Moral Compasses 2

People are passionate creatures – we were created that way. Harness that passion and you have created a powerful force. Focus that energy through the lens of moral outrage and you have created a very potent tool. In this state of mind, reason and logic are all but irrelevant as those involved are concerned only with the “rightness or wrongness” of the cause they face; and as long as passions remain inflamed, there can be no meaningful dialogue or resolution. None are more determined (sometimes even dangerous) than those whose passions are driven by misguided religious or moral zeal. Throughout history, this dynamic has been known and often exploited by those who understand it’s power.

A dog-training group to which I once belonged had a convention called “MCS” which stands for Moral Considerations Suspended. The idea was to encourage participation in discussion without the harsh judgments and condemnations that usually flow from moral outrage. This convention was only partially successful; some were able to abide by the request for MCS, while others could not or would not. There is no doubt that a number of topics – including the animals we keep – are often the subject of intense feelings and sometimes heated debate.

After a particularly passionate debate had devolved into arguments over whether certain books should be banned, I decided to withdraw from active participation in that particular group. In that instance what had happened was that those who wanted to simply discuss the topic at hand found themselves (and their own personal viewpoint) under attack. Specifically others responding with passions inflamed, were critical of anyone who would even read such a thing let alone express such opinions. Such viewpoints, they proclaimed, should be banned along with any such books promoting such ideas.

At this point, rather than continuing to discuss the topic under consideration, I found myself getting ready to engage in a debate on censorship. I did not want to possibly end up spending more time and energy than I could afford, trying to reason with people that did not want to be reasoned with as they were already convinced of the moral rightness of their “cause.” Such people would not be open to listening to me or anyone else who held a view other than the one they held. Also, I did not wish to be associated in any way with a group that advocates banning books and censoring speech.

It was ironic that the timing of this particular discussion had taken place just a short time before the eleventh of November. Here we were, on the eve of Remembrance Day, talking of censorship. Had (have) we forgotten those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who willingly gave their lives in battle for our country. They fought in the name of freedom and recognized it for what it is – our most sacred and precious possession. They had valiantly faced tyranny and oppression so that we could speak, think and share ideas freely. Theirs was the expression, “I might not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my last dying breath for your right to say it!”

I thought back to one of my high school teachers whose favourite expression was, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I realized how true this is. Tyrants, despots and dictators always start by removing people’s rights “for the common good.” It seems that in Canada we are being conditioned to gradually give up our individual rights and lose our freedom in order to further the causes of social engineering and political correctness.

In the discussion referred to above, the training methods and books written by William Koehler, “The Monks of New Skete,” and Carol Lee Benjamin were the focus of such “moral” outrage; though various works by other writers were also proclaimed undesirable and acceptable only for the “censor’s pit.” Would today’s “enlightened” authors – those whose views were held to as gospel (today) – be similarly destined for banning tomorrow by a new class of zealots? Once censorship starts, where does it stop?

There is an attitude prevalent, among some of the most zealous that precludes them viewing anything through the “lens of history.” They refuse to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have gone before and insist on making groundless and foolish accusations. To make this point clear, I will draw on my many years of experience in the dog training business...keep in mind however, this example can be applied today to most of the current “social justice” causes.

As it pertains to dogs, some of the most experienced and highly respected trainers, in our midst today, learned and practised the techniques of Saunders, Persall, Koehler, Self, Godsell and many, many others – and here’s a news flash – THE DOGS GOT TRAINED. For a group of neophytes to sit around and say it doesn’t work: that it will cause aggression, that it will ruin your relationship with your dog, etc., etc., etc. is foolish. It’s foolish simply because it does not acknowledge that the methods have already been proven to work on tens of thousands of dogs. Some may even argue the dogs were better behaved and more reliable (this would probably be the basis for a good study – if anyone were ambitious enough). This is not to say that methods cannot be developed and improved upon – but they had to start somewhere.

Discussions such as these serve to highlight an even bigger problem we are faced with...the suppression of truly open discussions in which all viewpoints are welcomed. One competent and able trainer came forward and confirmed that she is one (and I suspect there are many) who feels they must be careful about expressing certain viewpoints. She felt she had to qualify everything she said and worried about the fallout and criticism that she would face if she were to, ‘tells it like it is.’ This dynamic (where people feel they must explain and qualify in order to avoid rejection by their peer group) represents a very important discussion that, in my opinion, has to occur if we, as a group, are to ever acknowledge and benefit from the experiences of others. However, to this point, the idea of having frank open discussions (where all possibilities can be examined and all judgment confined to the question and not the participants) seems to be too threatening to some.

