Wednesday, November 21, 2018

The Unknown History of Amerindians in Québec

« Version française ici »

In Minnesota, as in Quebec, we often talk about the Amerindians and the injustices they experienced – paving the way to lumping all “white people” together into one group and talking about how awful they are. Nowadays, we are spoon fed this false dialectic of "white" against "non-white". Quebecers are not "whites" and it is wrong to put all nations of European origin in the same basket under the deceptive label of "white". Yes, some Amerindian nations in North America were subjected to horrific crimes and genocide. However, I would like to rectify the history of Amerindians in Québec and their interactions with francophones, ever since the French first set foot on this continent.


The Amerindian is often presented in terms of Rousseau's "nobel savage" – peaceful and in harmony with his environment until Europeans came. Nowadays, I find that Amerindians in Quebec – especially anglicized nations like the Mohawks or the Crees – are mere pawns for anti-Quebec rhetoric. We all know the narrative that gets touted around: whites committed genocide against the Amerindians and stole their land.

Yet people who repeat this have no historical knowledge of the different approaches between the English, French and Spanish regarding Amerindians. The French could not have tried to exterminate them, simply because they did not have the means nor the population to do so. Moreover, they conducted business with them (the fur trade), so why would they kill their business partners? Influenza or smallpox were benign diseases for Europeans, but deadly diseases for Amerindians, who did not have the antibodies to resist the disease. Indeed, it was a genocide, though caused by epidemics. History is full of them, such as the Black Death of 1348, which killed a third of Europeans and more than half of Italians.


***

Before the small group that was Option nationale was gobbled up by the far-left political party, Québec solidaire, they had published a small booklet: Le livre qui fait dire oui, or The Yes Book – presenting short chapters on several subjects regarding Québec independence – economy, education, the French language, anglophones, the environment, etc. In the very short chapter on Amerindians, author Josianne Grenier writes:
“Quebec's independence would represent an unprecedented opportunity to replace the Indian Act (a federal government (meaning English) law, aimed at assimilating Amerindian peoples) with a legal and cooperative framework, better addressing the realities and aspirations of Canadians and indigenous people today.” (free translation, p. 75)

Yes, I agree that the independence of Quebec would be a great opportunity to re-evaluate our relationship with the 11 Amerindian nations of Quebec. How? The author does not say much except that independence will encourage dialogue. She also said that “the history and culture of Québec are inseparable from that of the Aboriginal nations” and that “maple syrup is a fundamental contribution of Aboriginal people.”

I am reminded of that urban legend that almost all Quebecers have "native" blood. However, mixed marriages with Englishmen, Irish or Amerindians after the Conquest were few. The family trees of Quebecers today are for the most part, French. The idea that the French-Canadian or Québec nation is the result of race mixing is erroneous. Although supporters of mass immigration and globalism usually repeat this little bit of folklore.

Ms. Grenier recognizes that territorial distribution will undoubtedly be the most complex issue and will be the subject of lengthy negotiations. According to her, the Québec government must negotiate with Ottawa so that the Amerindians, while conducting their traditional activities (hunting, fishing, trapping), are able to freely cross international borders to benefit from their entire ancestral territory. (free translation, p.77)

But what about the Quebecers? Are fishing, hunting and trapping not as much French-Canadian as Amerindian traditions? Why are we not all subject to the same laws? More troubling is that Ms. Grenier suggests having a dialogue, so that we can settle territorial disputes as soon as possible. A simple “dialogue” to settle something so complex?

And what about this false affirmation (that even current Montréal mayor Valérie Plante repeats) that Montréal is an unceded Mohawk territory? She must surely know that this is false, as Professsor Luc-Normand Tellier explained in Le Devoir. It is farfetched to pretend that the Canadiens of the 17th century stole the land from the Indians. In those days, about 25,000 nomadic peoples inhabited Quebec. In other words, it was unoccupied land. They did not have the notion of land ownership. Thanks to the lucrative fur trade, there was no serious resistance to French settlement in the St. Lawrence Valley.

If the Iroquois/Mohawks fought against the French, it was not to defend Mohawk territory – which is actually located in the present state of New York and not in Quebec – but to divert the fur trade for the benefit of the Dutch and English (Le siècle de Mgr Bourget, p. 386). The time has come for Mohawks to recognize the scientific consensus that their ancestors arrived on the south shore of Montréal, in search of refuge and protection from the long-time (French) Canadian residents who lived there.

