A New Years love letter to my nation (not my government)

 

A love letter to my nation (not my government) from an avowed Anglophile and an old stock Canadian

 

As 2024 draws to its close I would like to share my thoughts on our present socioeconomic crisis under a Trudeau led coalition government which destined to fall and take the nation down with it. We face significant challenges in the next several weeks and months. The current government in Canada is in utter, complete, and perfect chaos.  Trump has declared that he wants Canada to become the 51^st State. He even had his son post a meme of the Donald purchasing us on Amazon. Canada, one of the most resource richest nations on the planet, on Amazon like we are whore to be prostituted as though America was her “John”. You may think that this is merely clever or funny, or even a good idea given the fact that America’s economy is infinitely stronger than ours and will become even greater under an administration dedicated to reducing waste, cost, and variation. DOGE led by Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk will implement a modern version of what General Douglas MacArthur did in Japan when he unleashed Drs. Deming and Juran on them to help fix their postwar economy. Both are now lauded as heroes of industry by the Japanese for their unmitigated successes in transforming their industries.

But back to Canada and the US. Why not join the Union? After all taxation is much lower in the US than it is in Canada. Canadians under the Trudeau government have become poorer than even the citizens of Mississippi which is the poorest state in America. But you are likely forgetting two things, that the US is still being informed by the Monroe Doctrine and the American belief in Manifest Destiny. Moreover, if you do not know what either are and how they relate to how Canada came into being as an autonomous nation and an independent member of the British Commonwealth you know literally nothing of the history of your own nation. Today I heard, “That was then, this is now”, to which I answer the oldest adage regarding history ever written, namely that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, each repetition will have its own peculiar variation.

But first let us examine the Monroe Doctrine and its coefficient of Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny are two significant concepts in American history that are closely related in their impact on U.S. foreign policy and territorial expansion. So, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny therefore had significant impacts on Canada, shaping its history and development in various ways right up until today.

The Monroe Doctrine:

The Monroe Doctrine, declared in 1823, primarily aimed to prevent European interference in the Americas. While it was focused on Latin America, it indirectly affected Canada by reinforcing the idea that the Western Hemisphere was under the influence of the United States. This doctrine contributed to a sense of American dominance in the region, which influenced Canadian policies and attitudes towards its southern neighbor.

Manifest Destiny:

Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States was destined to expand across North America, and it had a more direct impact on Canada. This ideology fueled American expansionist ambitions, leading to tensions and conflicts with British North America (now Canada). Some key effects include:

1. Territorial Expansion: The idea of Manifest Destiny led to American interest in annexing Canadian territories. This was particularly evident during the mid-19th century when there were calls for the U.S. to expand into British-held territories in Canada.

2. Canadian Confederation: The threat of American expansionism was a significant factor in the push for Canadian Confederation. The provinces of British North America united in 1867 to form the Dominion of Canada, partly to strengthen their defense against potential American aggression.

3. Border Disputes: Manifest Destiny contributed to several border disputes between the U.S. and Canada, including the Oregon boundary dispute, which was resolved in 1846 with the Oregon Treaty.

4. Cultural and Political Influence: The expansionist ideology also influenced Canadian culture and politics, as Canadians sought to distinguish themselves from their American neighbours and assert their own national identity.

Overall, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny played crucial roles in shaping the geopolitical landscape of North America, influencing Canada's development and its relationship with the United States.

But first we must go back to the political beginnings of Canada as a nation distinct and separate in identity from that of the USA:

Our start as a parliamentary system under English Common Law and British constitutionalism after initial settlement by Loyalists setters from America in Upper Canada (now Ontario) and their insistence on having English Common Law as opposed to French Civil law of Lower Canada (Quebec).

John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada (now Ontario), had several reasons for establishing a new province under English Common Law:

Political Stability: Simcoe aimed to create a stable and orderly society in Upper Canada, distinct from the revolutionary fervor of the United States. By implementing English Common Law, he sought to ensure a legal system that was familiar to British settlers and loyalists who had fled the American Revolution.

Economic Development: Simcoe believed that a well-ordered society based on English Common Law would attract settlers and promote economic growth. He introduced freehold land tenure, which allowed settlers to own land outright, encouraging investment and development.

Social Order: Simcoe wanted to establish a society based on aristocratic and conservative principles, with a strong Church of England presence. He believed that English Common Law would support these values and help create a loyal and cohesive community.

Abolition of Slavery: Simcoe was instrumental in passing legislation to gradually abolish slavery in Upper Canada, making it the first British colony to take such steps. This move was part of his broader vision of creating a just and equitable society.

Simcoe's efforts laid the foundation for the development of Upper Canada as a distinct entity with its own legal and social structures, separate from both the United States and other British colonies.

The War of 1812: This was indeed a significant challenge to Canadian autonomy and played a crucial role in shaping Canada's national identity.

Key Impacts on Canadian Autonomy

1. Defense Against Invasion: The War of 1812 saw multiple American invasions into Canadian territory. The successful defense against these invasions by British forces, Canadian militia, and Indigenous allies helped solidify a sense of Canadian identity and unity.

2. National Identity: The war fostered a sense of national pride and identity among Canadians. The collective effort to defend their land against American forces brought together people from diverse backgrounds, including English and French Canadians, Indigenous peoples, and Loyalists.

