If you imagine a world in which nothing is real, then you can imagine that nothing matters except racial, sexual and other quotas. Listen to Brett Weinstein at 1:14:30.
Bridges and planes will have to fall out of the sky before this problem is fixed. My observation from life is that the Left are all nominalists: they think that relabelling things changes their nature. The world is not actually real to these people. Like Wile E. Coyote, you only fall when you recognize that you are in mid-air and that the force of gravity actually operates. Not so. They believe but do not actually say that, if I can control all the means of communication, and prevent anything contrary from being said, I can prevent the law of gravity from working. It is that absurd.
Asabiya is a term borrowed from the Arabic philosopher of history Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406). Asabiya is the power of a society to accomplish things collectively, such as build an empire, a cathedral or a bridge, or fight a war. If you want to experience the power of asabiya, just consider how the entire British nation and its institutions buried their monarch. mourned her loss, televized the funerals, held complex ceremonies in centuries-old churches, organized 4000 soldiers, sailors and airmen and the the top ranks of the governing classes into parades, solemn processions, and ceremonies of the state church, as the people organized themselves into disciplined throngs of hundreds of thousands enduring hours of patient waiting in order to flow past the coffin of the dead Queen.
“Different groups have different degrees of cooperation among their members, and therefore different degrees of cohesiveness and solidarity…. Asabiya refers to the capacity of a social group for concerted collective action. Asabiya is a dynamic quantity; it can increase or decrease with time. Like many theoretical constructs, such as force in Newtonian physics, the capacity for collective action cannot be observed directly, but can be measured from observable consequences”.
Great Britain manifestly has huge asabiya. So does the United States or Japan. Canada had asabiya. It demonstrated this in two world wars. Whether it still has asabiya is doubtful. It is rent by too many ethnic fissures, and the group most asabiya-endowed, English Canada, is constantly denigrated and weakened by the governing Liberals as a matter of multicultural policy. “Diversity is our strength.” The French Canadians fear English Canada’s asabiya and seek always to diminish it. For that matter, all of woke ideology is an attempt of the political left and their black allies to weaken the asabiya of the American people – “white fragility”, “systemic racism”. So is the attack on organic sexual divisions in the species a different form of attack on asabiya, as the idea of fixed sex roles, indeed fixed anything, goes against the idea of personal choice.
Life is not a matter of expressing our puny selves. It is a matter of belonging to something great. Think if the political left as being in a permanent war against every other kind of asabiya but their own, when theirs is a weak and hate-filled search for enemies.
Good evening, Senators, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Timothy Denton and I am the chairman of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, or ISCC for short. I used to be a national commissioner of the CRTC and spent a good portion of my career in Internet governance institutions. The ISCC is a network of volunteers concerned with Internet policy. Many of us have served in senior positions in government. With me today is Len St. Aubin, a director of the Internet Society, and former Director General in the Department of Industry concerned with telecommunications, broadcasting and Internet policy.
What the ISCC believes
We oppose C-11 because it embodies a fundamentally illiberal idea of communications; because it constitutes a vast overreach of governmental authority; and because it threatens the engine of innovation and economic growth which is the Internet.
What we object to is the nearly boundless extension of governmental regulatory authority over communications. The bill excludes content that is predominantly alpha-numeric. Otherwise, and with only a few exceptions, it captures virtually all online audio and video.
What we recommend
In the Annex to our formal Submission, we have proposed changes intended to limit the harm that C-11 poses. I would highlight in particular our recommendations to:
One: Exclude from the Act, and therefore from any regulation or obligation to contribute to Canadian content production, any online service that earns less than $150 million in Canada annually.
Two: Exclude from the Act all user generated content. This does not exclude social media platforms that stream user generated content and whose revenues exceed the $150 million cap, which would be subject to the Act.
Three: Amend the policy objectives in Section 3 to ensure that CRTC regulation respects user choice, and recognizes that competition and market forces are contributing to achieving the objectives of the Act. Bill C-11 implicitly assumes that in a large measure the burden of Canadian program production is to be taken up by foreign, read American, streamers competing with Canadian broadcasters. Yet nowhere in this Bill do we read of competition and consumer choice.
Four: Remove the amendments in clauses 7 and 8 of the bill so as to reinstate the current Act’s limitations, and Parliamentary oversight safeguards, on the authority of the Governor in Council to issue policy directions to the CRTC.
Bill C-11 is Fundamentally Flawed
C-11 vastly exceeds the government’s stated objectives, and then leaves entirely to the CRTC the ability to determine its own mandate and the extent of its intervention in the online economy and in Canadians’ ability to access the content of our choice. In our view, C-11 invites fears of undue and harmful intervention.
