Skip to content

Maybe We Didn’t Love Freedom Enough

“The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen.”  Mark Steyn

Medical student Kevin Bass recently wrote about the ideological capture of a range of professions in the United States. He published a spread of graph compilations showing how industries have become far-left. 

Bass’s data set comes from Stanford’s Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections.

Jordan Peterson’s victimization in Canada, where the “ideological capture” of professions is, if anything, more thorough and wide-ranging than America’s, is not surprising if you look at this data about Psychology

The results for Big Tech and Education were equally predictable. But not so for other professionals like accountants or engineers whose work, one would have thought, provides little scope for ideology. Certainly the  medical profession’s embrace of trans ideology is rather shocking. However, I am no longer surprised by anything that psychiatrists come to believe. Political psychiatry was a common  practice in totalitarian dictatorships so it shouldn’t be unexpected here. 

What conclusion can one draw from this comprehensive capitulation of professional integrity and objectivity? Changing governments, passing new legislation or “draining the swamp” will not suffice if millions of professionals have become devotees of woke ideology. It is one thing to see university presidents, administrators, and teachers’ union bosses behave like enforcers of Minitrue, but another to see the rank and file of their organizations join in on the swarming with such eagerness. 

When, for example, you see hundreds of college teachers sign a petition demanding that a fellow professor be stripped of tenure for expressing Wrong Think in the classroom, you know that the entire barrel of apples is rotten with partisanship.

That is why I feel that reliance upon the courts or the justice system, or various grievance procedures in government licensed professions is, at this point in history, naïve and ill-considered. Every branch of government and the public sector has become, to one degree or another, infiltrated and  “weaponized”. That is why it has become a buzzword. 

Such was the case in postwar Soviet satellite states and Germany in the last stages of the Weimar Republic. Consider the fate of Hans Litten and Josef Hartiginer. 

They followed legal procedures and succeeded in compiling irrefutable evidence of gross and flagrant violations of the law by Hitler and his regime. The evidence went up the chain to the commanding heights of the Ministry, only to be dismissed, ignored or filed in a drawer. These dogged warriors did not realize that the judicial system they once knew had become fatally permeated by Nazis. It had become “Nazified” in the same fashion that the legal system and state apparatus of  postwar Eastern European nations were “”Sovietized, or American colleges were “Marxified” over the last four decades. 

Not to equate the Canada of 2024 with the Germany of 1932-33, I  feel that too many “dissident” Canadians suffer from the same blindness. I seriously believe that we may have passed the point where non-violent and legal avenues can reverse our precipitous slide from soft to hard totalitarianism.

Jordan Peterson said that he is fortunate enough to have the resources to contest the adverse court decision in favour of the governing body of clinical psychologists in Ontario, but other clinical psychologists do not have that advantage. “The court has placed a high price on freedom of expression in Canada.” Indeed. 

No doubt many readers would consider the notion of armed resistance to tyranny in Canada as clearly delusional. This nation is awash with “Emergency Response Teams” of gung-ho macho men who get their jollies by dressing up in paramilitary garb and appearing in force to intimidate peaceful pastors and protestors alike. The lack of proportionality in these police actions is so absurd as to be funny if it were not so serious. “Over the top” doesn’t cover it. Those foolish enough to play the state’s game of violence would end up dead or confined to solitary confinement without trial.

Yes, the system is in the early stages of collapse and governments are too incompetent or impotent to solve the problems that are overwhelming them. But that is what makes them dangerous. If there is one thing a soft or hard totalitarian state is good at, it is violent suppression. Counter-violence is suicidal. Or so goes the consensus.

So if we can’t rely upon the courts or the constitution, and peaceful protest is crushed as it was in Ottawa in January of 2022, and violent resistance is off the table, what can be done? Can we vote our way out of this mess? Will a war or a global financial meltdown come to our rescue? Or would it give tyrants another excuse to declare an emergency?  

The hard truth is that we had our chance to stop tyranny in its tracks.  But we didn’t. We didn’t because we are Canadians. We are culturally programmed to avoid conflict at any cost. So we give in. We accommodate. We do so because we think, naively, that seemingly trivial and inconsequential concessions will buy permanent peace and harmony. But as Jordan Peterson once remarked, psychopaths feast on pleasant accommodating people. Canada doesn’t need any more nice people.

Our concessions only fuel the appetites of radical activists, anti-white racists and trans bullies. Their demands only grow with each victory.  Eventually, “reasonable accommodation” becomes unreasonable accommodation. Then, and only then, when our backs are against the wall, do we pushback. Too late.  

Notice that when we do fight back, as the heroic truckers did, as Pastor Artur Pawloski did, we are called, among other things, “extremists”.  But extremism in the defence of liberty is,as Barry Goldwater famously said, no vice. I proudly concede that I am indeed an extremist. And I have company.

The questions I would pose to our accusers are these:

Are we extremists, or are the circumstances we find ourselves in extreme? 

I think the latter. Extreme circumstances—extreme deprivation of our natural rights, extreme censorship, extreme de-banking, extreme immigration intakes, extreme replacement of our founding peoples, extreme violations of parental rights, extreme indoctrination of our students…surely excuse “extreme” responses. Or did you seriously expect that all of us would roll over and accept the erasure of our ethnocultural heritage, the demonization of our race, the eradication of our symbols, the mischaracterization of our founding fathers, the marginalizaton and displacement of Canadians of European ancestry,  reverse discrimination  in the guise of “equity”, and the absurdities of transgender ideology?

I guess you did. Or maybe not. Otherwise, the Trudeau government would not be so frantic in their effort to confiscate our guns. Would they?

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs doo and at every step of the staircase, but had understood that they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a half! If…if….We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation…We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The  Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Please follow and like us: