom of discourse to carbon pricing (taxes) that have raised the cost of fuel that we can easily produce ourselves to a senior Liberal Party official here in Ontario doing jail time because he destroyed records about the gas plant scandal to a collapsing health care system that spends more on bureaucracy than on providing healthcare to a PM who appears to spend more abroad on failed social experiments than he does in Canada, we have governments both provincially and federally incapable of addressing the most critical issues this nation currently faces. Canada is undergoing a constitutional crisis which began with the current PM’s old man back in 1982, but before I discuss constitutional reform, let me remark on the straw that broke this old camel’s back. It was that horrid creature claiming to be a journalist who in the name of social justice spoke ill of the Humboldt hockey player tragedy by implying those poor kids and their families do not deserve our sympathy because they were “white and male”. Last time I checked the law is blind to race, creed, colour and sex but apparently she knows better. However I grew up at the end of the Freedom Railroad and I know better too.

Canada has reached the tipping point. There is more division in this fair Dominion than I can recall in my long and misbegotten 65 years. However, it is the cause for this division that I understand well. The Liberal Party of Canada along with the Ontario Liberal Party are attempting to make Canada over in their own perverse image and this is not sitting well with their fellow Canadians, least of all me. We may in the future elect politicians who are less malfeasant or less radical than this current cadre of political elite but here is my concern. Our system of governmental checks and balances was designed to protect us from what is currently happening both federally and provincially. The separation of powers between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government have failed. The Fourth Estate not only has not held the corrupt political elite accountable, it has conspired with them to attack the very foundations of English Common Law and limited government. The extent of malfeasance we are witnessing far exceeds that waged by the "Family Compact" in 1837-1838 when Mackenzie and Papineau led good citizens to take up arms against their corrupt government. Simply putting the "right party in power" will not prevent the current level of corruption from reoccurring.

Hence the desperate need for constitutional reform. Please watch the following documentary by Professor John Robson on such; https://thejohnrobson.com/true-strong-and-free-2016/ and support his efforts financially if you can. Also, please listen to Professor Jordan B Peterson’s assessments  of the current illiberal authoritarian class of politicians and journalists and why they are so very dangerous; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0q8Vv-sRR8 . They will, if not stopped, resurrect fascist and socialist ideologies that will undermine the very foundations of the rule of law in Canada. Law, order and good governance were once our cherished values. The primacy of the individual before the law is the cornerstone of our greatest inheritance, the Westminster Parliamentary System and the Rule of English Common Law! These elitists want nothing less than to rob us and our children of our heritage and inheritance to replace our freedom with collectivist tyranny!

Pepe, Peterson and the age of political confusion

I feel that it is time to clarify certain terms often employed  by both the left and right which appear to me to be improperly used as well as poorly understood. I am writing my blog today on the so-called alt-right movement. On what I believe to be some dangerous misconceptions regarding it. On the alt-right’s peculiar range of beliefs. Its weird association with an anthropomorphic frog named Pepe as well as some of its adherents’ dalliances with fascism.

This blog will deal with the most important yardstick for any political movement; how much centralized social control does it require? To what extent is social coercion needed for it to function? Asking this question honestly will allow us to place political systems on the left-right spectrum. Understand that the far left requires intense social coercion while as we move further to the right along the scale less coercion is needed. Why? Because moving to the right on the scale places increasing emphasis on the individual, and his/her rights as well as responsibilities. Obviously, I chose to live with the least amount of social coercion to maintain social cohesion. But where do your beliefs place you? We are about to find out.

All belief systems have their origins. But beware of any who have their origins in philosophies which purport to create utopia. Of all the warnings Professor Jordan B. Peterson gives, this appears to me to be the one which most concerns him. Here’s a list of the number of murdered civilians who died to help create utopia under communism. Data posted from http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/ ;