3. Military and Civilian Cooperation: The war highlighted the importance of civilian soldiers in defending the territory. This cooperation between military and civilian forces became a defining characteristic of Canadian defense efforts.

4. Indigenous Alliances: Indigenous peoples played a crucial role in the war, forming alliances with both British and Canadian forces. Their contributions were vital in several key battles, although their sacrifices were often overlooked in the aftermath.

5. Political and Social Impact: The war's outcome reinforced the need for a strong defense and contributed to the eventual push for Canadian Confederation in 1867. It also influenced Canadian policies and attitudes towards its southern neighbour.

Overall, the War of 1812 was a pivotal moment in Canadian history, marking the first significant challenge to Canadian autonomy and laying the groundwork for the development of a distinct Canadian identity.

William Hamilton Merritt was a significant figure in Canadian history, particularly known for his role in the development of the Welland Canal. His contributions had a profound impact on both defense and trade in Canada. Merritt was a businessman, politician, and soldier born on July 3, 1793, in Bedford, New York. He moved to Upper Canada (now Ontario) with his family and became involved in various business ventures in my hometown of St. Catharines, Ontario. Merritt had fought in the War of 1812 and was captured by American forces, which influenced his later endeavors.

Merritt’s great legacy, The Welland Canal

The Welland Canal was Merritt's most notable achievement. He first proposed the idea in 1818 to create a canal that would connect Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, bypassing the Niagara Falls. The canal was crucial for several reasons:

1. Trade: The Welland Canal facilitated the movement of goods between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, significantly boosting trade in the region. It allowed ships to bypass the Niagara Falls, making transportation more efficient and less costly.

2. Defense: The canal also had strategic military importance. During times of conflict, such as the War of 1812, controlling the waterways was crucial for defense. The Welland Canal provided a secure route for moving troops and supplies, enhancing the region's defensive capabilities.

3. Economic Development: The construction and operation of the canal spurred economic growth in the surrounding areas. It created jobs, attracted settlers, and led to the development of towns and industries along its route. Merritt's vision and determination were instrumental in the canal's construction. He organized local meetings, raised funds, and enlisted government support to bring the project to fruition. The Welland Canal remains a vital part of Canada's transportation infrastructure and is a enduring testament to Merritt's legacy.

Funding the Welland Canal:

Merritt faced numerous challenges in securing funding for the Welland Canal. Initially, he hoped for government support, but when that proved insufficient, he turned to private investors, including those from the United States. American investors were interested in the canal because it promised to enhance trade routes and economic opportunities between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean.

How this impacted Canada’s Factories and Mills:

Investment and Control: By accepting American investment, Merritt inadvertently allowed American businessmen to gain a controlling interest in some Canadian mills. These investors were keen on ensuring their investments were profitable, which often meant taking an active role in the management and operations of the mills.

Economic Influence: The influx of American capital brought with it a degree of economic influence. American investors sought to maximize their returns, which sometimes led to decisions that prioritized their interests over those of local Canadian stakeholders.

Technological Advancements: On the positive side, American investment also brought technological advancements and expertise to Canadian mills. This helped improve efficiency and productivity, contributing to the growth of the Canadian economy.

Trade and Commerce: The Welland Canal itself facilitated increased trade and commerce between Canada and the United States. This interconnectedness meant that American businessmen had a vested interest in the success of Canadian industries, including the mills.

Overall, while American investment in the Welland Canal and Canadian mills brought economic benefits, it also led to a degree of foreign control and influence over Canadian industries, so much so that most of our factories and mills became wholly owned subsidiaries of American parent corporations. This dynamic played a significant role in shaping the economic landscape of the region during that period.

Why the building of the Rideau Canal coincided with that of the Welland Canal:

The Rideau Canal and the Welland Canal were both constructed in the early 19th century, and their development coincided due to several strategic, economic, and political reasons.

Their Strategic Importance

Defense: After the War of 1812, there was a heightened sense of vulnerability in British North America (now Canada). The Rideau Canal was built between 1826 and 1832 to provide a secure supply route between Montreal and the naval base in Kingston, bypassing the potentially vulnerable St. Lawrence River. This was crucial in case of another conflict with the United States.

Military Transport: Both canals were designed to facilitate the movement of troops and supplies. The Welland Canal, completed in 1829, allowed ships to bypass Niagara Falls, providing a safer and more efficient route for military and commercial vessels.

Economic Development

Trade Routes: While the Welland Canal facilitated the movement of goods between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, the Rideau Canal, which was initially built for military purposes, also became an important commercial route. It connected Ottawa to Kingston, enhancing trade and transportation in the region.

Political Factors:

The influence of Great Britain: Both canals were part of British efforts to strengthen their influence in North America. By improving infrastructure and transportation, the British aimed to secure their colonial territories and promote economic growth.

Settlement and Development: The construction of these canals encouraged settlement and development in the surrounding areas. Towns and industries grew along the canal routes, contributing to the economic prosperity of the region. In summary, the Rideau and Welland Canals were built around the same time due to their strategic importance for defense, their role in facilitating trade and transportation, and the political objectives of strengthening our British ties in North America.

The 1837-38 Mackenzie-Papineau Rebellion as a reaction to American expansionism and British Colonialism:

The Mackenzie-Papineau Rebellion, also known as the Rebellions of 1837-1838, was a significant event in Canadian history. It was driven by frustrations with British colonial rule and the influence of American expansionism.

Background:

The rebellions took place in both Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec). Key figures included William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada and Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada. Both leaders sought political reform and greater autonomy from British control.

Reaction to British Colonialism:

Political Reform: The rebels were frustrated with the lack of political reform and the dominance of the British-appointed elite. They demanded responsible government, where the executive council would be accountable to the elected legislative assembly.

Economic Grievances: Economic hardships and land issues also fueled discontent. Many settlers felt that the colonial government favoured the interests of the elite over those of ordinary citizens.

Influence of American Expansionism

Republican Ideals: The American Revolution and the subsequent expansion of the United States influenced the rebels. They were inspired by republican ideals and sought to establish a more democratic system of government.

Support from the U.S.: Some rebels received support from American sympathizers. For example, Mackenzie established a short-lived "Republic of Canada" on Navy Island in the Niagara River with the help of American volunteers.

Outcomes:

The rebellions were ultimately unsuccessful, and the British military crushed the uprisings. However, they led to significant changes:

Lord Durham's Report: The British government sent Lord Durham to investigate the causes of the rebellions. His report recommended the unification of Upper and Lower Canada and the establishment of responsible government.

Act of Union 1840: The Act of Union merged Upper and Lower Canada into a single province, laying the groundwork for the eventual creation of the Canadian Confederation in 1867.

The Mackenzie-Papineau Rebellion was a pivotal moment in the struggle for Canadian self-governance and highlighted the tensions between colonial rule and the desire for democratic reform.

How the liberal party was birthed in part by Mackenzie and Papineau

The Liberal Party of Canada has its roots in the reformist movements led by figures like William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau. These leaders were instrumental in advocating for political reform and responsible government in the early 19th century.

William Lyon Mackenzie was a prominent figure in Upper Canada (now Ontario). He led the Reform movement, which sought to challenge the power of the Family Compact, a small group of elites who controlled the government. Mackenzie’s efforts culminated in the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837, which, although unsuccessful, highlighted the need for political reform and greater democratic representation.

Louis-Joseph Papineau was from Lower Canada (now Quebec). Papineau led the Parti Patriote, which similarly sought to challenge the dominance of the British-appointed elite and advocate for the rights of French Canadians. The Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837-1838, led by Papineau, also ended in defeat but underscored the demand for responsible government and political change.

Influence on the Liberal Party

The efforts of Mackenzie and Papineau laid the groundwork for the development of the Liberal Party. Their push for responsible government and democratic reforms resonated with many Canadians and set the stage for the emergence of a political party that would champion these ideals. The Liberal Party, officially founded in 1867, drew on the legacy of these reformist movements and leaders, advocating for a more inclusive and democratic political system.

The American Civil War and the Fenian Raids influences on Canadian independence from Great Britain

The American Civil War (1861-1865) and the Fenian Raids (1866-1871) both played significant roles in shaping Canadian independence from Great Britain.

American Civil War:

Military and Political Tensions: The Civil War heightened tensions between Britain and the United States. Britain's neutrality and its support for the Confederacy due to the cotton trade angered the Union, leading to incidents like the Trent Affair, where a British ship was seized by the Union Navy.

Canadian Sympathy for the Union: Many Canadians sympathized with the Union cause, partly due to their opposition to slavery and their close economic ties with the northern states.

Increased Military Presence: The threat of American invasion led Britain to station troops in Canada, which underscored the need for a more unified and self-reliant defense.

Fenian Raids:

Irish-American Veterans: The Fenian Brotherhood, composed of Irish-American Civil War veterans, launched several raids into Canada to pressure Britain to withdraw from Ireland. My own great-grandfather was a veteran of the conflict and received a grant of land in some god forsaken part of Ontario on the Canadian Shield in case he had the sudden urge to go farm rock. My cousin Roy Rymer still pays the taxes on that property. Great granddad once told my father that the only thing he shot during the Fenians Raids was a farmer’s cow to feed the boys from the Lincoln and Welland Regiment in which he had served. It was a two-day march from St. Catharines to Ridgeway where the engagement took place.

Canadian Unity: The raids exposed weaknesses in Canada's defense and highlighted the need for a unified military and political structure.

Path to Confederation: The threat of Fenian attacks and the desire for a stronger defense were key factors that led to the Confederation of Canada in 1867.

Both events underscored the vulnerabilities of British North America and accelerated the movement towards a more independent and unified Canadian nation.

The Charlottetown Conference and the need of Confederation to establish Canada as a nation capable of self-government

The Charlottetown Conference, held from September 1^st to 9^th, 1864, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, was a pivotal moment in the journey towards Canadian Confederation. Originally planned as a meeting of representatives from the Maritime colonies (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) to discuss a possible union, the conference took a significant turn when delegates from the Province of Canada (present-day Ontario and Quebec) were invited to join.

Key Outcomes of the Charlottetown Conference:

Discussion of Union: The conference shifted focus from a Maritime Union to a broader union of all British North American colonies. The delegates discussed the benefits of uniting the colonies to create a stronger, more self-sufficient entity.