While reviewing that particular debate it occurred to me that this could go on for a very long time and possibly accomplish nothing. Perhaps we are not yet ready to really listen to each other. If so, maybe it’s time to become a bit more pragmatic and a little less consumed by ideology.

How we view our relationship with the animals in our care, and what we consider as our moral obligation to them, will be reflected in our beliefs about life in general. Whether or not one is a member of any particular religious group (for example) it seems to me that central to ones philosophy on life is the question of whether or not one believes in an intelligent, creative power that is greater than themselves. If you believe all life is here because of some giant explosion followed by just the right combinations of random acts, you might have radically different views than if you believe there was some intelligent design and creative force at work.

In the first instance you might view all life as equal, all actions as motivated strictly by self-gain and the concept of “rights” as something to which all ‘combinations of DNA’ are equally entitled. Since that philosophy does not include God, or any higher power, it would state that there is no ultimate moral authority and moral considerations, like all other motivations, stem from the self. On the other hand, if all life flows from a higher power (God), if life is somehow connected with and subject to that creative force, then our rights and responsibilities – our understanding of right and wrong – flow from that same higher power. Just to be clear, my personal beliefs put me within this second camp.

If one’s view is that there is no ultimate moral authority (outside of themselves) than all their moral considerations like all other motivations are self-determined and come from within. Under such circumstances the very foundation of their worldview and their whole value system would be very unstable and vulnerable. It seems to me that such an individual’s ‘moral compass’ could quite easily fall under the influence and control of any group or individual that is able to manipulate their emotional state and/or apply meaningful social pressure. As such groups or persons become (in effect) the moral authority, they gain tremendous power and control over the individual.

Such dynamics work in a similar manner at the group level as well. In larger groups of people, not everyone needs to be convinced, simply get enough people onside with your aims and you have the means to impose the control on everyone else. The best defence against this process is to insist in pursuit of the the truth and open honest discussion. Allowing all relevant facts and actual experiences (ie., the truth) to be discussed is threatening to those who desire to replace ‘freedom of choice’ with ‘freedom from choice.’

Believe it or not, this does have something to do with dog training! Dog training practices and discussions have been subjected to the same passionate focus as anything else having to do with the care and keeping of animals. This fact alone has made dog training vulnerable to the manipulations and subversive activities of various agendas and causes – not the least of which is the Animal Rights movement. If you think the Animal Rights agenda has confined itself to helping cute little fur seals on the ice flows off Newfoundland, you are mistaken.

The Animal Rights movement opposes all who value human life (above other forms of life) as well as anyone whose religious beliefs place man above the animals. Such individuals, groups and movements (in contrast to the Animal Rights movements that view human kind as blight upon the planet) see mankind as having a rightful place on this earth. These groups are, in fact, seen as the greatest threat to the successful conclusion of the AR agenda. It is interesting to note that a great many of the world’s major religions hold both the concepts of ‘dominion over’ and ‘stewardship for’ all that was created. It is also worth noting that most folks within the Animal Rights movement reject the concept of “intelligent design” and opt for “random chance.” They add their voice to all who attempt to deny, discredit, denounce and abandon the concept of any higher power. Acceptance of such a higher creative power makes their objectives illegitimate for it removes from them the moral authority that they covet.

It is my belief that man was created as a free moral agent – free to choose and responsible for his choices. In a free society, government receives any authority it may have, from the citizens and that authority is restricted with very definite limits. Government has no authority to shift those limits and take on more power and control for itself. Our rights, our freedom does not come from the good graces of the government. Allowing government any more than a very limited role - with clearly defined areas of responsibility - in a free society, will almost certainly lead to a gradual but progressive loss of individual freedom. Allowing special interest groups and social causes to gain their objectives through government legislation can only lead (ultimately) to friction and strife. I don’t want governments making moral choices for me and I certainly don’t want any Animal Rights group dictating laws and moral policy.

The Globalist Undermining of Western Civilization and Personal Freedoms

Growing up, I understood several important things about the blessing that was mine growing up in a western democratic country. An oft repeated phrase – especially when differences were noted – was, “It’s a free country”…and indeed it was. I was aware that those precious freedoms came at a great price and that they should never be taken for granted. It was also stressed that those freedoms must be protected and would sometimes have to be defended – but in all cases, we must, “Stand on guard for thee.” I was also very aware that actions had consequences and further, we were not doing anyone any favours should we attempt to protect or shield the individual from those consequences – though sometimes mercy might mitigate the outcome.

