A Critical Reading of the Old Testament / TaNaKh: Academic Journal Entries, January 14th to 28th, 2016

Academic Entry for Class of January 14^th, 2016

Response 1: General Context

The history of Western civilization—and thus, most traditions of recorded history—root from the practical, political, traditional, and spiritual applications of the Bible in its many minutely altered forms. In this case, we are studying the “Genesis” of the Bible in itself, through its beginnings as the early Jewish holy book of the TaNaKh, long before a “New” Testament ever claimed to supersede its revelations.

In this study, its intractable ties to Mesopotamian mythology are made quite evident (for example: the uncanny parallels between the Mesopotamian myth of “enuma elish” and Genesis). What is clear is that most of the so-called Old Testament is a series of ancient creation stories amalgamated and re-purposed to fit the theological template of the ancient Israelites. This sort of cultural re-appropriation is nothing new in history, but this observation as applied to the Bible most certainly is. Until recently, the Bible had always been studied as a book of literal fact as opposed to allegorical myth. To question its authority was sacrosanct—or, at the very least, any new findings of fact were forced to somehow compromise with the TaNaKh as interpreted literally. Now, we have reached a level either of required cultural maturity (if one is to believe in progress) or cultural dissociation enough that we are able to study the Bible as thoroughly as we have studied other ancient texts. What one can find in exploring this subject themselves is akin to the intellectual excitement one feels reading The Da Vinci Code before realizing its horrible inaccuracy (though it never claimed to be anything more than a work of fiction, so it's of more meaning to critique Dan Brown's writing rather than his general plot points).

Response 2: From the Textbook

“You are attending a Sunday School class that happens to be discussing the book of Genesis. Your teacher says that it was written by Moses. You feel like showing off your newfound knowledge by explaining the reasons some scholars think otherwise.”

The idea of a singular Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch—or the Old Testament in general—is contested by scholars of the Documentary Hypothesis. Though the dates of composition are relative to educated estimates, there are too many asynchronous passages, outright contradictions, and diverse terminology in the text for most scholars to entertain the idea of singular authorship anymore; as it stands, it's asserted there are at least four main sources: J, E, D, and P.

J stands for Yahweh, as J makes a Yah sound in German, denoting the Yahwist (or Jehovah) source, focused mainly on the bare-bones of the Bible, and with a preference toward Yahweh or Jehovah as the name of God. This is followed closely by (and, in the eyes of many scholars, inseparable from) the E source, E denoting Elohim as the preferred name for God. In the case of J and E, there is debate over whether both sources were written or redacted apart from one another, as the E source has nothing in the way of standalone text, and seems only to supplement the J source. The D source is the clearest of them all, D simply meaning Deuteronomy (or Deuteronomic), credited with the entire book of Deuteronomy and all interjected references to it in all the books prior and following.

Last, but not least, we have the P source. P standing for Priestly, this source concerns the etiquette of old Jewish ritual practices on purity, familial bonds, commandments, etc.

Still other Biblical scholars reject the JEDP hypothesis as they'd rather think of the Bible as a mainly oral tradition that eventually found its way to text; by this, they main to assert that both authorship and particular redaction are too multifarious to condense to only four sources.

Academic Entry for Class of January 21^st, 2016

Response 1: General Context

Just as the Mesopotamian creation story of enuma elish is mirrored in the start of Genesis, as is the Akkadian story of Gilgamesh mirrored in the tale of Noah and the Flood. This is an important point to bear in mind, as the Bible has often been seen as the source of all archetypes, when in fact it is simply a rich manifestation of archetypes which had already been in existence for centuries—perhaps even millennia—prior. It is a series of justifications (why did the people of Canaan deserve to be put to the sword? Because of that strange episode in Noah's tent with his Canaanite son), explanations (how did the world come to be? What is the meaning of life?), and cautionary tales (if humans, instead of God, try to decide what is good and what is evil, there is nothing but disaster, as is depicted in the fall from the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge; this episode also acts as an explanation for why humans must suffer and die). The story of Noah is also where the narrative of the Bible shifts from the story of the world, to the story of God's “chosen people,” the Israelites, tracing in rather rushed detail the advance of generations up to Abraham.

Response 2: From the Textbook

“You tell the teacher of your Sunday School class that you are taking a course that studies the Bible from a historical and literary perspective, rather than from the perspective of faith. Your teacher thinks that this is a waste of time, since only someone with a religious commitment to the Bible can understand it. Do you agree or disagree? State your reasons why.”

If I were being brutally honest, I would tell my Sunday School teacher this: from the perspective of faith—or, at least from a perspective of faith upon which it is presupposed that studying the Bible from any other perspective other than faith is a waste of time—it is a cultish obsession that does not investigate the work in context, but in and of itself for personal reasons. Sort of like reading Harry Potter as nonfiction or self-help.

In all honesty, the only real way to truly adsorb the lessons of the Bible may be through a reading of the text complimented with as deep an understanding of its context as one can possibly garner through academic study and personal investigation. If one is honest about where these books came from, and reads them not on an elevated pedestal, but eye to eye, the wisdom of the allegory becomes accessible, readily integrated on many different levels. First of all, one comes to understand the anthropological significance of the Bible, as the opening of Genesis spells out clearly the ancient three-tiered worldview (water above, in the firmament, and water below, with land floating precariously in between, though free of the burdens of our modern laws of physics so it may be less precarious than my intuition will allow me to acknowledge). Second, within the many tales of God's almighty (though at times petty) wrath, there really are stories with interesting, rather spiritually nuanced lessons to teach. One of my personal favorites is when God has decided to destroy Sodom and Gommorah, announcing these plans to Abraham during one of his appearances. Abraham's nephew, Lot, along with his daughters, are living in Sodom at the time, prompting Abraham to try and bargain with God. He asks, in numbered increments starting at 50 and going down, if God found however many innocent people within the city, would he spare it, to which God always replies with yes. In the end, angels come to warn Lot of the impending destruction, but the story finishes on a rather twisted note when Lot has sex with his two daughters after escaping Sodom, driving the point that the evil of Sodom has infected all three of them irredeemably (they are impure).

Academic Entry for Class of January 28^th, 2016

Response 1: General Context

Throughout the last half of Genesis, the format is reasonably compressed enough as to make one wonder if these stories were once larger at some point, connected as in a saga, but still self-contained in enough aspects as to warrant them standing alone. It gives the impression, at times, of being a series of rundown synopsis with the most essential excerpts injected or interjecting, sometimes entirely out of the blue, and at other times very fluidly. Perhaps the book of Genesis in itself was once comprised of more than one book—or, considering the age of the story, more than one self-contained oral tradition—which were integrated and amalgamated into the asynchronous format we have today. Some evidence for this comes in the form of the Documentary Hypothesis itself, with or without which one can still see God arbitrarily decide to rename Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah, with God himself going by different names throughout the text: Yahweh, Elohim, or El Shaddai. This is not to mention the two separate accounts of Genesis in Genesis 1 and 2, or the rest of the otherwise non-sensical contradictions within the text. Some argue these contradictions are not separate sources, however, and instead the result of deliberate chiastic structure. In some regards, they may be right; but so far, the only Biblical scholars I've seen pushing this interpretation as a uniform standard are those who cannot let go of creationism (see, for example, the Biblical scholarship critiquing the Documentary Hypothesis on creation.com).

