Canadian Cincinnatus

Mark Steyn’s demographics thesis is being proven right by current events

What is Mark’s thesis? It is that the West is undergoing a demographics collapse brought on by its welfare state politics that it has pursued now for over a hundred years. The problem is that the welfare state that everybody in the West lives in, particularly in Western Europe, is dependent on demographic growth to fund all the state’s dependents. This is a vicious cycle. The final stage of the welfare state is when the dearth of new citizens makes the benefits the state has promised its aging citizens unsupportable. And so the welfare state collapses.

This stage is firmly under way in Europe. Check out the current crisis in Greece, which according to this article, is spreading to other weak members of the Eurozone, like Portugal, Spain and Italy. Like dominos, they are all beginning to fall. And the reason why countries like Greece are going first is because they have the lowest birth rate coupled with the most generous benefits. Look for more stories like this in the near future about other European countries. 

An easy way around this problem is to import cheap labour from another country, one with a higher birth rate. Unfortunately, when you rely on this solution too much (especially from one source region), you create all kinds of other societal problems, for instance, like the illegal immigrant situation in the US. This issue is currently bubbling to the surface in Arizona where a new law against illegal aliens was just signed into law by the (now popular) governor. This crisis is not going anywhere as Texas ponders a similar measure.

We are currently in the early stages of the unravelling of the postwar consensus. Except for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the society that developed in the 1950’s after the carnage of World War II is being unravelled by its internal contradictions. Look for more of the same as the welfare state after welfare state goes bust. If things go well, the West will be stronger than ever as it mends its family tradition and relearns self-reliance. If the West is too enfeebled to survive, thanks in no small measure to the challengeg posed by the unassimilatable and overtly anti-west Muslim minority in Western Europe, the result will be a victory for barbarism and a giant step backwards for civilization.

The man who should have been America’s first black President

UPDATE: The original link has been replaced by one that (at least for now) works. 

Lt. Col. Allen West is a retired US Army Iraq veteran who is now running for Congress. Watch this video and see what he has to say about America’s War on Islamofascism, and contrast it with President Obama’s habitual equivocation on the same theme.

Until Obama came along, I had always assumed that the first black President would be a conservative - the conservatives would vote for him because he’s conservative and the black community (the most rock-solid part of the Democrat coalition) would vote for him because he’s black. I had assumed that a black leftist would find little appeal beyond the traditional Democrat base and would therefore have little room to grow his appeal. I did not count on the unique set of circumstances in 2008 that were unusually supportive of Democrats (a collapsing economy, two festering low-intensity wars and a weak Republican leader despised by his base because of his support of amnesty), combined with candidate Obama’s intentionally vague campaign platform (you can’t get much more vague than “hope and change” – change what?).

I think a black conservative President would almost by definition be post-racial in a way that Barack Obama can never be because the black conservative’s primarily appeal to conservatives would have nothing to do with race, and, in spite of that fact, the black community would rally behind him as well. As a result he would unify the country - well, he would unify everybody except the recalcitrant liberals who would be reduced to hurling racial insults at the black president (and thereby burning their bridges in the black community).

In not unrelated news, check out this video of Barack Obama making a naked appeal for racial and ethnic solidarity behind him. So much for being postracial!

A good word for Greece (for a change)

The country of Greece has come under a lot of harsh criticism lately, being the first EU country to have its welfare state unravel. However a Greek friend recently gave me a reason why Greece has been given a tough break. The argument goes like this:

Most EU countries are able to keep very small militaries thanks to Pax Americana (for instance, there are apparently some in Holland who want to eliminate the Dutch military altogether). Unfortunately, Greece is not able to afford the luxury of a small military budget thanks to the rough neighbourhood that it inhabits. You see, Greece is next door to Turkey, its enemy, its former conqueror and its recent cobelligerent in the Cyprus Civil War. Therefore, Greece requires a very large military in order to maintain its independence. Furthermore this is not merely a selfish duty but one Europe indirectly benefits from. For if Turkey were to roll over Greece, it would do so knowing that it would incur a substantial diplomatic and PR hit. Given that reality, why not grab as much as you can while you are the international pariah? There are many small states just to the north of Greece, all the way, in fact, to Austria, or shall we say, the gates of Vienna.

As my friend points out, balancing Greece’s budget would be much easier if the rest of Europe did its part in the common defence of south-eastern Europe by sending their men and materials to guard Greece’s flank. But they don’t, so Greece has to bear the burden on its own.