Over the years, it has made me very sad to see the attacks against and gradual demise of those very things that made my country great. Slowly at first and then with ever increasing speed the attacks have been relentless. Looking at our friends to the south…the USA is also undergoing those very same attacks and with some very similar results. Looking towards other western countries, there is also varying amounts of decay and decline. Some parts of Europe already are largely a basket case – in my opinion. Is this all by accident or by design? 

One of the strongest arguments for the promotion of western societal values has been the success of those nations operating as (truly) free and democratic societies. Our Judeo-Christian values, freedoms AND civic responsibilities, coupled with strong national identities and interests has led to the successes enjoyed by such countries. Those, whose goal is to destroy and supplant successful western democratic nations, would first have to engineer their failure by destroying all that had made them successful. Succeed in doing that, and you just might then get enough support to implement a globalist agenda of some sort. Of course if such an agenda were going to succeed, it could not appear to be an attack – it would have to be made to appear as something desirable, humanitarian…progressive even. Sounds paranoid, you say? …well, let’s just stop and consider a few things. 

Here in (no particular order) are just a few areas which have been under a sustained and growing attack: 

1. Borders - Recent events (such as the huge influx of illegal immigrants overrunning national boundaries, the rise in “sanctuary” cities, states and territories as well as active resistance by the political left toward border enforcement) all point at the push toward eliminating sovereign borders. A number of left-wing organizations are funding and actively subverting existing laws while pushing toward so called, “open societies.” Sadly, while borders still can be found on maps, in a number of cases they have become incredibly weak. 

2. National Identity – Along with the weakening and near elimination of borders, there has also been a determined effort to deny, destroy or eradicate the history, cultural norms and symbols that are all part of a national and cultural identity. Indeed, the disastrous policies of official-multiculturalism have wreaked havoc on the cultural identities of a number of western countries. Such policy (always a darling of the “progressive” elites) is finally facing much deserved push-back and rejection – one can only hope the damage is not yet irreversible. 

Indeed, following the 2015 election in Canada, Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be the world’s first “post-national country” and added, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” It seemed that the damaging Trudeau-regime ideals, begun by his father decades earlier, had finally been realized. 

In an article titled, “For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada,” Ricardo Duchesne, Professor of Sociology, UNB and author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” writes (in part) the following: 

“Today, the mainstream media and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity. Canadians then were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not racist, but merely ethnocentric, that is, a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies. As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another, inside Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”... 

…How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is racist and xenophobic to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time, that every non-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada? How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s. The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.” 

The article concludes with:

“The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage and refusing to join the multiculti choruses is despised as a xenophobic outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any particular European group, wishing to retain its identity. Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage. They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of non-European “diversity” and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West. Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto? 

Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet.” 

Quoting from a National Post article titled, “Trudeau's experiment with multiculturalism has been a failure” author George Jonas writes in part: 

“In the 1960s, inspired by the spirit of the times, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his merry band of sorcerer’s apprentices, embarked on what seemed to them a jolly social experiment. It entailed altering this country’s ethno-cultural makeup, along with its institutions and ethos.” 

“Canada’s brave new progressive-liberal-socialist mandarins devised on a three-step program to revamp the country culturally and demographically. It involved (a) reducing immigration from “traditional’ (read: West European) sources; (b) increasing it from non-traditional sources, and (c) dismantling Conservative Prime Minister (till 1963) John Diefenbaker’s ideal society of unhyphenated Canadians and replacing it with Trudeaucratic Liberalism’s ideal of a multicultural Canada.” 

In the mean time, those wanting to hold to their traditions, national identity and culture, are being subjected to slander, ridicule and socialist style bullying tactics. Liberalized definitions of words like “racism” are being liberally used to taunt the more conservative amongst us whilst encouraging the left-wing generated hostility against those of us they choose to label as xenophobic. 

3. History - “In war, truth is the first casualty.” ― Aeschylus 

Whether or not you believe it or like it, our society is embroiled in a war – a culture war and the stakes are high. If you’ve read the article thus far, you are aware of what I’m referring to. Our past, the successes and struggles of our western societies are being targeted as a part of that war. To remove symbols of the past, to rewrite our history and to recast and demonize the accomplishments of those who have preceded us has been a consistent goal of the Liberal Progressives – for if we can hold on to those successes and celebrate our past, their larger goal of undermining and supplanting our western democracies becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to achieve. If they can succeed in destroying our history – and with it, our roots – they can perhaps move us toward their ultimate goal of a global socialist state. 