Response 2: From the Textbook

“Your roommate says that if the world was not created in six days, then there is nothing to learn from the Bible. What do you say?”

That's like saying “if Star Wars didn't actually happen a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, then there is nothing to learn from Star Wars.” Perhaps this hypothetical roommate is a bit of an ideological scientific reductionist, and thus would agree with my statement on Star Wars, calling it a wonderful work of escapism, and nothing more. Though I too would call it a wonderful work of escapism, I wouldn't round this observation off with “and nothing more.” This would be a classic case of someone discounting the value and importance of myth in all regards; in the past, present, future, and general contexts. Star Wars has much to teach in the way of inherited archetypes, as well as illustrating a clear divide between 'good' and 'evil,' while still immersed in shades of gray, illustrating that humanity is capable of horror for what it may truly believe is a good reason. Both Star Wars and the Bible are myths of the highest order, and not in the derogatory “this is nothing but a silly myth” sense, but in the literary sense. One need only read Joseph Campbell's “The Hero With a Thousand Faces” to understand the mutual thread running through all myth, regardless of its place, date, or person(s) of origin. There are universal themes of failure and redemption, creation and destruction, heroes and villains, etc. all of which are of immense value when exploring the nature of the human condition, the history of human perception (both external and self-perception), and, in the case of the Bible and all other holy books, understanding a text that acts as a bedrock or precedent for three of the worlds largest religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).  

PLEASE NOTE: THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AS A SERIES OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL ENTRIES RESPONDING TO EACH 3-HOUR CLASS ON CRITICALLY READING THE OLD TESTAMENT / TANAKH.

A Critical Reading of the Old Testament / TaNaKh: Academic Journal Entries, February 4th to March 3rd, 2016

Academic Entry for Class of February 4^th, 2016

Response 1: General Context

Though it's unlikely that Moses existed as portrayed (the debate is and will probably remain ongoing), there does seem to be some indication of an exodus-like event having occurred in or around the relevant time-frame. Though it was undoubtedly much smaller than mythologized in the Tanakh and in general Biblical tradition, it's novel to imagine the real event as it might have been, and even more interesting to speculate on the phases the mythologization of the event underwent in the years, decades, and centuries following. And to what end, who's eclectic agendas was the tale made to serve? How often was the story told with disingenuity, and how often did it come from the lips of a genuine individual, ready to accept the felt hypocrisy of their impulses when contrasted with commandment?

The scenes when God leaves manna which the Israelites cook into loaves of bread or small cakes reminds me of one of the opening character vignettes in the recently released Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. In it, the audience is introduced to Rey, the freshman female protagonist of the new trilogy and, at this point in the story, a lowly scavenger of spare parts on the Outer Rim desert planet of Jakku. In exchange for her scavenged valuables, she is given daily rations packets not at all unlike the all-purpose manna left by God. When removed from the packet, it's a beige glob of dough which is then cooked into—you guessed it—what looks a lot like miraculously conceived loaves of bread and small cakes. This may not be a finer point of similarity between these legends, but it is, I think, indicative of an archetypal pattern.

Response 2: From the Textbook

“You are in a discussion about religion with your roommates, and one of them tells you that she has learned that Judaism is, and always has been, a highly legalistic religion. It is all about trying to please God by following a detailed and impossible list of do's and don'ts. In her view, no one can possibly do all these things. Do you agree or not? State your reasons, in as much detail as you can.”

In most regards, this impression is warranted. Likely, because it's not an incorrect impression. But there is more to Judaism than an all-pervasive legalism. In fact, it could be argued that much of Judaism is less to do with orthodox legalism, per se, as with open and continued interpretation (hence the Rabbinic tradition and midrash). What the text is ultimately telling you is dependent on how literally or allegorically one interprets its contents. It's true that the conservative orthodox community abides by Judaism as a highly legalistic religion; and it's also true that legal language is utilized throughout the entirety of the Tanakh (eg: God's 'covenant' with the House of Jacob), but there is no universal Jewish standard except in theory (just as there is not one way to interpret the Quaran, hence 'internal' sectarian divides that are really only as 'internal' as the split of Islam from its Abrahamic predecessors, Judaism and Christianity; the difference between Lutheran Christianity and Bahai Islam is often just as great as the difference between Sunni Islam and Bahai, as in none are very similar and are thus not reasonably generalized into vaguer classifications).

Academic Entry for Class of February 11^th, 2016

Response 1: General Context

Having escaped the oppression of Egypt, the Israelites now enter a land that is not really theirs and commit wanton genocide by the supposed grace of God. That divine commandment can somehow erase this obvious hypocrisy in a flood of zealous theological rationalization should, in all fairness, remind us of the same attitude (and it is the same attitude) as it exists with us today: in the genocidal zealotry of the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Jabhat al-Nusra. They all feel as righteous and divinely justified as Joshua at the legendary battle of Jericho (“They exterminated everything in the city with the sword: man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass” (Joshua 6:21)), or David after defeating Goliath, putting the remaining Philistines to the sword (“the Philistines fell mortally wounded along the road to Shaarim ... [t]hen the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines and looted their camp. David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem...” (I Samuel, 17:52-54)). Rationalizing these stated atrocities, whether they truly occurred or not, isn't an honest reading of the text; and trying to justify these mass murders by pointing out that it was God who commanded them as part of his mysterious plan is, in ideological essence, sympathizing with terrorism; or, if not terrorism in itself, a level of Abrahamic zealotry in complete parallel with the irrational fanaticism of violent Islamic extremism. Is their murderously uncompromising fundamentalism not, first and foremost, an Old Testament doctrine?

Response 2: From the Textbook

“Some people have seen the principle of divine retribution as one of the themes of the Deuteronomistic History: people get what they deserve, the good are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. Discuss this view. Do you think the Deuteronomistic History stresses this principle? If so, how? And on a personal level, does this principle ring true in your experience?”

The Deuteronomistic History certainly does stress this principal, as demonstrated in (among many other stories) Korah's rebellion in the Book of Numbers. In it, Korah, a Levite, leads a revolt against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, accusing them both of raising themselves “above the LORD's congregation” (Numbers 16:3). Their authority is tested, and God smites the rebels, as by revolting against Moses, God's chosen leader for the people of Israel, they have by extension revolted against God. Numbers 16 ends on a rather somber note, as “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah's people and all their possessions. They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation” (Numbers 16:32-33).

On a personal level, for the most part, it does seem like people generally get what they give. I've come to believe in a very utilitarian concept of karma; I don't believe there is an inevitable moral order inherent to the universe in itself, but for the most part, it's true that every action has an equal and opposite reaction... or, in the case of morality, every action has an equal reaction, though not always necessarily opposite. In the simplest description of this conception of karma, the lack of any implicit divine order precludes any concrete punishment for abstract sins. In fact, it precludes 'punishment,' in the moral sense of the word, and implies the more fluid and objective use of 'consequence.' If you murder someone, you'll likely be caught, tried, and jailed—though, not inevitably; there are ways, whether by deliberate effort or fluke, by which one can get away with murder. But even then, this does not erase consequence. Perhaps this act of murder will haunt the perpetrator... or, if there is no conscience in the act itself, there could be a constant, all-pervasive paranoia about getting found out sooner or later. Karma, then, in this sense, means that if you throw a rock into the water, there will be ripples. And if you drop a boulder, there will be waves. But if you forget to pray to God in thanks and one of these things occurs, there was definitely no causal link.

