This entry was inspired by an essay titled “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature” that was penned by economist and libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard. Here in Canada, particularly in Southern Ontario, we have seen the emergence of what is called diaspora politics wherein immigrants or pseudo-immigrants (i.e. community college/international student exploiters) have decided to come in to Canada for purely materialistic reasons and will support or will be recruited by certain ideologically-driven institutions who are tasked with promoting a multi-cultural facade that engenders a false sense of morality. In other words, we can all appreciate a principle of humanity that upholds the dignity of persons, but the idea that we must accept unlimited immigration to fulfil this principle is a fallacy because geo-political conflicts are either technical conflicts that revolve around resources or are cultural conflicts. From what I gather, the Canadian body politic is no longer in the cultural stage as it relates to debating the merits of multi-culturalism, but is now in the technical stage as housing costs and unemployment soar even among those demographics who benefit from multi-cultural lip service. In essence, multi-culturalism is egalitarianism, and this particular egalitarianism is tied to the socialist ideal of having a welfare state where people are constantly indebted to the government or “Big Brother” because all sources of income are income that government permits. If one owns a successful catering company, but criticizes a particular religion or immigration itself, then one of the many interest groups that there are will notify law enforcement who will arbitrarily freeze your bank account and keep you in an indefinite state of pre-trial or pre-investigative monetary or physical detention until your status is determined.
The herd mentality behind the international student racket is not too distinct from the herd mentality behind the tent city racket wherein the addicted congregate. Herd values develop due to a poorly developed self-culture where base materialism is prioritized over higher culture. Once this diasporic materialism becomes pandemic-like, we start seeing certain municipalities become overpopulated and thus degraded. Artificial population growth begets poverty much like how drug and alcohol addiction beget poverty. A combination of the two causes a great number of parks and other landscapes to be ruined as seen in Toronto and Vancouver where tent cities ruined nearby parks due to the habits of the addicted. Moreover, these tent cities are mostly populated by Anglo-Canadians who had migrated from other parts of the municipality or province to settle in these parks on mass. So, why should we increase the level of homelessness by driving immigrants or international students to homelessness through depression-induced addiction because none of them can find jobs or do have jobs but can’t make ends meet in a inflationary environment? None of this makes any sense. In addition to linguistic and cultural issues (as seen with international students fraudulently taking “free food” from food banks), we also have logistical issues that in themselves defeat the false liberalism of any political party who endorses herd-minded immigration.
As it relates to culture, look at, for instance, the conflicts between Khalistani separatists and Indian unionists as seen during Operation Blue Star. The Sikh separatists known as Khalistani’s are due there freedom of religion because such freedom is a natural right in that it comes from their humanity. All of mankind has a natural religion, so it follows that freedom of religion is a natural right regardless of what one thinks of heresy or schism. These separatists also have a intellectual right (the right to hold hotly contested abstract ideas) and a pragmatic right (the right to practice their variant of Sikhism), but they do not have a political right to impose their variant of Sikhism on non-militant Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, or secular persons who are indifferent. If the separatists want a distinctly Sikh province, then it would be wiser for them to acquire more administrative control to ensure that the province does not suffer from mass immigration that is of a cosmopolitan profile. Similarly, if the various provinces in Canada want to maintain their cultural identity, then border control is also important as every immigrant is not equal on a individual level let alone a cultural level in that radical differences beget harsh objections. Such harshness can also bring about physical violence as seen in Brampton when Khalistani’s clashed with Hindu/Indian nationalists who were celebrating Diwali (Khalistanis clash with Hindus on Diwali in Canada's Brampton, shows alleged video - India Today).