Agreement on Principles: While no formal decisions were made, there was a general agreement on the principles of union, including the need for a federal system that would allow for both regional autonomy and a strong central government. This is distinctly different from the American system which emphasises State’s right and their autonomy.

Social Interactions: The conference included social events, such as dinners and banquets, which helped build relationships and trust among the delegates.

Path to Confederation:

The Charlottetown Conference was followed by the Quebec Conference in October 1864, where a more detailed plan for Confederation was drafted. This plan, known as the 72 Resolutions, laid the groundwork for the British North America Act, which was passed by the British Parliament and came into effect on July 1^st, 1867, creating the Dominion of Canada.

Significance:

The Charlottetown Conference marked the beginning of a series of negotiations that ultimately led to the formation of Canada as a self-governing nation. It was a crucial step in the process of Confederation, demonstrating the willingness of the colonies to work together towards a common goal.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as the counterpoint to "Peace, Order, and Good Government"

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and "Peace, Order, and Good Government" are two foundational principles that reflect differing philosophies and priorities in the founding documents of the United States and Canada, respectively.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

This phrase is from the United States Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It encapsulates the core values of American political philosophy:

Individual Rights: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedoms and personal rights.

Self-Governance: Reflects the belief in the right of people to govern themselves and seek their own paths to fulfillment.

Rejection of Tyranny: Stresses the need to break away from oppressive governments that do not respect these fundamental rights.

"Peace, Order, and Good Government"

This phrase is from the British North America Act (now the Constitution Act, 1867) and highlights the priorities of the Canadian Confederation:

Collective Well-Being: Focuses on the overall stability and welfare of society.

Rule of Law: Emphasizes the importance of legal order and governance structures that maintain peace and prevent chaos.

Public Interest: Prioritizes decisions that benefit the collective, often through a strong and proactive government role.

Contrasting these Philosophies

Individualism vs. Collectivism: The American principal underscores individual rights and personal freedoms, while the Canadian principal emphasizes collective well-being and social order.

Liberty vs. Stability: The U.S. approach values personal liberty as the highest good, whereas the Canadian approach values peace and stability, often requiring a balance between individual freedoms and societal needs. It is the stability of our system of government that has allowed Canada to avoid some of the more violent extremes of civil discord so common in America. The belief in stable, calm, responsible government is an unreconcilable difference between how our two nations are governed, that is until the erosion of Canadian values which have occurred largely but not entirely under the Liberal Party of Canada since the mid 1960’s due to parliament pursuing a “progressive agenda”

Government Role: The American ideal tends to advocate for limited government intervention in personal lives, while the Canadian ideal supports a more active government role in ensuring public welfare. Again, I must point out that this intervention in individual freedom largely began with Pearson’s vision of more state intervention in our lives. It was also Pearson who was instrumental in bringing Pierre Trudeau to the fore. A moment in our political history which began our downhill slide toward the tyranny of his son.

Nevertheless, these differing principles reflect the unique historical contexts and cultural values of each nation. The American focus on individual liberty arose from a desire to escape British colonial rule, while the Canadian emphasis on peace and order emerged from a need to unify diverse provinces and maintain stability under the British crown.

My conclusions:

We face the possibility of prorogation in the coming weeks to delay the fall of the current corrupt government. This will only serve to further abuse Canadians who are already suffering. All of this is due to our rejection of Christianity as the underpinning principle upon which any functional government’s value, principles, legislation and laws must rely. For without Christ Canada cannot exist as a nation that exists to fulfill our most fundamental constitutional principle of “peace, order, and good government”.

So here we are, once again being bullied from the south in a two-century old fulfillment of America’s quest for Manifest Destiny. Trump is being lauded as our saviour by many Canadians on my social media feed who claim some affiliation with conservativism. I often wonder whether real conservatives and true liberals exist at all. I am being given constant proof of the failure of our education system due to our progressive school boards. This failure has virtually erased the knowledge required to understand what either of these political philosophies mean.

For Trump to suggest that Wayne Gretzky could simply “become” the next Prime Minister with out first becoming the leader of a political party capable of winning an election showed his massive ignorance as to how the Canadian system of governance functions.  Trump referred to Gretzky as a good candidate to become the “Governor of Canada”, an offer which the “Great One” promptly turned down due to its insulting impossibility. I was forced to study American history as a lad, something which at the time I found boring. Today I am grateful that I was offered perspective as to why the USA still operates on principles that threaten our autonomy. It is not a Godly move to interfere in the sovereign government of another nation. It is not for America to tell us how to fix our own problems brought on by Neo-Marxist “progressives” (a term which I despise due to its meaninglessness) who have weakened us once again to the point where we are made vulnerable to American expansionism and threats to our sovereignty.

For those of you who may think based upon what I have stated here that I am not pleased Trump won would also be missing the point since I am pleased. Frankly the reason you are missing the point is due to the fact you lack a proper historical perspective of how and why our situation is so dire. Due to ungodly hubris, we often think that we know more than we do. Donald Trump is not Canada’s saviour, Jesus Christ is! If you claim to be a Christian, then you need to stop worshipping at the false god of political messiahs. We must pray that Trump’s new administration will serve God’s will in America and that the parliamentary system we have inherited from our ancestors will right itself since its traditions have served us so well until the “progressives” corrupted it with their godless agenda.