Academic Entry for Class of February 25^th, 2016

Response 1: General Context

The Book of Amos is what I found the most interesting in this weeks readings. The focus on a genuine spirituality and a genuine altruism so lacking in Israelite society, overcompensated for with disingenuous ritual practice and overzealous dogma, is a refreshing reorientation of Biblical perspective. Whereas it often feels much of the text is focused on ritual technicality, Amos points towards what many would claim is the real intention of Scripture: redemption for those who repent (in other words, those who admit they've made a mistake), and the assistance of those in need from all in the community (eg: a redistribution of wealth). If this assistive altruism does not occur, Israelite society is effectively kicking itself out at the knees. The greed of the rich (a symptom of which is seen to be the blasphemous worship of Baal and other foreign deities) will not only starve the poor, it will bring ruin to the entire nation when God finally decides to wreak his vengeance. As He says in Amos 5:24: “...let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Response 2: From the Textbook

“One day after class, one of your fellow students tells you that he doesn't understand why your instructor is spending so much time talking about the historical context of prophets like Amos and Isaiah. In his opinion, their writings have a timeless quality and are not tied to any particular historical moment or events. You, on the other hand, want to stand up for your instructor (poor fellow) and decide to defend his approach. Pick three instances in which knowing the historical context of the proclamations of these prophets can assist you in understanding their message.”

To say any of these books can be entirely divorced from their context is borne out as impossible in the writings themselves. Interchangeable references to Babylonians and Chaldean's abound, and without knowing a little about the Babylonians or, at the very least, that 'Babylonian' and 'Chaldean' are two different terms for the same peoples, there are inevitably going to be some issues with basic comprehension. Likewise, in the Christian interpretation of Scripture, everything is seen as leading toward the coming of Jesus. Without an understanding of the historical context which apparently (and I say 'apparently' because it's entirely up to your style of readership) foreshadowed his coming, can there even be any basic understanding of the stories themselves? I would posit that it is unlikely.

There are those with particularly nuanced views on the Scripture whom believe, among other things, that there are secret Biblical codes embedded in the text, and/or that Biblical scripture is somehow predicting events in our own era. Once again: a realistic investigation of these works and through them their Prophets unearths that these prophetic proclamations were made with their own times in mind.

Academic Entry for Class of March 3^rd, 2016

Response 1: General Context

Trying to discern which Prophets were legitimate and which were apparently not must have been a hectic practice is constantly shifting shame and reassurance. From my secular point of view, Jeremiah was as credible as any of the other prophets at the time, on par with the apparently heretical prophet guilds active in the Levant, or with the blasphemous prophets of other gods, such as Baal. In the end, we cast Jeremiah as we do because of the Tanakh's obvious assumption of its own truth. For all we know, there were similar written books by other prophets (perhaps ones who believed their message just as passionately as Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Amos did) which were lost to time or deliberately destroyed to preserve a body of canonical literature.

In most ways, the prophetic life seems quite horrid. No matter what factors are, in reality, out of your control, everything boils down to somehow being the collective fault of the community. The fact that Assyria and Babylon expanded was, in the geopolitical climate of the time, probably inevitable. There was no real sense of national boundaries, and no one was inalienably tied to a nationalistic cult-conception of land as we understand it today. It seems like guilt was the staple in the emotional diet of the Israelites, and shame was the name of the game.

Response 2: From the Textbook

“You are talking to your roommate about the Bible and he tells you that as far as he can see, all the prophets are dealing with the same problems and are delivering the same message. You think this view is a bit simplistic. Pick two of the prophets* (question slightly altered) and discuss how different their contexts and messages are.”

Put in the simplest form for comparison, Jeremiah was preaching the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, whereas Isaiah was preaching the destruction of the land by Assyrian hands. If the observation is a bit vaguer than that, focusing instead on the fact that it seems like most (though not all) of the prophets are preaching destruction as punishment for sinful iniquities, there is truth to that. The only issue is that it does not automatically imply they were each saying the same thing, just that all this hypothetical roommate got from reading them was the more generalized message, and not the details. Isaiah, writing at a time of particularly intense military and political tensions as King Tiglath-Pileser was making moves on the city-states and countries of the Levant, willingly took up the call to minister as a prophet. Jeremiah, in contrast, was predestined for the prophetic life in his mother's womb, and was far from willing, as is observed throughout the text. He was so consistently devastated and resentful of his posting in life that he is widely known as the “weeping prophet.” How these prophets came to minister and how they carried out their prophetic duties is also part of what they were saying; it is not simply limited to speech dialogue in the text. There are great similarities, and there are chasms of difference.

PLEASE NOTE: THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AS A SERIES OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL ENTRIES RESPONDING TO EACH 3-HOUR CLASS ON CRITICALLY READING THE OLD TESTAMENT / TANAKH.

1688: The Hung Parliament's Glorious Revolution

Since the ejection from the throne and subsequent beheading of Charles I at the end of the English Civil War in 1649, the hegemonic balance between monarchy and Parliament had created a political seesaw entirely unprecedented in the context of British history. On one side were the Whigs, the reform movement in Parliament that emerged as a united party in clear opposition to Charles I's son, the emponymously titled Charles II,¹ following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.² On the other side was the monarchy itself and its supporters in Parliament, colloquially known as the Tories, who likewise formed an official and united political front in support of King James II's right to inherit the throne in spite of his confessed Catholicism.³ The relatively free exchange and formulation of political ideas in 17^th century England was in stark contrast to the monarchical absolutism being practiced on the European continent by the likes of Louis XIV in France, and Peter the Great in Russia. Politically dissident opinions abounded, and the toleration of such open dissent is not only what made England unique, it's what lended a great amount of momentum to theories of Parliamentary supremacy which ultimately culminated in the slow formation of modern democratic institutions. It can be argued, as well, that this open dissidence and continued friction between Parliament and King, having reached its absolute crescendo with the forced abdication of James II in 1688, is the moment which forever altered historical trajectory toward what ultimately resulted in political modernity and global industrialisation. However, old habits die hard, and history is a lense through which all events fade to give way to others in slow succession. Although a revolution in the long run, the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-92 was an accidental harbinger of what one might call “progress,” though it found its genuine and immediate purpose largely in religiously sectarian intolernace.