We believe that it is entirely possible to obtain a reasonable contribution to CanCon from global streamers without bill C-11’s massive intervention in the digital economy and in Canadians’ freedom to access online content of our choice.
Internet Streaming is Not Broadcasting
Let us look at two basic features of broadcasting. The first, which C-11 retains, is that you broadcast by permission of the state. Broadcasting is a licensed activity, and the CRTC is the licencing authority. The second was a set of characteristics, business and technical, that limited who and what broadcasters were. Those characteristics were largely based on the scarcity of radio waves. C11 eliminates those characteristics nearly completely.
The assumption that justified broadcasting regulation was that a very few speakers would have a captive audience of many tens of thousands of listeners, and later of viewers. The direction of traffic was one way. The audience had highly limited choices.
In exchange for highly detailed regulation, traditional broadcasters have benefited from a host of measures that have created a walled-garden and sought to protect broadcasters from competition so that they could fulfil their CanCon and other obligations.
C-11 declares all audio- and audio-visual content on the Internet to be broadcasting. It is a kind of reverse takeover of the Internet. The tiny Canadian broadcasting system can take on the world of the Internet by the mere trick of redefining “broadcasting”. C-11 is that bold, and that absurd.
Impact of C-11 on the Internet
C-11 is about protecting the economic interests of an obsolescent niche of Canada’s music and video industries. It is not about bringing “broadcasting” regulation up to date. It is not even about “streaming”. It is about controlling content on the Internet, the persons who transmit content on the Internet, and what reaches the persons who access Internet content.
Instead of introducing an actual Online Streaming Act – one that would have considered the unique nature of Internet-delivered content and the functioning of the markets for that content – C-11 tries to stuff the most vibrant and adaptive marriage of technology and culture within the stultifying embrace of the regulated broadcasting system. Bill C-11 seeks to prolong and reinforce the supply-side dynamics of broadcasting regulation. C-11 fails to affirm or even acknowledge the primacy of the audience and its right to choose the programming that suits it. C-11 embodies a set of bad ideas that ought to be rejected.
In the time available we have had to concentrate our comments on the essentials. Our formal submission covers other issues that are also significant, which you will have received earlier. We thank you for your time and attention and look forward to your questions.
This was reported neutrally in the MIT News of May 10, 2022.
Now it is a truism of people who perform autopsies that racial origins can be readily determined to expert eyes by the shape of holes in the pelvis. Indeed I read somewhere that forensic pathologists can even tell about mixed race people, who was part African and who part white, or who part white and part Asian (Mongolian as it used to be called.)
But this finding goes further, namely that race can be readily identified by software-driven machines. Inevitably this puts the lie to the idea that race has no biological underlying reality, which however preposterous, is sometimes argued.
It took the woke Scientific American only a few days to problematize this finding into something more sinister. Some of the findings were that some machines worked less well on darker-skinned people in detecting blush responses, and the like. Fair enough. Yet Scientific American cannot refrain from adding:
“Stopping computational bias means making a much greater effort to recruit people from different populations to participate in the design and testing of medical devices. It would help if research teams were themselves more diverse, observes Rachel Hardeman, a public health scientist at the University of Minnesota, who studies reproductive health and racial equity.”
Inevitably in today’s woke environment the call is for people of different skin colours to participate in medical research. That will not prevent the machines from identifying people by race, nor will it lead to better medical devices if the criterion of selection of the researchers is their skin colour, at the expense of talent and educational attainment. Yet this is exactly what is intended to happen.
Authoritarians don’t like difference, complexity and diversity, which is associated with space
Conservatives don’t like change, which is measured over time
And Stenner thinks it is insane to exclude the one third of the population that does not like complexity and diversity, the potential authoritarians, from political discourse.
For many people modern life overwhelms: one third of humanity does not like change, diversity, variety, multiple ethnicities and religions, it is a largely heritable condition, and cannot be eradicated by education and propaganda. Liberal democracy has exceeded the capacity of a large segment of people to tolerate, says Stenner.
I am mystified by the the word “populism”. What is the opposite of populism? Elitism? Does the term ‘populism’ have any use other than as an insult? What is the matter with pursuing policies that have the support of most of the people? Does a carbon tax become a populist measure if it is opposed by most people, but remains a sensible proposal if supported by centrist parties or the elites?
The term is like smoke. It has no substance. We may feel we know what it means, but it means anything the Left says it means. Mostly it means people or policies they don’t like.