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

Rank		Country
1		People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000 1949-Present (57+ years and counting)R.J. Rummel originally estimated China’s body count between between the years of 1949-1987 to be 35,236,000 (Rummel 1994). This excluded 38,000,000 million that died of famine during the Great Leap Forward. After the release of Mao: The Unknown Story, Rummel became convinced that the Chinese government was directly responsible for the famine, thus increasing his original estimate by 38,000,000 (Rummel 2005). 1,000 was added for Tienanmen Square in 1989 (Courtois 1999).
2		Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000 1922-1991 (69 years)The body count only covers the years 1923-1987 (Rummel 1996).
3		Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic Body Count: 3,284,000 1918-1922 (4 years)This body count does not include the 6,210,000 killed in the civil war (Rummel 1996).
4		Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000 1948-Present (58+ years and counting)1,663,000 is attributed between 1948-1987 excluding the Korean War (Rummel 1994). 2,500,000 is the mid-estimate for those who starved to death between 1995-1998 (U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea 2006).
5		Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000 1975-1987 (12 years)The body count estimate is complete (Rummel 1994). The offical country name was Democratic Kampuchea during Pol Pot’s reign and then known as People’s Republic of Kampuchea afterwards.
6		Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000 1978-1992 (14 years)The body count estimate is complete (Courtois 1999).
7		Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000 1975-Present (30+ years and counting)The body count covers the years 1945-1987 for Vietnam/North Vietnam and excludes 1,062,000 from the Vietnam War (Rummel 1994).
8		People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610 1974-1991 (17 years)The body count includes 10,000 political assasinations during 1977-1978, 1,000 children killed in 1977, 110 massacred in an Orthodox church in 1975, 80,000 during the civil war between 1978-1980, 250,000 that died in 1982 through Transit Camps, and 2,500 killed in a bombing raid (Courtois 1999). Another 1,000,000 is added for the famine during 1984-1985 (BBC News 2000).
9		Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000 1945-1992 (47 years)The body count only covers the years 1945-1992 excluding 100,000 from the Tito Partisans between 1941-1944 (Rummel 1994).
10		Chinese Soviet Republic Body Count: 700,000 1931-1934 (3 years)The body count only includes the Jiangxi and Fujian provinces (Chang 2005). Although Mozambique has 700,000 to its name, the Chinese Soviet Republic produced more bodies in a shorter time period and the estimate is low.
11		People’s Republic of Mozambique Body Count: 700,000 1975-1990 (15 years)100,000 civilians murdered between 1986 and mid-1988 (Young 1991) and 600,000 starved to death between 1975-1985 (Courtois 1999).
12		Socialist Republic of Romania Body Count: 435,000 1947-1989 (42 years)The body count only covers the years 1947-1987 (Rummel 1997).
13		People’s Republic of Bulgaria Body Count: 222,000 1946-1990 (44 years)The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997).
14		People’s Republic of Angola Body Count: 125,000 1975-1992 (17 years)The body count only covers the years 1975-1987 (Rummel 1997).
15		Mongolian People’s Republic Body Count: 100,000 1924-1992 (68 years)The body count only covers the years 1924-1987 (Rummel 1997).
16		People’s Socialist Republic of Albania Body Count: 100,000 1946-1991 (45 years) The body count only covers the years 1944-1987 (Rummel 1997).
17		Republic of Cuba Body Count: 73,000 1961-Present (45+ years and counting)The body count only covers the years 1959-1987 (Rummel 1997).
18		German Democratic Republic Body Count: 70,000 1949-1990 (41 years)The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997).
19		Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia Body Count: 65,000 1948-1990 (42 years)The body count only covers the years 1948-1968 (Rummel 1997).
20		Lao People’s Democratic Republic Body Count: 56,000 1975-Present (31+ years and counting)The body count only covers the years 1975-1987 excluding 47,000 war dead (Rummel 1997).
21		Hungarian People’s Republic Body Count: 27,000 1949-1989 (40 years)The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997).
22		People’s Republic of Poland Body Count: 22,000 1948-1989 (41 years)The body count only covers the years 1948-1987 (Rummel 1997). Excludes 1,585,000 from ethnic cleansing between 1945-1950 (Rummel 1994).
23		People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen Body Count: 1,000 1969-1990 (21 years)The body count only covers the years 1969-1987 (Rummel 1997).

And here's what utopia looked like under the Nazis. Data taken from  https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008193 ;

"What follow are the current best estimates of civilians and disarmed soldiers killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

These estimates are calculated from wartime reports generated by those who implemented Nazi population policy, and postwar demographic studies on population loss during World War II.