4. Family – The basic building blocks of any society and indeed one of its greatest strengths is the strength and well-being of the individual family unit. A strong family unit - teaching and passing on the history and values of the society of which it is a part – contributes to the growth and health of that society. Destroy the family unit, and the society of which it is a part, begins to crumble. There is no question that in the west, the basic family unit has been under constant attack. 

Divorce has been made far too easy to obtain. Because people are free to walk away from their “long-term” commitment for no other reason than they no longer wish to be married, means there is far less motivation to do the hard work required to make marriage work. To this point, I am not questioning divorce for cause (such as abuse or adultery etc) but specifically the “no-fault,” -just walk away from your spouse ‘cause you fell out of love- divorce that has become so prevalent. 

Subsequent to the significant weakening of the marriage contract, we’ve seen a sustained push for redefining marriage away from the traditional meaning that has served humanity for thousands of years. This along with attacks on both masculine and feminine role models plus attacks against human gender and what that means, has left many of the children of today with poor or missing role models, an unstable/uncertain home life and great confusion about who and what they are. This, then, becomes the perfect situation into which the state steps to take on those missing parts that should rightly be fulfilled within a stable family unit. Just recently, the former Liberal government in Ontario happily declared their role within the school system as that of “co-parent.” And they have shown a readiness to take on that role aggressively as they both undermine and supplant the rightful role of parents. 

5. Basic Freedoms - The rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so long are being whittled away at an increasing rate as they come under an almost daily attack. Special attention is paid to eliminating the individual right to express ourselves, our opinions and to speak freely. As well, our right to defend ourselves and our basic god-given rights to guard our person and property against all others (including our own government if necessary) is under constant threat and challenge by the political left. 

6. Economy – Any country can be brought to the point of collapse if the economy can be made to fail. The chaos that results from a failing economy lends itself to the imposition of autocratic forceful control and the crackdown on individual freedom – all in the name of restoring order. Western economies have been placed under tremendous pressures – many of them self-imposed. We’ve seen decades of liberal policies building larger and larger debt loads, rising taxes and failing promises. All this is done as a kind of left-wing ideal where the state ultimately is to become the one who will take care of us all in a kind of cradle to grave utopia. This, of course, has led to social programs and entitlements that consume more and more of the country’s ability to pay. Add to this, the ever increasing mound of bureaucratic red-tape and government oversight – couple that with government literally giving away money it does not have and you have the basis of choking out any chance of recovery.

Add to all this the open borders, couple that with an invasion of illegal migrants stimulated, motivated and financed by left-wing causes, have them overwhelm the country’s social and legal systems and in short order, economies become precariously unstable. Oh, and on top of that, throw in a unproven unscientific carbon reduction protocol couple it with a global wealth redistribution plan and the economic failure is complete. 

7. Churches – Many of the principles leading to the successes of western democracies have their roots in their Judeo-Christian foundation. Much of what has made these cultures desirable and attractive also have the same Judeo-Christian beginnings. The peaceful coexistence of church and state has seen nations free and prosperous. Today, those same Judeo-Christian principles and ideals are being attacked and restricted as the state seeks first to regulate and then to fulfill much that was once a part of the role of the church. 

8. Schools – I’ve already mentioned schools, as the education system seeks to take on a co-parenting role in the raising our children. I think it needs to be stressed that academics, which was once (by social contract and understanding) the schools primary role, is no longer. Schools were known as where children went to learn the so-called “3 R’s” and they were never intended to parent children. Learning right from wrong, ethics and morality, how to become a responsible person and a good citizen, cultural celebrations and norms…all were the issues that were the responsibility of parents in a stable and loving family. 

Of course now schools have taken (at the granting of the progressive state) many of those roles. Parents often have no idea what their children are being taught but sadly, little of it seems to be of an academic value (as witnessed by abysmal math, reading and writing skills). In some cases the parents are being told they do not even have the right to know exactly what their child is being taught – particularly when it comes to state-decided morality issues. With early and long-term indoctrination, the state has the ability to train up a generation of people who will carry forth the global-socialist ideals the left seems so determined to realize. 

I’ve presented just eight short examples of why I think there is a larger agenda driving the chaos and discord we see in our society today. I recognize that each could be debated at a much greater length and what I presented is just the barest of summaries for each point. It is my desire that in presenting these view points, thought and possibly further discussion will be stimulated. As they used to say on a very popular television show, “The truth is out there.”