Most have seen a reflection of the ideal revolutionary attitude of 17^th century England in the writings of John Locke, who once famously wrote, “And no Government will be able long to subsist, if the People may set up a new Legislative, whenever they take offence at the old one. To this, I Answer: Quite the contrary. People are not so easily got out of their old Forms, as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledg'd Faults, in the Frame they have been accustom'd to. And if there be any Original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time or corruption[,] 'tis not an eas[y] thing to get them changed, even when all the World sees there is an opportunity for it.”⁴ In this statement, he may have been prophetic; in part, he may have been referring to the contrast between the atmosphere of absolutism on the Continent and the constitutional monarchy so commonplace in British life. But he was also describing as well as foreshadowing events of the day and what was still to come, having written his two treatises on government originally as justification for resistance to King Charles II (r. 1660-1685),⁵ but which were later published as a defence of the self-aggrandizingly titled “Glorious Revolution” beginning in 1688.⁶

In an intellectual climate heavily influenced by Aristotle, as well as Plato's 'perfect world of forms,' it's understandable how a spectating thinker of the time would sink into a cynical evaluation of facts based on immediate observation. Alternatively, an inversely over-optimistic evaluation was just as common, as the effect of Plato's perfect forms was political utopianism, the expectations of which were often unceremoniously crushed by reactionaries or simple fact. The resulting dissapointment—or, more often, despair—of great and defeated expectations were reconciled by many through the available remedy of religious dogma, or thoroughly faced, philosophized upon, and accepted by a very gilded few. John Locke, as quoted in the second paragraph, had a sense of political realism. He understood that the course of events were beyond any single persons control, and that any explicit 'revolution' was, more often than not, simply occurring to retain a certain circumstance and all the prejudice and pride that go with it. Yet at the same time his realism seemed to project a commentary cognizant and accepting of this central contradiction, he still found himself on the revolutionary side of history, having fostered a very close relationship with noted Whig politician Anthony Ashley Cooper, better known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, as his personal physician during the 1660's.⁷ This is enough to understand why political gravity, coupled with his faculties as a philosopher, brought him to believe in the supremacy of Parliament over a reigning monarch. He became, through his connections, one of the most outspoken voices in support of the Whigs, with his works on government gaining comprehensive popularity throughout the British Isles at the time of the revolution and giving further intellectual momentum to the ascendent counter-narrative of limited government.⁸

This counter-narrative, however, proved to be less revolutionary, and more of a watershed moment in the slow historical fade to modern democracy. The usurpation of the throne from James II to William of Oranje effected by Parliament was done in response to James finally siring a male heir, who was baptised a Catholic. James had also incurred the wrath of Parliament in prior years when he advocated for tolerance of Catholics and Protestant dissenters, granting both the right of public worship as well as the ability to hold civil and military office.⁹ This ecumenical attitude infuriated the Whigs, who, upon taking joint power with the new King, implemented a series of draconian laws which once again barred Catholics and dissenters from public worship, public office (including running to become a Parliamentary MP),¹⁰ and a myriad of other prohibitions designed to humiliate, harass, and oppress the “papists,” a derogatory term used to refer to Catholics during and after the English Reformation. In the English Bill of Rights, for example, it is added as a refrain that “it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery [Catholicism] and arbitrary power.” Enshrined as law alongside such famous and fatefully significant precedents as, “[t]hat election of members [to] Parliament ought to be free,” and “[t]hat excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” was “that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to ... [the] Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm”.¹¹ The Bill of Rights also enshrined, rather ironically, the tenets of John Locke's constitutional theory of government, severely limiting regal authority and adding a rudimentary form of checks and balances to the British political system. The reigning monarch was no longer above the law, but was also now a subject of its universal authority and application.¹² Parliament acted as kingmaker, and defined the parameters of the debate.

In 1689, the same year as the passing of the Bill of Rights, Locke penned “A Letter Concerning Toleration.” Addressing it to an anonymously “Honored Sir,”¹³ he makes an argument that asserts the separation of church and state. He also writes that tolerance for differing religious dispositions will bring greater peace, as most civil unrest roots from an inevitable resistance to persecution and repression.¹⁴ The fear of the time, however, was of a Catholic takeover of England. The collective spiritual paranoia born of the Reformation was of such a power as to compel King William to officially and comprehensively disenfranchise Catholics, lest he meet the same fate as his deposed and universally reviled predecessor. This was not a cultural or political atmosphere conducive to Locke's sensible and compassionate message. This message took a very familiar perspective, one in which modern attitudes on the matter are clearly still reflected.

Modern capitalism also finds one of its original European catalysts in the Glorious Revolution. During the decades of political gridlock, when the King would, at times, neglect to convene Parliament for upwards of 3 to 4 years after he failed to make a convincing argument to secure further funding,¹⁵ there was no governmental oversight or control of economics on a state-wide basis. Communities were left to fend for themselves, and unless an entrepreuner could secure a royal patent or privilege, there was no legal protection that allowed for the safe raising of capital and subsequent investment in local projects and infrastructure. The alternative to royal patent was to seek parliamentary legislation from a local representative MP.¹⁶ This was complicated to near-impossibility during the years of 1680 to 1688, when Parliament sat for a grand total of no more than 20 weeks. In contrast, the years from 1689 to 1697 saw Parliament in session for an entire 53-and-a-half months. With its powers now enshrined on an equal basis with the monarch, and the limitation of the King's executive authority to the rule of law, there was no longer a single individual with the power to interfere in the judicial branch, bypass Parliament, or unilaterally breach and alter contracts of private property and the protection of rights thereof.¹⁷ When it became clear that Parliamentary government truly did secure property rights and provided the legal guarantee of all financial and economic contracts being honoured in good faith, a very familiar market began to emerge and expand. In his essay on how the events of 1688-92 inevitably precipitated the Industrial Revolution of the 19^th century, John Beckett writes: “[t]he commercial and financial revolutions brought new problems in the organisation of overseas trade and the mechanisms of public credit, and arising from these concerns came a succession of bills to establish merchant companies, restrict the import of foreign luxuries, regulate the market in stocks, and improve the law in relation to the collection of debt, the declaration of bankruptcy and the pursuit of small claims. Parliament was now a forum in which MPs could debate issues of substance, often with a bearing on their constituencies, in the context of legislation. It is hardly surprising to find a rapid increase in legislative initiatives post-1689.”¹⁸ Both local and international markets, given these protections, expanded exponentially. This growth never ceased, and instead continued to gather momentum through the centuries, giving us modern industry, credit, transportation, infrastructure, and technology, to name only a few. In fact, we are part and product of this very momentum, bearing the fruits of its process and effects.

Rome wasn't built in a day; nor was considered modernity achieved in any single technological innovation, philosophical consideration, spiritual revelation, or political revolution. History is the sum of its parts. Anything less, and it isn't the whole story. The Glorious Revolution definitively ended any push for absolutism in England. It also kickstarted global parlimentarianism, which subsequently led to the birth of modern democracy and political institutions. It set the precedent of the Bill of Rights, which, along with the works of John Locke, inspired the American Declaration of Independence.¹⁹ But Locke wasn't incorrect in his assertion that old habits are hard to kill, even when we all see an opportunity for progress. As historian Kenan Malik notes, “[t]he Whigs, the party of parliamentary democracy, the party from which the English liberal tradition developed, were also the party of anti-Catholic bigotry.”²⁰ The doubled-edged sword of hypocrisy and power continues to beg the question: what are we actually thinking of when we consider “progress?”

1 2015. "Whig." Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia 1p. 1. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, EBSCOhost .

2 2015. "Restoration." Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia 1p. 1. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, EBSCOhost.

3 Oxford Dictionaries. 2015. 'Definition Of "Tory" In English From The Oxford Dictionary'.

4 Locke, John. 1689. 'Right Of Revolution: John Locke, Second Treatise'. Press-Pubs.Uchicago.Edu. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s2.html.