Lastly, Ms. Grenier says that “allowing aboriginal people decide which institutions they would like would be a first step towards preserving their culture, because the best way to preserve it is to institutionalize it.” Institutionalize their cultures? But… is she suggesting that we impose a “white” idea of an institution to the Amerindians? Isn’t that colonialism?!  She mentions teaching Amerindian languages and other elements of aboriginal culture (traditional or contemporary) to Québec’s population. Okay. But does she really believe that immigrants will be interested in these languages? It is already hard enough promoting French. Why would neo-Quebecers learn Amerindian languages when so many of them are barely interested in French?

In the book “Le peuple brisé”, investigative journalists, Alex Caine and François Perreault explain that:
“Mohawks claim the aboriginal right to cross the Canada-US border freely in Akwesasne. In addition, following the confiscation of several Iroquois passports by border officers, the Mohawks accused Ottawa of wanting to “destroy” their identity. (free translation, p. 86)

But why do they claim the right to cross the border so freely? To continue their beautiful “traditions” of hunting, fishing and trapping? According to Caine and Perreault, it is mainly for a more easy pursuit of criminal activities.

The book explains the reality of Amerindian criminality about which we hear so little. Mafia criminal networks like Indian Posse and Es-Pak are as bad as any other ethnic Mafia – trafficking in people, drugs, smuggled cigarettes, weapons, etc. Moreover, the book convincingly argues that one of the main causes of missing Amerindian women, heard about more and more, can be found within their own communities.
“Before integrating into Es-Pak, Indian Posse's predatory nature and rampaging violence allowed this group to quickly establish itself in drug, prostitution, gambling and organ trafficking. In the 1990s, organ trafficking became one of the most lucrative among criminal activities ... It may seem incredible that these criminal organizations are attacking their own. However, we see that aboriginal gangs are no different from other ethnic gangs.” (free translation, p. 67-68)

Often referred to as a turning point for improved Québec-Amerindian relations, the 1990 Oka crisis, in Québec’s collective memory, goes something like this: brave Amerindians (the English-speaking Mohawks, by the way) opposed Oka's plan to add nine holes to an existing golf course as well as the construction of luxury homes. A barrier was erected across the dirt road leading to the golf course. The city obtained an injunction against the barricade, but the Mohawks ignored it completely: “I do not recognize the authority of this Province on this land,” said Curtis Nelson, a Kanesatake Mohawk and participant during the Oka Crisis. (People of the Pines, p. 438). 

However, Alex Caine and François Perreault say that in reality, the thing being defended during the Oka crisis was having free reign to continue illegal activities.
“Kanesatake is a landlocked reservation in the municipality of Oka at the confluence of the Ottawa River and the Lac des Deux-Montagnes. Its geography represents a considerable asset for all kinds of trafficking. The waterways offer the safest connections for those who can navigate them, by day or by night. This 670 square kilometer territory has become a transit site for smugglers. No wonder the Mohawks claim sovereignty over it. » (free translation, p. 88)
  


Let's go back to Josianne Grenier’s well-meaning words from The Yes Book. She states “the Government of Quebec must negotiate with Ottawa so that the Amerindians are able to freely cross international borders to benefit from their entire ancestral territory.” Reading that, after the revelations made by Caine and Perreault, makes her words seem like silly naïveté. Ms. Grenier proposes the free movement of Amerindians (beyond the concept of borders) to allow them to indulge freely in their traditional undertakings, but she remains silent on the issue of criminal activities.

This is a serious problem that cannot be ignored. How can we ensure that traditional Amerindian activities do not serve as a pretext for different kinds of trafficking? And most importantly, how can we protect Amerindian women who might suffer themselves, should it be allowed to continue without scrutiny? The “solution” proposed by Ms. Grenier is mere youthful optimism.

In an investigation published in the Montréal Gazette, journalist William Marsden collected numerous testimonies from police officers, recounting that regular arrests of smugglers have little impact on the tobacco black market. Mohawk criminals rarely go to jail and do not pay the fines imposed on them. As for the white police, they almost never enter the Amerindian territories without the authorization of the band council. (free translation, p. 90)


***

I came across a New Hampshire podcast (Outside/In) about the "NorthernPass" controversy – the power line project between Québec and the northeastern United States. They wanted to show that Hydro-Québec's hydroelectricity, a renewable and clean source of energy, had upset the traditions of the “ancestral lands” of some Amerindian nations in Québec and are therefore not to be thought so highly of. The subject’s treatment was rather superficial, over produced and decidedly theatrical, presenting a distorted view of Québec's history, which is typical of anglophones.