Christmas origins, and our wild Canadian ride at Yuletide

 

The origin of Christmas as a holiday:

December 25^th is Christmas day (Christ's mass), but for the first 300 years of Christianity, it wasn't so. When was Christmas first celebrated? In an old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for A.D. 336: "25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae." December 25th, Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea. This day, December 25, 336, is the first recorded celebration of Christmas.

No one knows for sure on what day Christ was born. Dionysus Exiguus, a sixth-century monk, who was the first to date all of history from December 25th, the year of our Lord 1. Other traditions gave dates as early as mid-November or as late as March. How did Christmas come to be celebrated on December 25th? Cultures around the Mediterranean and across Europe observed feasts on or around December 25th, marking the winter solstice. The Jews had a festival of lights. Germans had a yule festival. Celtic legends connected the solstice with Balder, the Scandinavian sun god who was struck down by a mistletoe arrow. At the pagan festival of Saturnalia, Romans feasted and gave gifts to the poor. Drinking was closely connected with these pagan feasts. At some point, a Christian bishop may have adopted the day to keep his people from indulging in the old pagan festival.

Historian William J. Tighe offers a different view, however. When a consensus arose in the church to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25th, it was reasonable to celebrate his birth nine months later.

Origin of Christmas Traditions:

Many of the pagan customs became associated with Christmas. Christian stories replaced the heathen tales, but the practices hung on. Candles continued to be lit. Kissing under the mistletoe remained common in Scandinavian countries. But over the years, gift exchanges became connected with the name of St. Nicholas, a real but legendary figure of 4th century Lycia (a province of Asia). A charitable man, he threw gifts into homes.

Around the thirteenth century, Christians added one of the most pleasant touches of all to Christmas celebration when they began to sing Christmas carols.

No one is sure just when the Christmas tree came into the picture. It originated in Germany. The 8th century English missionary, St. Boniface, Apostle to Germany, is supposed to have held up the evergreen as a symbol of the everlasting Christ. By the end of the sixteenth century, Christmas trees were common in Germany. Some say Luther cut the first, took it home, and decked it with candles to represent the stars. When the German court came to England, the Christmas tree came with them.

Puritans forbade Christmas, considering it too pagan. Governor Bradford actually threatened New Englanders with work, jail or fines if they were caught observing Christmas.

In 1843, in Victorian England, Charles Dickens published his novelette "A Christmas Carol." It became one of the most popular short works of fiction ever penned. Although the book is more a work of sentiment than of Christianity, it captures something of the Christmas spirit. The tightfisted grump, Ebenezer Scrooge, who exclaimed "humbug!" at the mention of Christmas, is contrasted with generous merry-makers such as his nephew, Fred and with the struggling poor, symbolized by Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim. The book's appeal to good works and charitable contributions virtually defines Christmas in English-speaking lands.

Whatever the ins and outs of Christmas, we are still unwrapping the gift of God's Son--and what an incentive to generosity and joy that gift is!

Bibliography:

"Christmas." Encyclopedia Americana. Chicago: Americana Corp., 1956.

"Christmas." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1967.

"Christmas," "Dionysius Exiguus," and "Philocalian Calendar." Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, E. A. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford, 1997.

Hutchinson, Ruth and Adams, Ruth. Every Day's a Holiday. New York: Harper, 1951.

People's Almanac. Edited by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1975.

Veith, Gene Edward. "Why Decemebr 25?" World (December 10, 2005) p.32.

Tighe, William J. "Calculating Christmas." Touchstone, December, 2003. http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/ 16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

But what are the roots of our Christmas traditions and why do they continue to be important?

Before that we had Yule which is the English spelling of the Norwegian Jul which is a mid winter celebration of Odin the “All-Father” riding his eight-legged horse Sleipnir leading a procession of the undead on a hunt for poor souls who couldn’t find a hiding place.

The Wild Hunt of Odin is based on the Wild Hunt motif from folklore. In the Scandinavian tradition, the Wild Hunt is often associated with the god Odin. It consists of a terrifying procession that hurl across the sky during midwinter and abduct unfortunate people who have failed to find a hiding place. In the Norwegian material, figures other than Odin who have been named as leaders of the hunt include Lussi, sometimes identified as Adam's first wife, and Guro Rysserova, a supernatural female being with a mysterious male companion. The folklorist Christine N. F. Eike has argued that the motif might have its origin in European traditions where young, unmarried men wear masks and move in processions during Christmastide.

The Wild Hunt and The Danger of Seeing The Phantom Army Of Odin

The Wild Hunt was a popular folklore found in Scandinavian and Germanic myths, as well in later folklore in Britain and northern European countries, which changed over the centuries.

The group of hunters were variously known as the Furious Host or Raging Host. The hunt usually took part during winter, with a spectral host of horsemen riding through the stormy sky, with their ghostlike hounds. The chilling sound of the hunting horn could be heard reverberating through the woods and meadows.

In the Norse myths, the original leader of the hunt was the god Odin, known in Germanic myth as Wodan. Odin rode his eight-legged horse, called Sleipnir. His company of hunters were the Valkyries and the dead warriors who resided with him in Valhalla.

The hunt began on Winter Nights (October 31) and didn't end until May Eve (April 30) of the following year. These two nights were special, because lights went out on all Nine Worlds and the spirits and goblins were free to roam on the earth's surface. However, the height of the Wild Ride fell on the night of midwinter festival, known as Yule (December 21), traditionally the shortest day of the year in Scandinavia and Germany. That is to say, today so beware!