A glance on the internet shows that for a population of 11 million (1/3 of Canada), Greece has177,000 men in active duty, 353 leopard II tanks, 500 Leopard I tanks, 390 M48 tanks, 1,800 M113 APC’s, 300 combat aircraft - including 159 F16’s and 45 Mirage 2000. The Hellenic navy has 14 frigates. This is a much greater contribution to defence than Canada puts out. We have 20,000 regular forces soldiers, 200 tanks and 78 CF-18’s. So perhaps my Greek friend has a point (though I still think the public pensions are way too generous in Greece).

Happy Lenin’s Birthday! er, I mean Earth Day

Once again, its that time of year. Every year on this day, I take the time out to remind everyone that April 22 - Earth Day - is Vladimir Lenin’s birthday.

Lest you think this is just a 1 in 365 coincidence exploited only by right-wing hate-mongers such as myself, consider the fact that the first Earth Day - April 22, 1970 – was the one hundredth anniversary of Lenin’s birth.

To be fair, Earth Day is increasingly being celebrated on the spring equinox. This is a positive development that helps distance the environmentalist movement from the ideals of a bloodthirsty killer.

 

Paul Johnson on the two essential qualities of great leadership

According to the great British historian, Paul Johnson, great leaders must do two things: listen and tell the truth (to those who are entitled to hear it). He says:

“Listening carefully and telling the truth are each rare traits to be found in politicians, and rarer still in combination. But it does happen.”

“One passion a leader should forgo, if possible, is a love affair with his own voice.”

With the latter statement, Johnson demonstrates that recognizes that an essential rule of power is to keep your trap shut as much as possible.

Paul Johnson listed four American President who had these qualities, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Of each he says:

“George Washington listened all his life because he loved to learn and because he had no overwhelming desire to speak, unlike most of those in public life.”

“Washington, happily, liked the sound of his own silence. He also told the truth, even if at times he followed Edmund Burke's advice and was economical with it. When I was writing my book George Washington, I failed to come across any occasion when he had deliberately concealed the truth from anyone who had a right to know it.”

“If we turn to Abraham Lincoln we find a marked combination of listening and truth-telling. Lincoln listened hard, no easy matter in the deafening cacophony of voices just before and during the Civil War.

Considering all he had to do and say, Lincoln spoke amazingly little. As he put it (on Aug. 6, 1862), ‘I am very little inclined on any occasion to say anything unless I hope to produce some good by it.’ His Gettysburg Address is a classic instance--there is none better in history--of using as few words as possible (261, to be precise) while conveying a powerful message. 

Lincoln always endeavored to tell the truth and to ensure that all heard it by clothing it in arresting language. He never won a vote or scored a political advantage by even the most minute sacrifice of factual accuracy. He believed rightly that people would rise to a challenge, however daunting,”

“One President who admirably combined taciturnity and veracity was Calvin Coolidge, that unobtrusive and so underrated man. He was aptly called ‘Silent Cal.’ He listened courteously to all his visitors but would not be drawn out. He said: ‘Nine-tenths of a President's callers at the White House want something they ought not to have. If you keep dead still they will run down in three or four minutes.’"

“Ronald Reagan, another notable President, also showed himself ready to listen, even though he didn't always hear. And he carefully studied a speaker's body language. Reagan believed that national leaders were too eager to avoid trouble and therefore toned down the truth. He rated his best speeches as those in which he spoke the unvarnished truth--notably his "Evil Empire" discourse. He personally strengthened its truth element just before delivery.” 

Contrast the 261 words of the Gettysburg Address with Barack Obama’s 2,700 word non-answer to a woman’s simple complaint about being overtaxed.

A good example of a present day politician who prefers to tell the truth, even though it may not be politically expedient for him not to do so, is New Jersey’s amazing new Governor, Chris Christie.

“Christie's running a bold experiment: treating voters like adults, telling them what's needed to get out of their predicament. It's the right thing to do, and given where New Jersey stands, probably as wise a political choice as any (it's not like Corzine stayed popular by ducking the hard choices).”

 

“As Christie puts it: ‘It should've been dealt with years ago. It wasn't. ... If people don't like it after four years, they can send me home.’"

Ralph Peters: “Putin Wins Again”

This is what columnist and former US Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters has to say about Vladimir Putin in the New York Post:

“Geez, this guy is good.

A few years back, I wrote that Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was the most impressive major leader on today's world stage. Since then, he's gotten better.

Back then, he was eating President George W. Bush for breakfast. Now he's snacking on President Obama as sushi -- eating him raw, in happy little bites.

Putin's ruthless, unforgiving and murderous. He also has a clear vision of what he wants, the strength of will to get it -- and a stunning ability to spot the weaknesses in his foreign counterparts.