The two podcasters wanted so much to show that they were not white villains. Their “kumbaya” attitude got them the chief’s cooperation, until they ran into a problem. While they were preparing to enter a Hydro-Québec facility on Québec’s Côte-Nord they were refused access. They then learned that it was due to the negligence of chief Jean-Charles Piétacho, who did not follow the rules and ask permission for entry 48 hours in advance – as everyone must do.

Piétacho was furious – not because of the wasted car trip or a particular desire to show the site to these two Americans – he was upset because he felt “humiliated” by a common white guard who prevented him, the chief, from gaining access to his “traditional territory”. He said that, for him, this illustrated the discrimination suffered by his people, not only from Hydro-Québec, but from all whites in Québec.

Despite the podcaster’s groveling towards the chief, Piétacho ended up turning on them too, dismissing them as vulgar whites who themselves are part of the problem. It does not matter that Hydro-Québec pays millions of dollars each year to the Cree Nation as compensation for the use of their so-called ancestral lands. It does not matter if these two podcasters were more than ready to take the chief’s side. The chief saw himself as a victim of the course of history. No matter what the podcasters could have said, they are both still despised as “whites”. During the podcast, the chief even told them that he would not have talked to them at all, had he known they had also previously spoken to Hydro-Québec during their investigation. He wanted them to have only his version of the story. He then said:
“We know what whites are doing to us. We know our people, it is a great discrimination in Quebec against the First Nations, and we know it. We live here; we feel it, just by the way they look at us. It's deep.” (17:30)

Why do Native Americans think they can have carte blanche to go anywhere at anytime? Do they only need to evoke colonialism and say that all whites are bad to get what they want?

I stand by my words above: the French empire did not oppress the Amerindians. The Amerindian peoples freely made an alliance with the King of France to resist Iroquois imperialism, which threatened the entire northeast of the continent. Unfortunately, the Amerindian population has decreased by 90% because of “microbial shock” of European diseases to which Amerindians were not immune.

What about that small pox blanket story? According to this Radio-Canada text, the directive seems to have come from the General Amherst (English), following the conquest of 1759, rather than from the French Empire. One unfortunate thing on the part of the French was the trading of alcohol during the fur trade, which regrettably spread alcoholism among Amerindians (even though the bishops of Quebec City condemned the eau-de-vie trade). 

What about the 80 or so residential schools in Canada? Of that number, 11 were in Quebec and only three were Catholic (meaning French-Canadian institutions). The subject is too big to adequately deal with here, but it is worth noting that testimonies vary greatly about what happened in the French Canadian residential schools, depending on if the source was anglophone or francophone.

As for the vitality of Amerindian nations today, Québec is, not surprisingly, the place where Amerindian languages are doing the best in Canada. Just north of Trois-Rivières, we find this excellent example recently given by TVA.

In conclusion, Amerindians tend to attack the Québec nation by reducing it to a “white nation”. Not only is this ostracizing people because of the color of their skin, but it is also neglecting the fact that the Québec nation is today is composed of the descendants from all continents. Why don’t Amerindians recognize the contribution of these neo-Quebecers – who are involved in the political and economic decisions of contemporary Quebec – instead of just reducing Québec as a “white nation”?

Moreover, the fact that Quebecers are majority white does not make them guilty of the injustices committed historically by the British Empire and we are not to be blamed for crimes committed in the name of Her Majesty the Queen of England.

However, we have unfortunately forgotten much of our history.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Québec Blacks and Historical Revisionism


The columnist Fabrice Vil from the newspaper Le Devoir, published this text, "The Power of Hip-Hop" in 2017, peddling some incredibly false information that needs some truth thrown its way. 


He even fully incorporates the words of some rap song, "Qc History X" by Ali Ndiaye going under the (rather anglophone – surprise surprise!) name Webster – a self-described hip-hop artist dabbling in history. Here is the passage cited:
“In 1629 Olivier Lejeune arrives / First slave listed in the newly founded Quebec City / At least 10 000 slaves in Canada / Until abolition in 1833 / Yo, it is crazy, after some of my sleuthing / I discovered that Lionel Groulx preached racial purity / Same thing goes for Garneau, FX-Garneau / Quebec History X, we’ve been erased from the collective memory / But there were black businessmen / we were in the regiments as well as fur-trading voyageurs / not to mention innkeepers / And they want us to believe that blacks have only been here since the 70s.” (free translation)
Mr. Vil publishes this text with zero nuance or warning and even goes as far to say that they are a "spot-on course on black history in Quebec.” However, the apparent facts stated in this song are false. If rappers are not obliged to check for accuracy on what they write, columnists like Vil should be held to a higher standard. 