Canada’s wild Valkyrian ride into perdition:

If you have not found a place to hide from the undead who are leading the political procession the aim of which is drag us into hell is echoed in every aspect of the wicked alliance between Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau since Trudeau is a dead man walking but worse, still passing laws that are ruinous. So let us review his litany of hellish corruption and this list will only deal in part with the fallout of an administration where he has ensured that no one will be left anywhere to hide from the damage he has wreaked both socially and economically.

Here’s a short list then written by liberty heroin Tamara Lich on what the current government with the support of the leader of the NDP and local law enforcement is responsible for doing to Canadians:

- colluded with gov’t funded Canadian media to paint Canadians as crazy, unhinged, angry lunatics

- called Canadians terrorists, racists, misogynists

- lied about foreign funding (donations)

- lied about desecration of the Terry Fox statue

- lied about truckers stealing food from homeless shelters

- lied about truckers disrespecting our War Memorial

- lied about Russian interference

- illegally spied on its own citizens

- accused truckers of being rapsts

- lied about arson attempt of an apartment building

- lied about law enforcement advice to invoke emergency act

- lied about legal advice advising to invoke emergency act

- lied about violence

- unlawfully froze bank accounts

- stole fuel & food

- threatened to apprehend pets

- threatened to apprehend children

- accused us of using children as human shields

- had our crowdfunding campaign frozen after contacting GFM and telling them we were d0m3stic teRr0r1sts

- beat Military Veterans

- beat peaceful protestors with the butts of their rifles

- shot Canadians with rubber bullets & tear gas

- shot a reporter at point blank range with a gas canister

- trampled a first nation’s woman with heavy horses then lied and laughed about it

- arrested peaceful Canadians, left them in cold paddy wagons for hours, dropped them off on the outskirts of Ottawa in the middle of a snowstorm.

- joked about sending tanks to remove peaceful Canadians

- claimed “Honk Honk” was an acronym for (you know what)

- planted a nasty flag, sent gov’t photographer out to snap a photo

- seized donations in the same manner they would a drug cartel

- violently arrested a senior citizen who drove past and honked his car horn

- threatened to “hunt down” anyone involved

- unlawfully, unconstitutionally invoked emergency as determined by a judge

(What did I miss?!?!?)

All of this in order to avoid a conversation with everyday, tax paying, blue collar Canadians.

Not one of them has been fired, not one of them held to account.

~ Tamara Lich

Ms. Lich was a key player in the Freedom Convoy protest has shared her story on the world stage. Freedom Convoy organizer and fundraiser Tamara Lich spoke this week in the European parliament in Strasbourg, France to discuss the treatment of Canadians during the pandemic. She just recently received the 2024 Women Fighting for Freedom Award presented to her by Madame Christine Anderson MdEP in the European Union and fellow of the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group in Strasburg.

Where this leaves us:

Most Canadians now want early election as Trudeau support drops again: poll

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/most-canadians-now-want-early-election-as-trudeau-support-drops-again-poll/ar-AA1wfdqG?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=49b63f5af668426a8a64e19410b728bb&ei=10

As the Liberal government grapples with political upheaval following the exit of Chrystia Freeland from the federal cabinet, a new Ipsos poll shows most Canadians now want an early election.

That comes as support for Conservatives is surging and support for the Liberals is at a near-historic low this week — putting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just one point above the record-low support seen by former Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in 2011.​

Ignatieff led the party to its worst defeat in history in 2011, which saw the Liberals reduced to third-party status behind the NDP as official opposition and the Conservatives winning a majority government.

Ipsos polling done exclusively for Global News and released Friday shows over half of Canadians (53 per cent) believe opposition parties should defeat the government "at the earliest opportunity" and trigger an early election.

Meanwhile, 46 per cent believe opposition parties should work with the government on a case-by-case basis to avoid an early election.

This is a near-reversal of the data released on Monday morning before Freeland's resignation, which shared responses gathered in early December.

That poll said 54 per cent did not want an early election and 46 per cent did.

The popular vote share for the Liberals has dropped one per cent since last week and six points since September to 20 per cent, tying them with the New Democrats.

NDP support has dropped one point since last week but has risen four per cent since September.

The Bloc Quebecois has maintained its support at seven per cent, while the Green Party is up one per cent since last week.

Trudeau cabinet shuffle: 8 new ministers sworn in

Missed the political tumult in Ottawa? Here’s how it happened, day by day

NDP will vote to topple Trudeau and propose confidence vote, Singh says

The prime minister’s personal popularity has gone down five per cent since the last Ipsos poll, with only 23 per cent overall saying they think Trudeau deserves re-election, and 77 per cent saying they think it’s time for a new party to take over.

Since renewed calls for him to step down this week, 73 per cent respondents said Trudeau should step down while 27 per cent want him to continue as prime minister and lead the party in the election in 2025.

Trudeau likens Freeland’s departure to a family spat, calls Poilievre the ‘Grinch’

There was a sharp drop in the percentage of respondents who thought Trudeau was best suited to deal with Donald Trump in trade negotiations.