Number of Deaths

Jews: up to 6 million

Soviet civilians: around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figures for Jews)

Soviet prisoners of war: around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)

Non-Jewish Polish civilians: around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)

Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina): 312,000

People with disabilities living in institutions: up to 250,000

Roma (Gypsies): 196,000–220,000

Jehovah's Witnesses: around 1,900

Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials: at least 70,000

German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory: undetermined

Homosexuals: hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)

Jewish Loss by Location of Death

With regard to the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust, best estimates for the breakdown of Jewish loss according to location of death follow:

Auschwitz complex (including Birkenau, Monowitz, and subcamps): approximately 1 million

Treblinka 2: approximately 925,000

Belzec: 434,508

Sobibor: at least 167,000

Chelmno: 156,000–172,000

Shooting operations at various locations in central and southern German-occupied Poland (the so-called Government General): at least 200,000

Shooting operations in German-annexed western Poland (District Wartheland): at least 20,000

Deaths in other facilities that the Germans designated as concentration camps: at least 150,000

Shooting operations and gas wagons at hundreds of locations in the German-occupied Soviet Union: at least 1.3 million

Shooting operations in the Soviet Union (German, Austrian, Czech Jews deported to the Soviet Union): approximately 55,000

Shooting operations and gas wagons in Serbia: at least 15,088

Shot or tortured to death in Croatia under the Ustaša regime: 23,000–25,000

Deaths in ghettos: at least 800,000

Other*: at least 500,000

*"Other" includes, for example, persons killed in shooting operations in Poland in 1939–1940; as partisans in Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, France or Belgium; in labor battalions in Hungary; during anti-Semitic actions in Germany and Austria before the war; by the Iron Guard in Romania, 1940–1941; and on evacuation marches from concentration camps and labor camps in the last six months of World War II. It also includes people caught in hiding and killed in Poland, Serbia, and elsewhere in German-occupied Europe."

Now that’s one hell of a utopia. Both systems have several things in common. Foremost among them are that both ideologies have their origins in socialism, both purport they can create utopia and both share the need for enormous social coercion for them to function. This includes laws which regulate thought and speech, just as we see in Canada today. Please understand that socialism means societal control of all social and economic interactions. It refers to the state run collective making 'the state' the manifestation of ‘the people', therefore socialism is no friend to the individual. Both types of totalitarian social control vied for ascension throughout the 20th Century because they cannot coexist. They pose too great a threat to one another. The other possibility is that would eventually merge under a more statist hybrid which would combine elements of both philosophies. Witness the crony capitalism we see today which to a large extent has replaced laissez-faire.

Here is an excellent article on the socialist origins of fascism; https://www.partyforfreedom.org.au/2013/05/21/the-socialist-origins-of-fascism-and-nazism/ .

Every single prominent Fascist/Nazi cut their teeth on socialism. Here is an excerpt on fascist philosophy’s foremost philosopher, Giovanni Gentile;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile#Gentile's_definition_of_and_vision_for_Fascism

Mussolini, like Hitler, was a renown socialist. His break from the communist version of socialism was centered around his notion that the nation state was to be all important as opposed to supranationalism (globalism). It was over this disagreement that he was expelled from the socialist party. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/precursors-origins-italian-fascism Therefore “Mussolini’s break with his party on the issue of war is a pivotal point in the history of fascism. Where more traditional socialism had made the workers themselves central and paramount, proposing an international harmony between them, Italian fascism reasserted the importance of national character and its distinctions; it sought empire and the aggrandizement of the Italian nation through war, which Mussolini said “brings all human energies to their highest tension.” Such ideas on the virtues of violence and the spiritual purification of the people through war Mussolini borrowed from syndicalism—the aspect of socialism to which fascism owes most. As historian Alexander De Grand argues, “National syndicalism was the original nucleus of the fascist ideology.” Syndicalism is a revolutionary variant of socialism that emphasizes the role of the trade union in the empowerment of the working class and in the reorganization or society. Distrustful of politics generally, syndicalists urged direct action in the form of wildcat strikes and violent propaganda of the deed, their philosophy stressing the morally transformative quality of violence. In the words of Georges Sorel, perhaps the greatest theoretician of syndicalism, “Proletarian violence … [is] a very fine and heroic thing; it is at the service of the immemorial interests of civilization.” In Sorel’s accentuation of violent, physical acts of heroism, we see hints of Mussolini’s fascism. Syndicalism thus provides fascism with its point of departure from orthodox socialism’s hostility toward nationalism and imperialism.”