First of all, to classify this text as a history lesson suggests that its content is factually true, especially when Mr. Vil does not provide any contextual element to think otherwise. Quoting “Webster” word for word, Mr. Vil does not just give his "appreciation of a cultural work" as he might well claim. He endorses the false message contained in the song "Qc History X" by calling it a "history course" and a "cultural treasure". He uses words like “enrichment” to speak about the text. In other words, he believes the text’s content is credible. 

However, when referring to the Journalistic Ethics Guide of the Quebec Press Council on Opinion Journalism, Article 10.2 states:

Opinion journalists set out the most relevant facts on which their opinion is based, unless they are already known to the public, and must explain the reasoning that justifies it.
The information presented is accurate, rigorous in its reasoning and complete, as defined in Article 9 of this Guide. (free translation)

The Guide additionally specifies in Article 9 that journalists and the news media produce, according to journalistic norms, information that has the following qualities:
Accuracy: fidelity to reality;
Intellectual rigor and accuracy;
Impartiality: absence of bias in favor of a particular point of view;
Balance in the treatment of a subject and a fair presentation from the point of view of the parties involved;
Totality: in the treatment of a subject, presentation of the essential elements for proper understanding, while respecting the editorial freedom of the media. (free translation)
Ultimately, Mr. Vil’s column puts forth completely false information. For example, the historical work, “Two Centuries of Slavery in Quebec”, arguably the most serious reference for the history of slavery in Québec, indicates that "there were nearly 4,200 slaves in the province of Quebec "(Trudel: 69, free translation). Of these, three quarters were Native Americans (Trudel: 73, free translation) and the other quarter were African (Trudel: 84, free translation). Saying that there were 10,000 slaves in the 19th century in Canada (the name under which Quebec was then known) as Mr. Vil claims, is both misleading and deceptive. The least a columnist can do when citing such a long quote is to verify its veracity and take responsibility for it. 


Vil continues with: "Webster and Muzion are just examples of an array of artists who have created a cultural treasure that can not only change teaching methods, but can also shed a different and relevant light on the contemporary social climate" (free translation). 

However, this statement is problematic. Indeed, the title of the song "Qc History X" is a reference to the well-known American movie "American History X" – featuring several Hollywood stars, hardly an obscure film with confidential distribution. In this case, Mr. Vil could not be unaware that the learned readers of Le Devoir would also link the content of the film and the history of Quebec. 

As a reminder, this film depicts racist American extremist caricatures wearing swastikas, favoring the lynching of blacks. To claim, devoid of any nuance, that a song referencing this film constitutes "a cultural treasure" that can "change teaching methods" is absurd. What is the take away from this? That Quebecers historically behaved in a similar way as the characters in this film? Not only entirely false from a factual point of view, this message cannot be defended as mere artistic freedom, but slander against the Québec nation. 

As a final point, the text of Mr. Vil omits bringing any nuance allegations conveyed by the song "Qc History X" regarding Lionel Groulx. It is well known among real historians that Groulx severely criticized French Canadians who refused to preserve and transmit their national traditions on the pretext of assimilating certain elements of Anglo-Saxon culture for survival purposes. To claim that "Lionel Groulx preached racial purity" is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and sheer contempt for the national historian of the people who welcomed the likes of Vil and Webster. I would invite Mr. Vil to try reading Groulx, instead of just repeating empty and false catch-phrases about him. He could start with the popular political novel, "The Call of the Race.” He might even lose some of his prejudices. 

That book summarizes what was called at that time "the French spirit.” Some key themes are the materialistic nature of the Anglo-Protestant civilization, the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority and the Anglo-mania of the French-Canadian petty bourgeoisie. Groulxian nationalism did not make race an absolute. For Groulx, the Catholic Church remained the supreme value. But the Church must be incarnated in a nationality, like the Word which became flesh. Planting national roots are what allows man to reach the universal. 

The French language dictionary, the Petit Robert, defines "race" as a natural group of men who have similar characters (physical, psychic, cultural) from a common past – ethnicity, people. It is also defined as an ethnic group, differentiated by hereditary physical characteristics (skin color, skull shape, blood types) – white, yellow and black. During Groulx time period, it was used mainly in the first sense, meaning race was more cultural. Today, it is used more in the second sense – biological. 

Groulx often spoke of the "genius of the race,” meaning the indefinable peculiarity of the French-Canadian people. He did not have a "sociobiological" view of the nation as in Nazi theories of the Aryan race, despite what folks like Esther Delisle say (the lie that Groulx was an anti-semite can be traced to her). Recall that in the time of Groulx, "race" was spoken in the sense of "nationality.” It was a cultural notion rather than a physical one. The superiority of the French spirit stems rather from the spiritual superiority of Catholicism over Protestantism, an idea that was self-evident in Catholic circles before the Second Vatican Council (Le Siècle de Mgr Bourget, 2016). If only Le Devoir hired columnists who knew their history. 