The polls said 14 per cent believe Trudeau would do the best job representing Canada’s interests with a new Trump administration, compared to 39 per cent who said Poilievre would be best suited for that role.

The gulf between perceptions of both leaders has only widened since the last Ipsos poll when 22 per cent said Trudeau was best suited for the role compared to 34 per cent for Poilievre.

What led to Freeland’s sudden resignation? Why Trudeau she must blow past her already enormous deficit by over 20 billion dollars then asking her to present it to parliament!

Ipsos poll findings:

These are some of the findings of an Ipsos poll conducted between December 19 and 20, 2024, on behalf of Global News. For this survey, a sample of 1,001 Canadians aged 18+ was interviewed online. Quotas and weighting were employed to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the Canadian population according to Census parameters. The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll is accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all Canadians aged 18+ been polled.

In conclusion:

What am I to state in the face of such a perverse corruption of parliamentary democracy which has had but one goal, to continue abusing the Canadian people at a time when we need a calm strong voice to counter Trump’s threats to kill our economy with tariffs. We need an election now and may the walking undead who have been damned by their own behaviour suffer the full weight of their own wicked hubris!

 

Deevolution and obscuring the meaning of words

 

cognition /kŏg-nĭsh′ən/ noun

1.    The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2.    That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

3.    The act of knowing; knowledge; perception.

What is Postmodernism and why is it a rejection of our cognitive abilities?

Criticism of postmodernism is intellectually diverse, reflecting various critical attitudes toward postmodernity, postmodern philosophy, postmodern art, and postmodern architecture. Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection towards what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, especially those associated with Enlightenment rationality (though postmodernism in the arts may have its own definitions). Thus, while common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress, critics of postmodernism often defend such concepts.

Postmodern scholars promote obscurantism, are hostile to objective truth, and encourage relativism (in culture, morality, knowledge) to an extent that is epistemically and ethically crippling. Criticism of more artistic postmodern movements such as postmodern art or literature may include objections to a departure from beauty, lack of coherence or comprehensibility, deviating from clear structure and the consistent use of dark and negative themes.

Critics of postmodernism frequently charge that postmodern art/authorship is vague, obscurantist, or meaningless. Some philosophers, such as Jürgen Habermas, argue that postmodernism contradicts itself through self-reference, since its critique would be impossible without the concepts and methods that modern reason provides.

Christopher Hitchens in his book Why Orwell Matters advocates for simple, clear, and direct expression of ideas and argues that postmodernists wear people down by boredom and semi-literate prose. Hitchens also criticized a postmodernist volume, The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism: "The French, as it happens, once evolved an expression for this sort of prose: “la langue de bois”, the wooden tongue, in which nothing useful or enlightening can be said, but in which various excuses for the arbitrary and the dishonest can be offered. (This book) is a pointer to the abysmal state of mind that prevails in so many of our universities."

In a similar vein, Richard Dawkins writes in a favorable review of Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Intellectual Impostures: “Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content.”

Dawkins then uses the following quotation from Félix Guattari as an example of this "lack of content" and of clarity: “We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.”

Let us begin with the nature of the term itself:

Relativism:

Criticism of postmodernism has also been directed at its relativist positions, including the argument that it is self-contradictory. Partly in reference to post-modernism, conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote, "A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't." In 2014, the philosophers Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn wrote: "The statement that 'No unrestricted universal generalizations are true' is itself an unrestricted universal generalization. So, if relativism in any of its forms is true, it's false."

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has said "The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unliveable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism!"

Analytic philosopher Daniel Dennett said, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

The historian Richard J. Evans argues that while postmodernists usually identify with the political left, denying the possibility of objective knowledge about the past is not necessarily left-wing or progressive, as it can legitimize far-right pseudohistory such as Holocaust denial.

Epistemology:

Another line of criticism has argued that postmodernism has failed to provide a viable method for determining what can be considered knowledge.

Richard Caputo, William Epstein, David Stoesz & Bruce Thyer consider postmodernism to be a "dead-end in social work epistemology." They write: “Postmodernism continues to have a detrimental influence on social work, questioning the Enlightenment, criticizing established research methods, and challenging scientific authority. The promotion of postmodernism by editors of Social Work and the Journal of Social Work Education has elevated postmodernism, placing it on a par with theoretically guided and empirically based research. The inclusion of postmodernism in the 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council on Social Work Education and its 2015 sequel further erode the knowledge-building capacity of social work educators. In relation to other disciplines that have exploited empirical methods, social work's stature will continue to ebb until postmodernism is rejected in favor of scientific methods for generating knowledge.”

Marxist criticisms:

Alex Callinicos denounces notable postmodern thinkers such as Baudrillard and Lyotard, arguing postmodernism "reflects the disappointed revolutionary generation of 1968, (particularly those of May 1968 in France) and the incorporation of many of its members into the professional and managerial 'new middle class'. It is best read as a symptom of political frustration and social mobility rather than as a significant intellectual or cultural phenomenon in its own right."

Language wielded only as a tool to gain power over others:

Postmodernism also remains relevant because much of current thinking is rooted in Postmodern ideas. This goes beyond just academic circles: it is easy to catch Postmodern ideas in everyday discourse, and certainly in the policies being promoted by current governments. Nothing is unusual about hearing someone retort in an argument “Well, that’s subjective,” or if they are more well versed and a little bolder “That’s just interpretation, there’s never really any one meaning.”