A constitutionally elected Prime Minister like the Hungarian Viktor Orban is described as an ‘authoritarian’, yet he holds a majority in the Hungarian Parliament, and would be out of power if he lost a majority in the house. A ruthless dictator like Putin is described as an ‘authoritarian’, yet he hardly refers to or depends on the Russian Duma at all. A Prime Minister of Canada holds a majority in the House of Commons thanks to an parliamentary coalition with the fourth largest party. He seeks to pass legislation crushing the possibility of free expression on the Internet, through a revised Broadcasting Act that makes most Internet expression into a state-licensed activity, and by an on-line harms bill, which says that only certain groups can be offended, and further seeks to control the press by a scheme of compulsory compensation from the large platforms to Canadian newspapers on conditions approved by the CRTC. Does Trudeau escape being labelled an authoritarian because he leaves speech control to regulatory agencies? Or because he effectively emotes a false compassion? It is a mystery.
The message is that party is being supplanted by personality and identity. As relative prosperity rises, voters are taking recourse in prejudice and emotional security. They can distrust outsiders. They can hate globalists, parliamentarians, bureaucrats and liberals, however defined. They want to feel control over their own lives…This populism has torn the left-right spectrum apart.
It is not Simon Jenkyns’ finest article; but he is trying to warn the Left of the seriousness of the opposition to elite consensus politics. What Jenkyns and other self-styled progressives are trying to warn about is that issues are going to be contested in the next few years as they have not been since the 1970s or perhaps since the 1930s. Inflation, the COVID shut down, the lies about vaccines (safe! effective! mandatory!), global warming catastrophism (carbon neutral policies, taxes, subsidizing electric cars, messing with people’s access to heating fuels), gender policy, LGBTQQ+ and its attendant speech controls: the vast panoply of governmental management of the economy, nudging of behaviour and thought control is shortly to be contested. The political elites have engaged in grotesque over-reach and, like Wile E. Coyote treading air over the desert floor, they are showing signs they know they may have gone too far.
You recall the de Adder cartoon about the truckers?
Terribly clever wasn’t it? Yeah, right.
I have seen people who ought to know better asserting the truckers were attempting the overthrow of the government of Canada, that they were or were led by “fascists”, and other absurdities. Rebel Yell, the other author on this site, visited Wellington Street most days of the trucker protest. What he found were Canadians having a party: whites, French and English, Dene, Innu, Cree-Ojibway, Sikh, and so on, all being gracious and polite. And having a good time, apologizing if they bumped into one another.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin invoked the Nazis on Thursday when he announced his decision to launch a large-scale military operation in Ukraine.
“The Russian leader said that one of the goals of the offensive was to “denazify” the country, part of a long-running effort by Putin to delegitimize Ukrainian nationalism and sell the incursion to his constituency at home.”
I am not insinuating that the Canadian left and its leftist Liberal establishment are morally equivalent to Putin. Not at all. But what I do say is this: eighty years after actual Nazi and fascist regimes collapsed in rubble, stricken down and crushed, their ideologies vanquished, people still find it convenient to label their opponents “fascists” when they cannot think of anything worse to insult them with.
Is it not time we acknowledged that the two winners of World War 2 were Communists and parliamentary democracies? And that Canadians tired of COVID compulsions were just that: Canadians? And that Ukrainians are seeking to maintain national independence and are willing to fight for it?
Fascism is dead. Statism is dead. White racial supremacism is dead.
Stop fighting ghosts. Fight the present enemy.
Anti-white racism is very much alive – consider Woke, and the legion of black supremacists and race hustlers in their fifteen minutes of money and fame.
Class condescension is thriving. Just read the Globe and Mail any day of the week. Our former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is a case in point:
Stuff so obviously true it must be suppressed. It has been the goal of the Left to replace through immigration the native European or european-origin people who are the source of most – but not all – of the resistance to Wokeness, socialism, and racial replacement. This has been the stated strategy of the Democratic Party for years. If not the goal, the fact that has been celebrated for a long while. Why is it “racist” to notice the obvious the fact of replacement and the fact that it is being celebrated?
PARIS — Until a couple of years ago, the “great replacement” — a racist conspiracy theory that white Christian populations are being intentionally replaced by nonwhite immigrants — was so toxic in France that even Marine Le Pen, the longtime leader of the country’s far right, pointedly refused to use it.
But in a presidential race that has widened the boundaries of political acceptability in France, Valérie Pécresse, the candidate of the mainstream center-right party in the coming election, used the phrase over the weekend in a speech punctuated with coded attacks against immigrants and Muslims.