Lionel Groulx wanted the restoration of national integrity by rediscovering the authentic French-Canadian soul. It is an inner quest, the Greek Gnothi seauton: "Know thyself.” Does Mr. Vil know himself? From reading his other texts, it is clear that he draws almost all his ideas from Anglo-Americans and he probably sees himself as a kind of black American who speaks bilingual, instead of part of the Québec nation. 

For all these reasons, I think that Fabrice Vil's “The Power of hip-hop" is merely another one of these victim propaganda texts directly imported from the United States – the so-called "racialist" tendencies that are currently in vogue. His worldview prevents any honest historical reading that dissociates the history of French Canadian settlers in New France from those of the British Empire.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Eternal Fascism you say?

« Version française ici »

A few years ago, I read Umberto Eco's "Ur Fascism" essay and recently I saw that the internet radio program "Plus on est de fous, plus on lit!" did a show on that text, from the problematic point of view of Pierre-Luc Brisson and Marie-Louise Arsenault. Goes without saying that I had to offer my two cents!


Eco’s essay takes a reactionary position based primarily on emotion. It has the appearance of logic and coherence, but only broad and empty idea categories are used such as freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, and so forth. Brisson gives a five-minute "analysis" of the text. Do not expect any familiarity with mathematical theory, continental philosophy or meta-logic. Here, Brisson offers pop philosophy and pop psychology. Academics like the late Umberto Eco (and, by extension, Brisson) just love to assert universal codes of moral and ethical standards, while simultaneously promoting total relativism. They are both representative of the modern left at universities (as seen in Eco's arguments).

Eco speaks of having loved fascist Italy as a child. Then he heard the "Voice of London" (anglophone of course) on the radio and began to change his mind. He finally gave up "fascism" thanks to chewing gum (yes, he says that), which provided the possibilities of freedom. There was also a black American (one of the Allied soldiers) whose comic books impressed him so much that, golly lolly, America is so where it’s at! (note: ultra-liberal European intellectuals like Eco normally hate America)

Eco speaks of Evola, Ezra Pound and the Grail mysticism, calling all this idiotic (even though he made a lot of money writing about such topics, as in Foucault’s Pendulum). He thinks that the idea of "corrupt art" is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but there is corrupt art. The things he mentions, such as Cubism, are degenerate (even the Frankfurt School brought this up). But for Eco, toxic culture does not exist.

He criticizes "eternal fascism" (Ur Fascism) as an "eternal war" that the left must fight. So, according to Eco’s incarnation of the progressive liberal socialist European intellectual, what should I take away from this? Quite simply, I must be against any form of tradition, because tradition rejects modernity. Eco says that the "fascists" reject the modern liberalism of the Enlightenment in favor of irrationalism, though it has never been shown that the Enlightenment was rational.

Eco says that fascists encourage the idea of heroism and that soldiers are just hero idolaters who like to play with their guns. According to Eco, this shows that they have a phallic problem. He thinks he looks smart in criticizing heroism, but I would bet Eco sees himself as a liberal hero. With all the praise heaped on him, academic awards, his books and the films based on them, I can only guess that he thought he was an exceptional being (even heroic), making his so-called dismantling of the idea of the hero seem less than credible. Earlier in the essay he described the Allies as heroes, so are the Allies also subject to the phallic obsession of their guns? Besides, are we supposed to believe that there is a sexual problem among right-wing people? Bestiality, pedophilia, BDSM whips and handcuffs are not promoted by right-wing people. Rather, it’s the folks on Eco’s side who encourage such things. People like Michel Foucault who went to the bath houses at night and then wrote books on "punishment" by day.

Eco thinks that the right is Orwellian, but nothing is more Orwellian than lefty British liberalism. Did he really think Orwell was talking about Mussolini? Orwell was actually talking about Fabian socialism, which is the version of liberalism preferred by Eco (and Brisson, I imagine). Newspeak and liberal-language are both from Eco ‘s precious liberal tradition. But whoever disagrees with them is labeled a fascist.

Eco believes that the democratic majority is sacred, but he has desacralized the entire universe with his liberal world view. Regardless, he professes that there is an inherent holiness among the democratic masses (whom he elsewhere despises). Brisson repeated the old "populism" line (another meaningless word, like fascism) about how "populism" has taken root in the American Midwest after job relocation. Well, if Brisson suddenly had no job and no income, would he not be upset too? Not everyone can be pseudo-intellectual, living on scholarships to do useless research (useless in the sense of his liberal weltanschauung). Liberalism does not respect individual rights, as the Antifas and SJWs beat up anyone they do not like. Why? Because they are possessed by their ideology (as Dostoevsky said in "Demons"). If you are a heterosexual white man, you are a fascist.