These ideas originate from Postmodern language theory in particular. What is referred to as “Postmodernism” refers to a specific idea of language and how it functions. These ideas were shaped by numerous thinkers in the 1960s and 1970s: most popularly through French thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, who took the core ideas on language and related them to concepts of power, oppression, and freedom.

A critique of language of all things may appear benign and simply technical at first, but the challenge undermines confidence in our ability to have knowledge and the possibility of truth. Let us explore both, but first I will need to explain the Postmodern understanding of language which I have been alluding to. I do warn that in discussing “Postmodernism” that there is a risk in generalization. The term remains elusive and the various thinkers who are characterized as Postmodern are not totally unified in their views. I will stick to explaining the broadly agreed upon problems Postmodern thinkers find in language and dabble with some responses.

Postmodern theories of language challenge the belief that language provides a stable way of understanding the world. When you use language, you are partaking in the act of representing things in the world through concepts. This does not have to be simply through speech, when you are thinking or simply identifying an object you are representing the world through language. If you are for instance looking at a red apple, you will have the corresponding thought “That is a red apple,” which frames the experience and allows you to understand it. In that case, language is being used to formulate a claim which represents something out there in the world, namely that the apple is there and that it has the characteristic of “redness”. “There” is used to represent a concept of space–namely where the object is–and “red” is used to represent a concept of colour. Real things are therefore represented with concepts in language.

Peterson’s take on the dangers it poses: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

“DEFINITION AND CRITIQUE:

Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated) then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.

That’s the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (and this is where the Marxism emerges) is something like “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.”

There is no excuse whatsoever for the secondary claim (except that it allows the resentful pathology of Marxism to proceed in a new guise).

The first claim is true, but incomplete. The fact that there are an unspecifiable number of interpretations does not mean (or even imply) that there are an unspecifiable number of VALID interpretations.

What does valid mean? That’s where an intelligent pragmatism comes into it. Valid at least means: “when the proposition or interpretation is acted out in the world, the desired outcome within the specific timeframe ensues.” That’s a pragmatic definition of truth (from within the confines of the American pragmatism of William James and C.S. Pierce).

Validity is constrained by the necessity for iteration (among other fators). Your interpretations have to keep you, at minimum, alive and not suffering too badly today, tomorrow, next week, next month and next year in a context defined by you, your family, your community and the broader systems you are part of. That makes for very tight constraints on your perception/interpretations/actions. Games have to be iterable, playable and, perhaps, desirable to the players– as Jean Piaget took pains to point out, in his work on equilibration.

RELATIONSHIP TO MARXISM:

It’s not as if I personally think that postmodernism and Marxism are commensurate. It’s obvious to me that the much-vaunted “skepticism toward grand narratives” that is part and parcel of the postmodern viewpoint makes any such alliance logically impossible. Postmodernists should be as skeptical toward Marxism as toward any other canonical belief system.

So the formal postmodern claim, such as it is, is radical skepticism. But that’s not at all how it has played out in theory or in practice. Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960’s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970’s. Foucault’s fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. That’s a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derrida’s hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don’t really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

You can see this playing out in practical terms in fields such as gender studies and social work (as well as literary criticism, anthropology, law, education, etc.).

There are deeper problems as well. For example: Postmodernism leaves its practitioners without an ethic. Action in the world (even perception) is impossible without an ethic, so one has to be at least allowed in through the back door. The fact that such allowance produces a logical contradiction appears to bother the low-rent postmodernists who dominate the social sciences and humanities not at all. Then again, coherence isn’t one of their strong points (and the demand for such coherence can just be read as another patriarchal imposition typifying oppressive Western thought).

So: postmodernism, by its nature (at least with regard to skepticism) cannot ally itself with Marxism. But it does, practically. The dominance of postmodern Marxist rhetoric in the academy (which is a matter of fact, as laid out by the Heterodox Academy, among other sources) attests to that. The fact that such an alliance is illogical cannot be laid at my feet, just because I point out that the alliance exists. I agree that it’s illogical. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

It’s a very crooked game, and those who play it are neck deep in deceit.”

My conclusions:

If all we have left is using our words in an attempt to manipulate and shame others to force them to agree with us without using human cognition, reason, facts, and civil discourse then we have devolved into the living manifestation of the DEVO tune Jocko Homo. "Jocko Homo" is the B-side to Devo's first single, "Mongoloid", released in 1977 on Devo's own label, Booji Boy Records and later released in the UK on Stiff Records. The song was re-recorded as the feature song for Devo's first album, Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! on Warner Bros. Records in 1978. The original version peaked at No. 62 on the UK Singles Chart.

The title was derived from a 1924 anti-evolution tract called Jocko-Homo Heavenbound by Bertram Henry Shadduck, while its "Are we not men?"/"We are Devo!" call and response chant is a reference to the 1932 movie Island of Lost Souls. The song had been in Devo's setlists for several years prior to being recorded, and an early version was featured in the band's 1976 short film The Truth About De-Evolution.

Our Prime Minister is the literal manifestation of the devolution of the experiment known as Canadian Confederation. He has, more than anyone, devolved the nation into an ape like mockery of reasoned cognitive discourse and civil order. We are DEVO, are we not Canucks?