5 2015. "Charles II." Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia 1p. 1. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, EBSCOhost.

6 Sparknotes. 2015. 'Sparknotes: Locke's Second Treatise On Civil Government: Context'. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/context.html.

7 Anstey, Peter R., and Lawrence M. Principe. "John Locke and the Case of Anthony Ashley Cooper." Early Science & Medicine 16, no. 5 (October 2011): 379-503. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

8 Malik, Kenan. 2013. 'John Locke And The Not-Quite-Glorious Revolution'. Pandaemonium.

9 Kidner, Frank L, Maria Bucur, Ralph Mathisen, Sally McKee, and Theodore R Weeks. 2014. Making Europe. 

(Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning), 486.

10 The Avalon Project. 2008. 'English Bill Of Rights, 1689'.

11 The Avalon Project. 2008. 'English Bill Of Rights, 1689'.

12 Lewis, Thomas T. 2015. "English Bill of Rights." Salem Press Encyclopedia Research Starters.

13 Locke, John. 1689. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Ebook. 1st ed., 3.

14 Locke, John. 1689. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Ebook. 1st ed., 6-14.

15 Beckett, John. 2014. "The Glorious Revolution, Parliament, and the Making of the First Industrial Nation." 

Parliamentary History (Wiley-Blackwell) 33, no. 1: 36-53. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost, 37.

16 Beckett, John. 2014. "The Glorious Revolution, Parliament, and the Making of the First Industrial Nation." Parliamentary History (Wiley-Blackwell) 33, no. 1: 36-53. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, 38.

17 Beckett, John. 2014. "The Glorious Revolution, Parliament, and the Making of the First Industrial Nation." Parliamentary History (Wiley-Blackwell) 33, no. 1: 36-53. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, 39.

18 Beckett, John. 2014. "The Glorious Revolution, Parliament, and the Making of the First Industrial Nation." Parliamentary History (Wiley-Blackwell) 33, no. 1: 36-53. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, 39.

19 Powell, Jim et al. 2015. 'John Locke: Natural Rights To Life, Liberty, And Property | Foundation For Economic Education'. Fee.Org.

20 Malik, Kenan. 2013. 'John Locke And The Not-Quite-Glorious Revolution'. Pandaemonium.    

Quebec, 1995 and Scotland, 2014: A Crisis of Clarity in the Old World and the New

It was 1707 when the United Kingdom coalesced as one with the Act of Union. This followed the death of the childless and unmarried Queen Elizabeth I, who, via the law of hereditary succession, was replaced on the throne by her cousin James VI, King of Scotland, now James I of a united Great Britain (UK Parliament). A mere half-century later, a more forced union took place in British North America with the annexation of France's Canadian colonies by way of King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763 (UBC Indigenous Foundations). Both territorial amalgamations led to perpetual demographic tensions that often simmered in the backdrop of everyday political life; in the British Isles themselves, the English had to compromise with the Scots on issues of local and global concern, whereas in the former New France, Britain attempted to overwhelm the French majority with a constant influx of English Loyalist settlers, as well as refugees escaping the American War of Independence (Mintz et al., 27-28). Since these 18^th century annexations, both Scotland and the former New France, now the province of Quebec in a federalist union with Canada, have pondered, petitioned, and protested regarding and for political independence, with supporters of secession feeling pushed to the margins in terms of accurate political representation. Supporters of both secessionist movements express a strong Scottish and Quebec nationalism, respectively, with Scotland having held two successful referendums on political devolution to a separate Scottish Parliament, and one referendum in 2014 on independence which failed on a relatively narrow margin of 44.7% for secession, and 55.3% against, with a 84.59% voter turnout (BBC). Even closer were the results of Quebec's second referendum on independence in 1995, which saw 49.4% for secession from Canada, and 50.6% against, with a 94% voter turnout (Mintz et al., 106). This essay will compare and contrast the Quebec referendum of 1995 with the Scottish referendum of 2014, and establish that both are indeed inextricably connected, as well as explore the most important of said connections, the so-called “clarity ethos” which, originating in Canada, ruled, and still rules, both regions quests for sovereignty.

The first and most important distinction between the 1995 Quebec referendum and the 2014 Scottish referendum is the stark contrast in the clarity and succinctness of the questions presented to voters. The “clarity ethos,” as it's called, roots from Canadian politician Stephane Dion's heavy criticism of the question posed in 1995. On the ballot, Quebecer's were asked: "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?” (Gall). This, in contrast to the straightforwardness of what was asked of voters in Scotland: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” (Verrelli et al., 197). In pursuit of procedural clarity, the Canadian federal government of Jean Chretien posed a series of reference questions to the Supreme Court of Canada to establish three things: if Quebec could secede from Canada on a unilateral basis; if Quebec had a right to automatic self-determination under international law; and, if there was some sort of conflict between domestic and international law in regards to secession, which set of laws would take precedence (Supreme Court of Canada). In a 2013 session of the House of Commons, Dion asserted that many Quebecer's voted 'yes' without a clear grasp of what a 'yes' victory would entail, arguing this was due to the obscure nature of the question (Verrelli et al., 196). In 1998, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment, and came down on the side of Dion and the federal government. Essentially, the Court established that Quebec could not unilaterally effect its own secession from Canada, but were a referendum held and a 'clear majority' of Quebecer's supported independence, then the federal government would be legally obligated to negotiate with the Quebec government in good faith (Supreme Court of Canada).

Both the federal government and provincial government of Quebec stated that they were satisfied with the ruling. The ruling did not, however, provide a definition of a 'clear majority,' opting to leave such a definition in the hands of politicians. In “Exporting the Clarity Ethos,” authors Nadia Verrelli and Neil Cruickshank note, “even if the democratic threshold (i.e. a majority) of fifty per cent plus one is met [...] in favour of Quebec sovereignty, it may not be enough to initiate the secession

process” (Verrelli et al., 197). This infers that some sort of supermajority would have to vote 'yes' to independence on a ballot that posed a very simple question. This inference became law when the Canadian House of Commons voted to pass the Clarity Act after final reading in 2000, which used the Supreme Court reference case as its basic template (Clarity Act, 3). As expected, Quebec railed against the Act, passing a law of its own the same year to counter the federal legislation known as Bill 99, or “An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State” (Bill 99, 1). Bill 99 also claimed to use the Supreme Court reference as its basic template, taking advantage of the undefined character of what constitutes a 'clear majority' despite the Clarity Act's stipulation that it was the federal government alone that had the ability and right to decide what constituted both a clear question and a clear majority (Clarity Act, 4).