Eco says that "Ur Fascism" could come back at any time and that it is our duty to recognize it and point it out. Well, I would point my finger at Eco (and those who follow him) as his position is true fascism. His liberal fascism is the worst because he preaches tolerance, while at the same time destroying true tolerance.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

The War on Distinctions is Nigh

« Version française ici »

For those paying attention, Québec as a distinct society or nation gets touted around here and there. Robert Bourassa said that Québec is a distinct society and Stephen Harper’s government recognized Québec as a nation within a united Canada. Such declarations might seem somewhat significant, it seemed to me that this empty rhetoric used by the Liberals and federalists is tossed out to merely pacify Québec nationalists. Besides, most anglophones don’t even know what a nation is – believing that “nation” is the same thing as “country” and then smugly declare that Québec is not a nation. Thus, the agenda of erasing real differences through multiculturalism is continued. 

In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a war on distinctions. Nonetheless, the use of Orwellian doublethink has got everyone confused. Look at how Canadian federalists use the word “diversity” as if it were a true array of distinct peoples promoting cultural and economic enrichment. Québec is the best example of real diversity in North America, though when Canada says “diversity”, what it means is just melting into the monocultural anglophone blob. 

Different civilizations generate distinct societies, which is an outcome of the soul of a people – and this is good. Real diversity is naturally good. However, in our post-modern era, the term “diversity” is the starting point of the doublethink doctrine with the aim of eliminating true diversity. We are told that we must evolve beyond distinctions and borders. 

From the Vatican-oriented geopolitical book, The Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin talks about a faction of people that he calls the Mega-Religionists, those who work to persuade us that all religions and worldviews are fusing into a single globe-spanning mega-religion:
“…the so-called Mega-Religionists [are part of the] one great Temple of Human Understanding. The truly global home of all nations will all be harmonized into one. Chameleon-like, they are to be found basking at the height of power everywhere in the West – in Transnationalist boardrooms and Internationalist bureaucracies, in the hierarchies of the Roman, Orthodox and other Christian churches; in major Jewish and Islamic enclaves already dedicated to the total Westernization of culture and civilization.” (p. 38)
Martin lists some of the people among these Mega-Religionists, who “live their lives as though all political borders were already extinguished.” People like John Foster Dulles, Henry Luce, Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Edinburgh, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, John D. Rockefeller, and many more. The Mega-Religionist mind proposes, in contrast to the Humanist worldview, that human comfort is not merely a question of physical comfort. Religion, too, is essential to the comfort of human civilization. However, separate religions are neither necessary nor desirable. In fact, for the sake of peace, all religions must fuse into one great religion: 
“…the whole of Humanity shall remain a united people, where Muslim and Christian, Buddhist and Hindu shall stand together, bound by a common devotion, not to something [from the past], but to something ahead [in the future], not to a racial past or a geographical unit, but to a dream of a world society with a universal religion of which historical faiths are but branches… [while keeping] the more harmless folkloric and colorful elements of each religion, for these have a certain function in terms of appeasement and camouflage.” (p. 298)

Hmmmm, is this why Justin Trudeau plays dress up with every single ethnic group? Or why most people think multiculturalism just means going out for sushi or shish taouk after the traditional African dance performance?


How could such a thing as the monocultural mega-religion possibly be implemented? Through altering the perception of evil as something different from hurting others or the absence of goodness. In our day and age, the new and current definition of evil is found in the notions of separation and distinction. The idea of being separate in any way, whether it be philosophical, spiritual, political or economic – this is the new Satan. Being your own person or country, being male, being female, being Caucasian, being one type of tradition instead of another type, being Quebecer, being Mexican, being Russian – all of that must be classed and understood as the new description of evil. Martin goes on to say that: 
“since the expected Mega-Religion would contain elements of every religion, and would be universally acceptable, it would be called monodeism.” (p. 298)

The coming world religion will be total Monadism, which is also what Aldous Huxley discussed in his book The Perennial Philosophy. Anything and everything must be blended into one. Self-proclaimed “citizens of the world” can be whatever they want on an individual level, as long as they don’t claim that their identity or belief is exclusive or true, since the new definition of evil is distinction. Separateness is immoral. Today’s SJWs are but the beginning phases of this new cult. 