Putin's the Evil Empire's belated answer to President Ronald Reagan. Where the Gipper focused uncompromisingly on bringing down the Soviet imperium, Putin focuses uncompromisingly on restoring imperial Russia.

And he's making progress, as US leaders and their advisers bumble and stumble along with neither a clear strategic vision nor a rational sense of foreign-policy priorities.”

“The crash of an aircraft carrying Poland's fiercely anti-Russian president and his key advisers may have been just amazingly good luck on Putin's part, but it's the kind of luck to which we should pay attention. Russia's neighbors certainly have.”

“Putin's certainly not a good man. But he is a great man -- perhaps the most capable national leader of our time. He's also a very dangerous man.”

As Peters correctly notes, a large part of Putin’s success is due to American incompetence, specifically that of the strategically clueless (“I don’t believe in things like victory”) Obama administration.

“He cunningly let Obama bamboozle himself into a gotta-have-it-now Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that damages US conventional capabilities while Russia gives up only old junk it needed to dump anyway.”

“Last week, Putin supported the overthrow of the US-backed government of Kyrgyzstan, tightening his chokehold on our northern supply route into Afghanistan. The Obama administration was utterly blindsided ("Where's Kyrgyzstan?").”

“On Iran, Putin's a savvy old tomcat toying with the Obama mouse. While Moscow's overt, covert and clandestine trade with Tehran continues, Putin does his good-cop/bad-cop routine with President Dmitry Medvedev, keeping hope alive in the White House that, this time, Russia will finally back meaningful sanctions. Sarah Palin will sign on with Code Pink first.

Meanwhile, our president continues to play into Putin's hands. At this week's Nuclear Vanity Summit (which accomplished nothing), Obama snubbed Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili. Putin will read that as license to renew his aggression against the struggling democracy in Tbilisi (first Kyrgyzstan, then Georgia?). Obama had time for Putin's Ukrainian puppet, President Viktor Yanukovych, though.”

“A major test for Obama comes this Sunday, when our president will pay our respects at the Krakow funeral of Poland's freedom-loving president. If Obama allows himself to be photographed smoking and joking with Putin or Medvedev at a Polish grave, it'll send a horrible signal throughout a region that only escaped Moscow's terror two decades ago.”

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Putin should not be overestimated either. As I have argued before (here , here  and here), while Putin is a good fighter, his weakness is that he is not a builder. Until now, he has ridden the wave of high oil prices, which made his reign more impressive than it really is. The problem, that lower oil prices have revealed, is that he did not reinvest any of those windfall profits into rebuilding Russia’s dilapidated infrastructure, even – as incredible as it sounds, considering how dependent Russia is on oil and gas revenue – on its petroleum extracting capabilities. I predict this will be his ultimate undoing.

 

“Copycat racism at another NJ store”

According to this article:

For the second time in less than a month, a New Jersey teenager has been arrested for allegedly making a racist announcement over a store's public address system.

The latest incident happened over the weekend at the Whole Foods Market on River Road in Edgewater, according to the Bergen Record.

A 14-year-old girl reportedly grabbed the microphone at the store's courtesy desk and said, "All blacks leave the store."

A store employee immediately called the police, according to the Record, and the girl and a 14-year-old boy who was with her were taken into custody moments later.

The girl is reportedly charged with bias intimidation and harassment 

Well...after making a big deal when it happened the first time, what did you expect?

In a non-hysterical society, such an incident would not have made the local news, let alone the national news. The boy would have been spanked by his father and that would have been that.

By creating a front page news story about a 16 year old kid, who got on the intercom at Wal-Mart and told black people to leave the store, you were virtually guaranteeing the future appearance of a copy-cat attention-seeker.

But not to worry, I hear President Obama has legislation in the works imposing new regulations on store intercom systems.

Harper handling Guergis scandal well

Or as well as it is possible, given the implosion of a high-profile cabinet minister and her equally high-profile husband. While I am in the dark as everybody else about why the Prime Minister called the RCMP about her, I do know good leadership when I see it. 

It seems to me Stephen Harper has been following two guiding rules:

1. He is fiercely loyal to his underlings, but only up to a point.

2. Once that point has been passed, he takes decisive action.

On the first point, Harper has been roundly criticized - mostly by his political enemies - for his loyalty, but look at it this way: would you want to work for somebody who would throw you over the side at the first sign of trouble? I wouldn’t. And if I did, I wouldn’t offer very much loyalty in return - even if I was squeaky clean. ‘Unnamed sources’ have stated that the PMO was ‘in denial’ about various rumours that were circulating about Helena Guergis. Perhaps, but it looks more like a case where the Prime Minister was holding back because the rumours hadn’t passed the critical threshold for action, but when they did, he acted – fast and hard.