The clarity ethos became a precedent to be followed in future referenda, not only in Canada, but also in the case of Scotland's 2014 vote. It is no coincidence that Alex Salmond, head of the SNP (Scottish National Party), as well as Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, both pushed for a clearly worded question which was also “comprehensible [...] in terms of the political consequences one should associate with a ‘yes’ vote” (Verrelli et al., 196). Even in Scotland, however, a bare majority for 'yes' may not have been enough to push Scotland across the divide of ambiguous clarity far enough to define a mandate for independence, and would likely have been heavily contested by both the British people and the British government were there not some sort of supermajority, just as in Quebec. It must be noted that the push for clarity is not simply a push for a clear question; it also requires a resoundingly clear answer to the question. This is a prejudice that Nadia Verrelli and Neil Cruickshank argue is “not only [...] impossible to achieve, but unfairly puts the ‘burden of proof’ on the side asserting national self-determination” (Verrelli et al., 196-197). The push for clarity is a sensible one, though probably impossible. This means, unfortunately, that the clarity ethos can essentially thwart all movements for independence by referendum, but this doesn't mean a referendum is an empty or useless gesture as it does reveal the true magnitude of those with a passionate desire for greater representation, thus forcing the powers that be to negotiate and often leading to notable concessions. In Canada, concession and compromise with Quebec is a staple of political life. In 2006, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected the idea of an independent Quebec, but introduced a motion that officially recognized Quebec as a distinct nation within the nation of Canada (CBC News). As is obvious, similar pressures are what led to the devolution of some powers to an independent Scottish Parliament, effectively making Scotland a de-facto province of the United Kingdom.

The question of each referendum's legitimacy—both in terms of the results, and in terms of the right of Scotland or Quebec to self-determination under both domestic and international law—is resoundingly complex, hence the centuries of debate. Relative to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, it can be argued that both the 1980 and 1995 Quebec referendums were illegitimate due to the hazy and verbose wording of the questions posed on the ballots. Due to this verbosity, it's unlikely that the federal government would have accepted either result, even if the proportion of 'yes' voters reached the undefined realm of a supermajority. As well, both referenda questions did not make it clear if what was being voted on was full secession, or a re-negotiation of Quebec within Confederation from provincial status to sovereignty-association. With this being the case, it's more likely than not that neither referenda would have resulted in independence, regardless of the results.

Scotland, having learned Quebec's lessons vicariously, stood a much better chance at secession and political independence, as the wording of the question was both simple and concise. Had there even been a narrow win, the mandate would have been clear, even if it didn't result in full sovereignty. If, however, there had been a clear supermajority—the clarity of which would likely have been defined by Westminster—there was a real chance for unequivocal results and, thus, legitimate secession on a multilateral basis. In all regards, the clarity ethos defines the parameters of the debate, paradoxically leaving no room for ambiguity by imposing a gilded monopoly on the ambiguous definition of clarity.

As it stands, both independence movements are alive and well, and both, though winded, are still pursuing their relentless crusades to nationhood. In more recent months, however, there has even been a greater push for secession and full political independence in places such as Catalonia, which has been struggling for partition from the greater Spanish nation in recent decades (BBC). Perhaps it can be expected that the clarity ethos will blanket the debate in Spain. If this happens to be the case, let's hope that the political definition of clarity can be given some basic clarity.      

PLEASE NOTE: THIS WORK WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AS A RESEARCH ESSAY FOR MY CLASS ON CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE CITATIONS, PLEASE POST A COMMENT BELOW PROVIDING AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND AN ELECTRONIC COPY FOR FACT-CHECKING.

elxn42: the final day before the final judgement.

So, it's come down to this, with under 48 hours left for us Canadians to cast our ballots in the federal election. 

It may be a bit of a surprise to see me coming in with a general evaluation of the campaign landscape so late into the game, but I've been preoccupied with a busy school life, work, and nervously biting my nails to sharp, awkward nubs trying to gauge the final trajectory of this election. 

The polls suggest, by quite a wide margin, that Canada's tried and true—tho not uncontroversial—Liberal Party is on its way to a victory of some sort. Whether this will fly so far as to become a majority mandate (requiring 170 of the 338 seats in the House of Commons), or turn to be a more expected outcome of minority governance, these are both potential outcomes that bode acceptable results for all those with the wider priority of ousting Harper. For those still caught within the bitter partisan divide between the Liberals and the NDP, however, a Liberal victory may garner a hostile reaction from those who hoped the more experienced Thomas Mulcair would take Canada's helm and deliver us from 10 years of what can be called, at best, clumsy mismanagement, and, and worst, outright evil in the form of power-for-powers-sake.

Personally, I found none of this years big political contenders to be either particularly fascinating, nor impressive. Harper, tho very well known to resort to dirty tricks as a way of leveraging himself and his party, took this a few surprising steps further when he battened down the hatches and dug in to a campaign dedicated entirely to fear and what Canadian's would hypothetically lose were they to lose him. He also allowed himself to slip even further from basic ethical standards when he began railing against the niqab, as well as preaching a false gospel of "weed is infinitely worse than tobacco" at the same rallies at which he campaigned with Rob Ford, the former Toronto mayor who smoked crack cocaine while still in public office just last year. In this sense, and due to an illustrious list of dark faux pas that date back to the very start of his political career, Harper was immediately crossed-off as an option in my mind as I've been a long-time supporter of the "Anyone But Harper" movement, and do sincerely believe he has destroyed the image of Canada as a constant and progressive contrast in the world. The strangest thing about his having done this, however, is that this image isn't something I thought I cared about until it finally became clear that he had irreparably taken it away, so I suppose that, by some basic relative standard, I am a bit of a nationalist. (A loose nationalist). 

Justin Trudeau, son of the late former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau—praised for such things as the patriation of the Canadian constitution from the United Kingdom in 1982 and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, tho heavily criticized for his disastrous National Energy Policy and disproportionate nation-wide declaration of martial law in response to the FLQ crisis in Quebec—started this campaign on a very precarious footing. My largest point of contention with him had been his backing of the controversial anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51. For the first month (and prior), he was unable to articulate a clear reason for said support, and vaguely blundered on and on about "Real Change Now!" and "Helping the Middle Class" without elaborating on any clear policy position or platform promises until about a month ago, when he and his party not only began to make properly specific promises, but also gave articulate and reasonable justification to their backing of C-51 and how they intend to make significant amendments (such as adding sunset clauses and clarifying all the vague ambiguities left unclarified by the Harper government via Parliamentary committee and review). At this point, I began to see him less as a potentially necessary half-evil in the drive to remove Harper, and more as a viable option for Prime Minister, though not to a point I felt comfortable casting a ballot in his name (though I would have done so in a heartbeat had it been the strategic option in my riding).  

Thomas Mulcair, however, did—through this process of elimination—earn my vote, but it does have to be said that he wasn't one to particularly impress either. 

Throughout his campaign, Mulcair consistently liked to remind everyone that his priority was "to get rid of Harper," all while buying up ad-time online and on television that often baselessly tore into Justin Trudeau on a personal level as opposed to policy position, and sent a shiver of disgust down my spine as I dealt with the vicarious embarrassment of attack politics; something I strongly believe should be left entirely to the foaming mouths of desperate neoconservatives, as it's only their hawkish, confrontational ideologies that align naturally with such shallow, proto-fascist rhetoric.

Now, with less than 2 days to go, my biggest concern roots from the entirely unexpected Conservative victory in the United Kingdom last May, when, against all forecasts and odds, David Cameron won re-election with the help of a "master of the political dark arts," the infamous Australian political consultant, Lynton Crosby.