If I may use some “conspiratorial” language, the goal of something like Freemasonry is to create a revolutionary force for the installation of democratic republics. This has been discussed in several papal encyclicals from In eminenti to HumanumGenus as well as in the first Québec nationalist-themed novel Pour la patrie by Jules-Paul Tardivel. Now you might think that republics sound fair and good, that the removal of religion from the sphere public life is OK or even desirable (which always comes with the removal of tradition, as this falls into the same category as religion – this is laicism or secularism. 

But would the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson bring us to the kind of conservative traditionalism that some “natural-rights-theory-non-aggression-principle” libertarians would like to have? Are there any historical examples of an organic and healthy tradition and society that are also purely secular? No. All of those ideas are part of the (French, American and later world) revolution, leading to what Huxley called the Final Revolution, where the population is standardized and inconvenient human differences are ironed out for the emerging of mass produced models of human beings who love their servitude.

It seems to me that by eliminating distinction and demonizing the idea of separation and borders, one creates a simulacrum of a nation and an empty shell (isn’t this what Canada is?). It becomes an anti-metaphysical imperium, at war with all that is traditional, natural and organic. The modern world is characterized by relativism – which is the big lie – and we in Québec are not in any way spared from this. Of course Québec “separation” has to be portrayed as evil, as the isolation from people and from the world. Nothing could be further from the truth, but people are unaware that certain global interests have declared war on what is “distinct”, while they promote the world mega-religion (aka the monoculture).

Friday, January 12, 2018

Pierre-Luc Brisson's world

Not too long ago, I caught an episode of Gabriel Masson’s podcast Quévolution in which he was interviewing recently published author Pierre-Luc Brisson on the role of the social sciences and humanities in universities. I found the first half of the discussion interesting and even compelling. Brisson’s point of view on what the humanities have become was pertinent and well balanced. He also had some things to say worthy of note about the value these subjects provide to education overall.

However, I found what followed to be problematic and wanted to add my humble view regarding the worldview that he maintains.


He mentioned more than once about being happy to be living in 2017, instead of some earlier period, like say the 1940s. But I wonder why. Is life is so much better now than it was in 1945? Didn’t we still have a classical education system in the past that valued the humanities? What about the many things previously seen as “bad” which are now tolerated, sometimes even encouraged and praised, like drug use, casual sex with dozens of people, being unfaithful to your spouse — basically no limit to debauchery. Is this what makes our day better than previous decades? I am pretty sure that being a promiscuous, unfaithful and unreliable drug user does not bring the kind of long lasting contentment and satisfaction of a life well lived.

He does say that research can now be done more efficiently with digital files rather than cumbersome card catalogues. Alright, fair enough. But is the digitizing of all records under the presupposition of total informational awareness always such a good thing? From what I have found, this was the plan for the internet all along, as DARPA has stated that the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik showed that a fundamental change was needed in America’s defense science and technology programs. DARPA was formed to meet this need and rejuvenated defense technological capabilities.

Considering the authority and influence such a technocratic system would wield, the ability to “delete” all past versions of literature, history and religious texts becomes a piece of cake. We now live in a society where nothing is held sacred and therefore not subject to “revision”. Our own pasts may even be revised and altered for political ends — or even deleted. So, while the masses adopt Kindles, the printed word itself is handed over to the “kindle" fire, basically modern day book burning. So how do we move digitally forward without burning the past?

Aside from the many buzzwords that he used (like “systemic”), I found his anglophilia rather annoying. It became pretty apparent when he talked about how he viewed the Humanities from an anglophone point of view. I don’t doubt that he would like to see an improvement in how universities or secondary schools treat the humanities or even our general usage of the French language in Québec. Though his anglo-centric comments seem out of place, especially when high standards already exist in the francophone world to which we can aspire. Why should compare ourselves unfavorably with the anglophone worldview, which tends to be liberal and materialist? Mentioning and citing almost only anglophones, and I get the impression that he gets a great deal of his ideas from the anglo sphere, which explains a lot regarding his point of view.

I would like to tell a little story here, as Brisson reminds me a lot of the first friend I made when I moved to Montréal in 2009. This old friend of mine was also living on a scholarship, a big fan of classical music and culture and tried to present himself in a sort of fin-de-siècle dandyism, all the while being morally detached and above the illiterate masses. However, this was just a pretense, because his main concern was trying to flirt and pick up anglophone dudes who were studying music at McGill University. Unfortunately, those who caught his eye usually didn’t see much in him or his “high culture” (let just say this old friend of mine wasn’t a top model). When he used to invite me to parties, I would come and speak French with everyone, no matter what language they were more comfortable in. But my old friend would often crash the conversation in English, such as when I was talking to an Estonian girl in her broken French. I wanted to encourage her. When I told him that he should speak French to her, since he said himself that he wanted to promote French in Québec, he just smugly said: “It’s my right to speak in English”. Typical atomized individualist and liberal response.