Culturally speaking, Anglophone and Francophone Canadians do not have such harsh religio-political conflicts (conflicts that involve the use of legalistic or purely military force that is meant to suppress dissent without due process) because priorities change as urban structure changes. Religious conflicts may have been more prevalent in prior generations, but such conflicts are all academic today. Imported religious conflicts occur when immigrants stop being benign workers ( as seen with temporary Mexican workers) and become immigrants who care only for a countries resources but could care less or even have contempt for the legal system or the cultural profile of the country, then we see parallel societies develop which are the cocoon that diaspora politics develops in. When these societies become hubs of culture instead of being a collection of benign workers, they develop interest groups who compete with other interest groups for Big Brothers recognition through social policy. This is why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party, a party that regularly captures 90 plus percent of the Muslim vote, appointed Amira Elghawaby as a special representative in combatting “Islamophobia”. Islamophobia is, of course, just a buzz term that is used to auto-critique and thus censor any criticism of Islam even though that criticism is an expression of intellectual freedom much like how criticism of Lutheranism or Pentecostalism would not be considered “Lutherophobic” or “Pentophobic” because theological disagreements do not come out of hatred but a conflict of visions. If substance X and Y do not mix, then they do not mix.
Speaking of X’s and Y’s not mixing, Rothbard notes that the regime conservatives (or those on the mainstream Right) often concede the abstract ethical high ground to the Left by asserting that egalitarianism is good “on paper” or “in theory”, but is of no practical use in literal reality. Once this concession is made, it begs the question as to what egalitarianism could look like in practice which then encourages one to experiment. Look at, for instance, the trend of so-called sexual diversity wherein people take pride during a trademarked Pride month to show off their sexual identity by expressing it in pornographic ways or in ways that are meant to arouse the viewer and break the barriers of hetero-normativity-that is, the norms associated with being a straight male or female. I would also assume that inclusivity as it relates to Pride day is a day where straight males are “permitted” to indulge in sexual relations without walls-in other words, a lassiez-fare approach to sexual ethics where everyone is included and is encouraged try out being gay or being publicly naked for a day. Such sexual expression inadvertently offends the imported religious concerns that ministers of “Islamophobia” hold close in that such a spectacle naturally begets phobias for all religious or social conservatives who are not L.G.B.T affirming. So, as Rothbard notes, when conservatives concede the theoretical to those who promote egalitarianism, note that they are conceding to a theory of inclusivity that is so self-defeating that it can not be can be considered sound in theory let alone practice. Interestingly, the egalitarians or what we may broadly call the Left are more intent on actualizing their ideals whereas the conservatives are more intent on winning philosophical debates.
This observation brings us to Rothbard’s point about the “virus” of practicality in that conservatives (or the Right) are easily dominated by the Left because conservatives care about being “practical” within the status quo. In an attempt to conserve certain customs, they have unwittingly conserved a staple tool of leftist politics known as democracy which is simply glorified and formalized mob rule. Rothbard notes that many conservatives, much like the regime conservatives here in Canada that are of the progressive conservatives or of some off-shoot entity that differs to a degree but remains within the status quo, claim practicality as it relates to combatting explicit sex education, but avoid making their ethical position clear as to which ethical commitments they are specifically making and how their ethical position differs from the mainstream conservative position. Without a clear vision as to what “conservative” Canada looks like, all of what they stand for is mere lip service because they can not actualize their vision with as much clarity as someone on the Left can. Without such clarity, conservatives may still become “practical” or free of all leftist intellectual influences within academia but will unwittingly become slaves of some defunct political theory that that happens to come from the Left-such as democracy.
Democracy and egalitarianism are inseparable. Those who are socially conservative do not seem to grasp that their social views are too ambiguous to be taken seriously. Some variant of social conservatism may be relevant in a small country like Slovenia, but in a much larger country like Canada, a country that was far more pluralistic than Slovenia even when it was a smaller country, such conservatism is of not use because it can not specify what social conventions it seeks to conserve. It is impossible, therefore, to narrow down what the conservative ideal is given the complexity of society even if that society is largely homogenous. Whenever one engages in such political discussions, they quickly find themselves in a fact-value bind in that the conservative values his or her political theory to the point where they exclude facts because the facts refute the metaphysically posited ought’s of the theory. They say that society ought to embrace traditional marriage, but society is not in a position to embrace such a tradition on mass because it may not be popular for many reasons. The liberals (or Left) assert that society ought to embrace diversity but do not actually embrace diversity in practice because X tends to avoid Y because X and Y are incompatible.
End of Part 1.