Crosby has won multiple elections for the right with the unethically strategic use of "wedge politics," which is to say issues of little to no importance that can be used to viciously divide an electorate and attempt to subdue it to a right-wing agenda with the use of fear. Far from being a legitimate option in a Parliamentary democracy, it is essentially a form of soft totalitarianism in the form of 'divide and conquer.' Though the good news it that there are reports Crosby abandoned the Harper campaign trail just 4 days before the election due to his disapproval of Harper's mingling with the controversial crack-smoking former mayor of Toronto and his pundit brother, Doug Ford, which means that Harper's desperation far surpassed what he believed Crosby could accomplish on his behalf. 

However, my nerve about the election doesn't simply end with the absence of Crosby on the Conservative campaign trail, as his basic strategies still apply, even in this atmosphere of flailing desperation. Not only this, but there have been serious allegations of electoral fraud and cheating leveled against the Conservatives in regard to every election they have run under Harper's leadership, with one lead eventually culminating in an arrest and conviction in relation to the 'robocall' scandal of 2011. The voter turnout for this current election has far surpassed that of the past two, but there is still very much a part of me which is still concerned the Conservatives may be cheating, as it has already been shown they don't feel the necessity to respect the basic foundations of democracy. However: the good news here is that Canadians are already cautious and wary of potential cheating, as is the independent body that oversees elections, Elections Canada. They have made a point of warning voters to the signs of a fake polling station or attempts at voter suppression. So, perhaps, in the end, I don't foresee a Conservative victory in the making, but I am wary to cast a final judgement until the conclusive results have come in. 

Remember to double-check your riding and to vote strategically, everyone.            

Humble Murder

You come out of the dark, and a young Japanese schoolgirl--couldn't be any older than 19--is standing in a heavy-lit archway, the blinkered 'sort-of's' of her eyes only visible in corners due to the convex glare rebounding from the heavy light and onto a parked Miyata windshield, right back into the bloodshot lower-left cleft of each eye, sleepless veins like miniature pipelines slogging her fossil fuel blood to the energy markets of her face (but it ends in death, hopeless economy! it begins in death like OPEC!)

There's concrete, and there's stone: the former a collection of synthetically compiled chunks of the latter. In either regard, it might just be the end of the World, tho just an intermission during an afternoon matinee for the world. There are a lot of things you don't understand. There is plenty more you do, and yet you believe your own humility when it whispers, "You don't," tho you are entirely unaware this is delusion and not humility, but some unconscious form of ascetic worship of WONDER!! You're going coocoo for cocopuffs WONDER! We can remember what J.B.S. Haldane once said: "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

I was born at the edge of the Cold War. 4 years after America's Operation Just Cause deposed Nicaraguan dictator Manuel Noriega using heavy metal music and heavy metal weapons, loaded to capacity with heavy metal bullets. 4 years after the slow-dissolve tablet of the Berlin Wall finally faded upon the German palate. Brian Mulroney was my Prime Minister at birth. I was also alive (tho not 'conscious,' per se--intellectually conscious, that is) during the Prime Ministership of Canada's first female Prime Minister: Kim Campbell (she was only leader for just over 3 months and thus I cannot give her time in office the full credibility it would have deserved had she been a fully elected candidate instead of an inter-election Prime Ministerial appointment; when, for godssakes, will we have a First Nations' Prime Minister? I would like to believe the only reason there has been none is because the indigenous people have categorically rejected the game-fantasy we have stomped upon their land and the world and self-righteously crowned as 'realistic, sober, objective;' tho maybe I'm wrong, whispers Humility: "I don't know").

There is the endless and omnipotent consensus that the world's about to end. For those who study history, they will often notice that when 'then' was 'now,' it was often and always the end of history. 'Now' is the always-result of 'then' and it will never change unless we neglect its consideration. That's really all theory takes to disappear: stop thinking about it. (as if that were possible, ha!)
Because the impression has been one of pollution and confusion, our wide un-thought idealization as children has often led us to emulate all the bad habits we witness growing up, even if at one point we cloudlessly rejected them because the damage didn't seem clear, it was clear.

I was 8 years old when I took my mother's cigarettes from her bedroom while she slept, and proudly announced to her the next morning that I had thrown them out. She had become furious, tho I had done it out of a militant concern for her well-being. During my years of primeval arrival on this planet, mom had almost lost her life to breast cancer. I can't remember understanding much as it happened, nor do I recall fully understanding the implications of death until my grandmother died and I watched my dad fight back tears as he read aloud her eulogy, recalling a story I can pick through scattered memories stored in grey matter to resurrect only one fact about it: they were on a boat, pulling up to shore. My grandfather--the cheeky Briton-optimist he is--made some silly joke, and my grandmother pitched in. The rest is somewhere else in space.

However--regarding death-- I feel that even then we never understand the full implications of death in witnessing another's death, but only through dying ourselves. Which is fine. None of us need to understand these implications until the time comes (and even then, it may just drip away once you've reached the Light. Which is fine).

Returning to the cigarettes: I had absorbed the common knowledge they were awful for you. 'Death-sticks' indeed, just like that scene in Attack of the Clones. Tho I understood nothing of the chemistry, a box or a video or an authority explaining their potential 'results' or 'consequences' was enough for me to righteously desire to save my mother from her own acquired vice.

14 years later, I skulk through the streets of Victoria with Chris, high on cocaine and chain-smoking Export-A Gold on the subconscious condition that the world will probably end soon enough for none of this to matter. Tho as I said: For those who study history, they will often notice that when 'then' was 'now,' it was often and always the end of history.

History is comprised of an endless succession of losers who sincerely believe they've figured it out. The only redeemable characters in this Human Odyssey are those who have realized nothing in particular. The people who think, believe, and conceptualize as an infinite process; something without a result. Something with abstract 'goals' that only fit for awhile, not forever.

I'm nobody special. Tho, at the same time, I am; and at the same time and in terms of my relationship to this greater Human Odyssey, whether I will matter in this giant plot is in part up to me (should I write a book? 10 books? Relentlessly pursue the arts, whether that be rapping, writing, music?) and in part up to sheer probability (if I do write a book, will many notice? Or will it be swept under the Great Rug of the Present-Into-Past and be forgotten to thought?), and regardless of all this: the rocks will forget. The trees will forget. Both space and dark matter will have already forgotten what I am doing and what I may one day do.

But life can't be approached on a basis of personal impact; honestly, who wants to pursue the writing of 10 books or the creation of albums in the same way the capitalist approaches economy, for sheer attention and accumulation? Those desperado's, those who chase-the-game-of-success, they have already lost. They lost as soon as they tried to win. There is nothing to win, no award great enough to keep, no person you love or have loved who you will not one day depart with for the very last time. But to depart with a personality may be tragic, it is only a true void in concept; when one removes the individual (both themselves and the one they love) from the eternal context of the universe--the ebb and flow of tides to the movement of the moon, the soft breeze supplemented by a fan placed next to an open window, how your hand--when clapped to the surface of a wooden table--is one with the matter in that table regardless of how transiently you perceive such a touch as an interaction. In essence, it's all still here; it always was, and never won't be.

tho maybe I'm wrong, whispers Humility.

"I don't know."