With regard to the second point, it is often said by military strategists that while a battle is raging, the best indicator of who is winning is not who is advancing and who is retreating, but who has the initiative. In other words, who is acting and who is reacting. Throughout Affair Guergis, Harper has been acting, the opposition has been reacting.

If you don’t believe me that he did the right thing, consider an alternate scenario: instead of acting like a step function – either on or off, what if the Prime Minister had offered a ‘measured response’ at each stage of the scandal? At the beginning, Harper would have undermined Guergis with wishy-washy public statements that can’t help but be negative. You can bet all the other cabinet ministers would have taken notice and thought to themselves, “Oh, so this is how the Prime Minister will back me up.” As the scandal progressed, Harper’s reaction would then have gradually intensified with the drip-drip of bad news, each drip followed by another defensive news conference pitting Harper against a press core driven mad with the scent of blood. I can imagine no course of action that would have prolonged the scandal and spread out the damage more than doing this. Not only would the bonds of loyalty between the PM and his cabinet be weakened, but Guergis would most likely still be around - with the opposition demanding her resignation daily.

 Now that she is gone, the best Michael Ignatieff can do is to ask Harper, after the fact, why he canned her.

Dick Morris on why 2010 will be like 1994 on steroids

Bill Clinton’s former polster and probably the smartest political strategist in America today has a very interesting article on the midterm elections upcoming this November. It is worth quoting at length.

“Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called “moderate” Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rises.

 

Were Obama’s ambitions to slacken, perhaps a cooling off might eventuate. But soon the socialist financial takeover bill will come on the agenda, followed by amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap and trade, and card check unionization. Each bill will trigger its own mobilization of public opposition and add to the swelling coalition of opposition to Obama and his radical agenda.

 

And, all the while, the deficit will increase, interest rates will rise, and unemployment will remain high.”

 

“Presaging the Republican sweep that looms ahead, is the shift in the party ratings on various issues. Rasmussen has the Republicans ahead by 49-37 on the economy and 53-37 on health care. His likely voter poll shows GOP leads on every major issue area: national security (49-37), Iraq (47-39), Education (43-30), Immigration (47-34), Social Security (48-36), and Taxes (52-34).

 

When Republicans are winning issues like education, healthy care, and social security – normally solidly Democratic issues – a sweep of unimaginable proportions is in the offing.

 

Will the rise in economic growth and job creation – if they continue — offset the Republican gains? Not very likely. Remember Bill Clinton’s 1994 experience. Even though the recession had officially ended in the quarter before he took office and he proudly pointed to five million new jobs that had been created during the first two years of his presidency, Clinton got no bounce from the jobs issue or the economy. ... It wasn’t until impeachment that the job growth that had been ongoing since he took office began to work heavily in his favor with the public. The hangover from a recession, certainly from one as violent as this, lasts a long time. A very long time.

 

And all this assumes that things will, indeed, improve. Worries about inflation loom large and concerns that higher taxes and interest rates will trigger a new downturn also abound. As long as the deficit is as high as it is, there is no solid foundation for a sustained period of economic growth.

 

Finally, Obama is now responsible for health care in America. When premiums rise, it will be his fault. When coverage is denied, it will be on his watch. When Medicare cuts kick in, it will be Obama who gets the blame.”

 

“Republicans will gain more than fifty House seats and at least ten in the Senate, enough to take control in both Houses. That’s reality.”

 

Why would President Obama forswear the use of nuclear weapons to retaliate against a WMD attack on the US with biological or chemical weapons?

This is the question ricocheting about the internet (for examples, see here, here and  here), ever since the President announced this course of action. What’s worse, he did it entirely on his own initiative without being prompted by any outside pressure. Why would he do that?

The answer is simple. Because he is a surrenderist. As I have defined the term previously, a surrenderist is somebody who wants the side he is on to lose. Which is not the same thing as wanting the other side to win. Surrenderism is the brand of decadence that takes the old joke that a liberal is too high-minded to take his own side in a debate, literally. Surrenderists find the thought of doing things like defending yourself or fighting for victory distasteful, if not morally wrong.

Surrenderists are usually found in environments where people do not have much real-world experience, such as the groves of academia - which is where Obama came from. However, often when surrenderists are confronted with executive responsibility - where they hold real world power for the first time - they begin to slowly change their tune as they experience the wicked ways of the world for the first time in their lives.

Which says something else about Obama, over and above his decadence. With unprompted actions like this, he is showing us that he is too ideologically rigid, or perhaps just too unimaginative, to learn as he goes along.