OK, I have argued that Fascism/Nazism and Communism are socialist left-wing ideologies. Which leaves one important question. How on earth does Fascism/Nazism get labelled as ‘far right’ while communism is labelled as ‘far left’ when they share the same origins? That is the real question. Well, as with many things, the answer is so glaringly obvious you will wonder why so many miss it. The two radical left-wing ideologies compete with one another. Therefore, they do not wish to be compared. Since the radical left controls much of the discourse on main stream media, they seek to create a false narrative to confuse people.

Back in 2013, when I was fairly new to Norway, I witnessed a very disturbing trend developing around the immigration issue. Norwegians were becoming polarized as a result. The government had refused to address problems with its immigration policies and at the same time appeared to engage in tactics aimed at undermining Norwegian culture. This included doing what Trudeau does at present, imply Norwegians were bigoted if they expected their government to fix said issues. This in turn had led to resistance in certain circles as well as a homegrown terrorist incident with a man named Breivik. Although this incident had happened prior to my time in Norway, the aftermath was still deeply felt and always will be. However, this fracturing of ideologies did not occur along a properly defined left-right political divide. It occurred along some very insidious old lines not new to Norway, namely fascism versus socialism. I heard the old arguments regarding nationalism versus globalism about the immigration crisis. I predicted this would create tensions and very sadly we are seeing that scenario play out. To put this succinctly, this is the old argument as to which version of social control is better, fascism or socialism? This is not good, to say the very least, yet so predictable.

Enough of Norway, I am home now. I came back in May of 2015. And yes, back to the same damn thing I saw in Scandinavia. By his own party’s admission, Harper was an authoritarian at best and an oligarch at worst. He insisted on clinging to the reins of power while refusing to listen to his own people. Partly as a result his party lost the election in 2015. Canadians were ready for a change. But it hasn't been the change they had hoped for. The current Liberal Party's government has proven itself to be far to the left of what many thought. Virtue signaling has become Justin Trudeau's government's only mantra. The old beliefs of placing the individual before the collective, of fair play as opposed to raison d’etat, and raising the law above government are long gone. Virtually the entire political class has been corrupted by a lust for power and control. People have become complacent. They place far too much trust in their political party of choice to do their thinking for them not realizing how many of our liberties we are surrendering to the state by doing so. Worse, we are failing our kids.

WTF Is Pepe? I watched an interview last evening, “Jordan Peterson sits down with the CBC’s Wendy Mesley to talk about political polarization, Pepe the Frog and his support from the far right. He has a new book called 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos. Peterson sparked controversy in 2016, when he spoke against a federal bill on gender expression and the University of Toronto’s policy requirement to address students by their gender pronoun of choice.” https://youtu.be/0BoOdMx_zDU  In this video Mesley tried to nail Peterson on the idiotic Pepe meme but failed, as most do who have the temerity to challenge his significant intellect and grasp of the psychological meaning of societal trends. But, there is one major thing Professor Peterson appears to fail to understand, at least in my layman’s opinion. The meaning of the left versus right political divide. When young people, apparently mostly young men, feel the need to identify with an anthropomorphic frog, well, I am at a loss as to what to write. But to take this further, to equate anthropomorphic frogs with Nazism? And Kek? WTF? I suppose I could dismiss this by saying “Ok, these kids are just brain dead", but that is not true, at least I hope it isn't. How the hell can anthropomorphic frogs and Nazism have anything, even in the most rabid leftist's addled brain, to do with conservatism or classical liberalism which subscribes to limited, responsible government? We advocate for small government which will leave folks to their own devices to keep and invest as much of their hard-earned money as possible such that government is just sufficient on the coercion scale to maintain law, order and good governance with basic social structures! Is this the best that parents and our publicly funded education system can do to teach our children about the very foundations of our system of limited constitutional government? Face it, we have failed, neo-Nazis aren’t right wing and I am not even certain anthropomorphic frogs have anything to do with fascism. Confused? I hope so, I am too. Let us end the confusion! Nazism, fascism, socialism, statism, and yes, political Islamism are all version of radical leftist ideologies under which we cannot live as a free people!

Peterson did make one thing clear though and hear it loud and clear when you listen to the video I have posted above. Identity politics is the mantra of both fascism and socialism, they just play that game for different reasons. We are all equal before the law. No identity group has rights, only the individual does. The individual is the single most oppressed minority. Choose your political philosophy carefully. And teach your kids to think for themselves or they will force you to answer to Pepe!