The use of the slogan — in what had been billed as the most important speech so far by Ms. Pécresse, a top rival of President Emmanuel Macron — has fueled intense criticism from both her opponents as well as allies within her party. It also underscored France’s further shift to the right, especially among middle-class voters, and the overwhelming influence of right-wing ideas and candidates in this campaign, political experts said.
“…..“By using the ‘great replacement,’ she gave it legitimacy and put the ideas of the extreme right at the heart of the debate of the presidential race,” said Philippe Corcuff, an expert on the far right who teaches at the Institute of Political Studies in Lyon. “When she talks of ‘French of papers,’ she’s saying that distinctions will be made between French people according to ethnic criteria. Her stigmatization of the Muslim veil is in the same logic of the extreme right.”
Does politics consist of not talking about the largest social transformations in society?
“A striking feature of the excerpts released in the committee’s January 11, 2022 letter is that the virologists had little doubt that the virus bore the fingerprints of manipulation. The focus of their attention was a genetic element called a furin cleavage site. This short snippet of genetic material is what makes the virus so infectious for human cells. Scientists sometimes add this element to laboratory viruses to make them more virulent, but in nature, viruses usually acquire runs of genetic material like this by swapping them with other members of their family. The furin cleavage site in the Covid virus sticks out like a sore thumb because no other known member of its family—a group called Sarbecoviruses—possesses a furin cleavage site. So how did the virus acquire it?
“A member of the Andersen group, Garry of Tulane University, remarks in the latest emails on the fact that the inserted furin cleavage site, a string of 12 units of RNA, the virus’s genetic material, was exactly the required length, a precision unusual in nature: “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature . . . it’s stunning. Of course, in the lab it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.”
“So what induced these virologists to such a radical change of view? “The February 1, 2020, telecon sent a clear message to participants that Fauci and Collins regarded discussion of the lab leak possibility, even though plausible on scientific data, to be politically unacceptable and something that had to be blocked,” says Richard Ebright of Rutgers University, a molecular biologist and a leading critic of gain-of-function research.
“Fauci oversees a large portion of funds available for virology research in the U.S. It is not unreasonable to suppose that virologists keen on continuing their careers would be very attentive to his wishes. Both Garry’s and Andersen’s labs receive large sums of money from the NIAID. “Telecon participants with current and pending grants controlled by Fauci and Collins could not have missed or misunderstood the clear message,” Ebright says.”
“But the lab-leak theory gained in plausibility as more facts emerged about the research NIAID was funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The program followed a debate among virologists as to how far one should go in enhancing a virus’s abilities in the lab in order to study its properties. Collins and Fauci were proponents of “gain-of-function” research, as it is blandly known. “Important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory,” they wrote in the Washington Post in 2011.
Some virologists questioned whether the possible gains were worth the substantial risks. But Collins and Fauci prevailed over the doubters, and in 2014 they began supporting a program of manipulating SARS-related viruses in Wuhan. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York, managed the program, using NIH money to fund Shi Zhengli, the chief expert on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Hubris. Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Wade;’ complete article is damning, in part because it is so factual, in part because his tone is so moderate.
“The tragedy is that in their desire to make a plausible case for a lab accident, Chan and Ridley neglect the far more urgent and compelling story of how the trade in wild animals, coupled with global heating and the destruction of natural habitats, makes the emergence of pandemic viruses increasingly likely. That is the more probable origin story and the scenario that should really concern us.”
Take a moment to consider the thought that we ought to be more concerned with global warming and destruction of natural habitats than with deliberate efforts, paid for by national health authorities in the United States, to make viruses more deadly. While the proposition is not ridiculous, it is reveals a bias towards blaming everyone but China and, by extension, the people who paid for gain of function research, who were Fauci and Collins.
Our federal regulator (the CRTC) could not be persuaded to call the Internet the Internet; it was always called “new media” because it was a technology invented in the 1970s, not the 1950s, and it came to prominence with the adoption of the world wide web in the 1990s.
In this case, however, it is appropriate to call the Internet “new media”. Legacy TV technology is starting to show its age. There are still people who get most of their information from television, and they are roughly 70 years of age and older. They end up believing the Narrative in its entirety, for want of competing visions. As Jordan Peterson said, “the younger generation would not even recognize the corpse of the television system if they saw it”.
You don’t need to read the article to know why: racial and sexual identity politics has taken over completely. But why be concerned with the CBC? Its viewership is dropping as its subsidies are climbing. The key to staying misinformed: watch broadcast or cable television.