So why be so two-faced? I can understand why it might be temporarily appealing for my former friend to see himself as an artistically minded bohemian on the fringes of society, caring about opera — while simultaneously wanting to live a life of debauchery, cloaked by dressing and speaking well. There are many examples of this esthetic out there, romanticizing and glamorizing certain periods. There is the movie “Midnight in Paris” or Roaring 20s, Gay Nineties or Harlem Renaissance themed novels and movies. Oscar Wilde, E.M. Forester or dancer Isadora Duncan come to mind, as well as followers of Theosophy and Spiritism.

Today, however, being a degenerate modern intellectual no longer gives the thrill that those from the past enjoyed. The “illiterate masses” have become too blasé for such behavior to be intimidating or shocking. This worldview inevitably leads to post-modernism and the nihilism in which we now live. Many writers from the fin-de-siècle period recognized this, such as J. K. Huysman. Formerly promoting a sort of pseudointellectual dandyism in his novels like “À rebours” (mentioned in Wilde’s Dorian Gray) or in “Là-bas” (depicting a satanic black mass among high Parisian society), he later changed his tune. Instead of becoming washed up in his older years (because youth can’t last forever, and such ideas are things of the young), Huysman ended up turning towards the Catholic Church — a curious turn of events.

I obviously cannot accuse Brisson of all these character flaws, as I do not know him. But I get the feeling that he shares more than a few things in common with my old friend described above.

Furthermore, Brisson states that he doesn’t want to make a fetish out of history or romanticize the past, but I can’t help but hear in his words a deep romanticizing of a certain period of history when the humanities, or classical education in general, were more highly esteemed. He also makes no secret about his leftist political slant. From the tech giants to the far left (also including “libertarians”), the dominant ideology of such people ends up strangely being dysgenics (not eugenics). Man is a blank slate (tabula rasa) and in order for the world’s total historical rewrite to come, the existing structure must be destroyed. The “old way” of doing things (classical education, for which Brisson is paradoxically nostalgic, while at the same time condemning this nostalgia as making a fetish out of it) will be scapegoated, as the technocracy replaces it, offering utopia and salvation. However, this synthetic rewrite is a Trojan horse. Humanity will not be liberated, as promised by the folks marketing technology.

Additionally, Brisson deplores how we are cut off from 2000+ years of classical literature and the humanities when discussing the general undervaluing of the social sciences in universities, though he seems to think that recognizing this fringes on the glorification of history. So, should we cut ourselves off from history in order to become a phoenix rising from the ashes and create the new postmodernist man? Or do we value the past, tradition and all that it can teach us through classical education?

At one point, Brisson declared that statues and monuments are not neutral and that defending them for historical reasons is just a racket. Citing the far from credible Southern Poverty Law Center, he categorizes General Robert E. Lee as someone promoting hatred toward black people because he was a “defender of slavery”. This is nothing but intellectual laziness on Brisson’s part because, contrary to popular belief, the American Civil War was not a war fought over slavery — but I suppose when all you read is Howard Zinn or others of that ilk, you might get that simplistic idea. But he really went too far in comparing General Lee to Hitler. And as far as Rosa Parks goes, yes, there are plenty of monuments of her in the United States.

Toward the end, when asked if he could choose a Prime Minister in an independent Québec, Brisson suggested Françoise David (or even more grotesquely Manon Massé). I suppose that follows logically, in that an extremist party like Québec solidaire would want to break from the past and create something new (the new man in the quasi-communist state?). Brisson did in fact state that Québec independence is not an end unto itself, but a means to something else. So what is that something else? A technocratic state on the far left as Québec solidaire proposes? I would presume that he would place science (or scientism?) as the epistemological base for the future society’s shared worldview, so why make vague illusions that we need a grandmotherly figure like Françoise David or some activist from whatever racial, sexual or religious minority that would take us to the next evolutionary level. Sounds more like an appeal to emotion than to science. I wonder what Brisson would say to that?

For someone priding himself on being well read, open minded and brainy, it might do some good to put aside certain prejudices and see what other intellectuals have to say. Of course, doing so might call into question his weltanschauung and reevaluate many of his cherished axioms. But I wouldn’t scrap Brisson completely. He’s got some interesting things to say about the state of the humanities. It’s just that he obscures his good points with cloudy thinking (and a touch of unnecessary snobbery).