Canada: A Dangerous Moral Precedent (Essay)

 Both of John Nuttall's hands shivered with adrenaline, sweat beading from his palm lines like two dammed rivers barricaded within his clenched fists. In manic, “hokey and harebrained” detail, Nuttall propounded ideas ranging from the hijacking of a nuclear submarine to launching rockets at a Vancouver Island military base (Omand). Searching his name on Google Images—algorithmically organized to create somewhat of an impromptu photo album complete with a haunted nostalgia for what's dead in another's life—paints a horribly incomplete retrospective of a friendly, yet tragic, naivety. In most of the photos, his hair is short and casual. In any average setting, he wouldn't notably stand out from a crowd. In others, taken covertly during the RCMP sting operation (Omand), his hair is gruff and Mohammedan, even Christ-like. In the backdrop is a woman—garbed in a black hijab—gazing outward with the same glazed expression of deadpan naivety etched across her face. Amanda Korody is the second half to this husband and wife duo, both of whom—egged on by a ring of undercover police officers posing as big-whig international terrorists—conspired to detonate pressure cookers stuffed with C4 explosives in front of the B.C. Legislature buildings in Victoria, BC, on July 1^st, 2013 (Omand). Both Nuttall and Korody were recent converts to Islam, sporting a childishly binary worldview in which they believed they were involved in a holy war with the West. Their plan ultimately failed, as it was actually a plan concocted almost entirely by the undercover officers involved. Though both husband and wife existed in delusional idealism and newly adopted dogma, it will now never be known if their violent aspirations were truly preexisting, or simply the result of the entirely intentional encouragement they received from the state. In either regard, the case as to who's the real terrorist in this situation presents itself as an easy origin point for the thesis of this essay. In recent years, Canada has become a greater source of national and international terrorism due to numerous diverging factors, not least of which has been the spectacle of regressive Conservative politics on the international and domestic stages fueling so-called 'eco-extremism,' as well as Islamaphobia and the misled persecution of predominently non-Anglo cultures in a country built as a settler state.

In early 2014, a surprisingly adept and well-equipped group of Wahhabi militants in Iraq and Syria—the local branch of the al Qaeda brand—split with their forefathers and founded the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,” conceding to the world that they, and they alone, were the rightful heirs to a model of Islamic imperialism based on the Rashidun Caliphate (Mandhai) of the 7^th century (Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). Thus was born a modernised medievalism relying on globalised economics as well as global communications to both fund itself, and create a public relations (or, propaganda) umbrella under which it wields the unprecedented ability to attract the disenfranchised as recruits from all corners of the globe. One such corner has unfortunately been western Canada in the form of both British Columbia and Alberta, a potent example of which is Collin Gordon, a former student of Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC, who—alongside his brother, Greg Gordon, both originally from Calgary—fled to join ISIS in the summer of 2014. Both recent converts to Islam as Nuttall and Korody had been, they were brought into the ISIS enfold via a recruitment ring active in the Calgarian Muslim community at the time (CBC News). Both Nuttall, Korody, and these brothers exmplify how reactions to the proselytizing project of Western modernity are not an overseas process long distilled and removed from Canadian society, but something which hops back and forth regardless of physical distance, allowing a proverbial form of geopolitical and historical 'karma' to project its inevitable effect directly back on to us at home and abroad. The challenge for the communities affected by these unforeseen departures will be to discourage and—if necessarry—physically block other individuals from following their example. The unfortunate reality is that there is not enough of a moral grounding to Canadian society lending itself to a halfway-decent example of anything that could be considered a cultural or political antithesis to extremist ideology. In fact, the genuinely well-intentioned colonial manifestation of Christian religious extremism—the residential schooling system—only came to a final end in 1996 (Fisher). As written by Alan Fisher in a June 3^rd blog-post for Al Jazeera: “[a]cross Canada, for more than 100 years, children of the indigenous population [...] were taken away as part of the policy of “aggressive assimilation”, or as one survivor put it, "They tried to beat the Indian out of us.””(Fisher). During as well as because of this process of “aggressive assimilation” (Fisher), it has been found that at least 4,000 abducted native children died from such causes as neglect, severe beatings, and malnutrition; but this is only a conservative estimate—one that will continue to grow as research deepens (Kennedy).

As a founded settler-state explicitly established on the repression, conversion, and attempted eradication of native North American's and their cultures, Canada—along with most of the colonial “New World”—has made strides in terms of democracy and general equality, though within the ideologically violent framework of predominant preference for Anglicized culture and appearances. Even in 2012, during the introduction of a new series of banknotes, a focus group charged with evaluating the graphical content of the bills reportedly found that a woman shown to be looking through a large microscope on the new $100 note appeared too 'ethnically Asian.' As such: “[t]he [Bank of Canada] immediately ordered the image redrawn, imposing what a spokesman called a "neutral ethnicity" for the woman scientist who, now stripped of her "Asian" features [...] appear[s] to be Caucasian” (CBC News). Though attempting to veil such blatant partiality as objectively neutral, the racially Anglicized tilt of this decision is obvious. In reality, an acceptance of “Canada” as the petri dish of the world should come as the natural instinct of justice in those not deceived by the fiction of national identity, as both the racial and cultural precedents for this entire continent were established long before the arrival of European colonists or the colonial establishment of democracies not at all unlike that of ancient Greece: with suffrage extended only to men— and, in the case of both the American Revolution as well as the democratization of Canada, only white men of European origin (University of Texas at Austin). Though the scope of democracy both north and south of the border increased dramatically during the 20^th century, unwarranted wars of terror (claiming to fight terror), deliberate ignorance of environmental responsibilities, and painfully blunt movements towards totalitarian democracy—often justified by the phantasmagorical threat of a specifically 'jihadist' terrorist attack—has left Canada (as well as the United States) with little in the way of moral validity. Contrary to the popular idiom, you cannot fight fire with fire without the blaze growing exponentially larger and slipping out of control. The delusions of Western universalisms may have begun the fire, but a plethora of delusional reactionaries—such as militant Islamism—believed they could fight this fire with their own flame. Unfortunately, the West's claims to wisdom, tolerance, and intelligence didn't stop it from responding with further fire—physically, via the careless invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, during the latter of which at least 174,000 civilians died as a direct consequence of the war according to statistics compiled as of April 2014 (Costs of War); and legally, via dystopian legislation such as the U.S. Patriot Act and Canada's newly implemented Bill C-51.

Canada's international regression on the world stage under the Harper Government—such as our unilateral withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord and the enforced removal of Islamic hijabs in courts of law—has worked to polarize activists concerned with social and environmental issues to such an extent as to make them vulnerable to radicalization; it has also worked to marginalize already mentioned minority groups such as Canadian Muslims, paving the way for self-justified extremism. Bill C-51—introduced following the inspired lone wolf attacks in Ottawa and Quebec (Reuters)—came as hazy, verbose legislation aimed at widening the state's room for interpretation. This came as the culmination of years of prior negligence and polarization under which the dialogue of democracy turned into a desperate attempt by activists to shout C-51's existence from the rooftops. Undoubtedly, it has contributed to a deepening of tensions usually resulting in said marginalizing circumstances and thus tremendously increases the potential for radicalization across the board. Bill C-51 (and all similar legislation) effectively adds oil to a hot bed of coal: it's boiling, dirty, and now it's on fire. It seems obvious that Parliament Hill treats terrorism and its omnipotent phantom as a cultivatable tool for political leverage, using C-51 to mow the lawn and keep the semi-manufactured crisis 'presentable,' avoiding a removal from the roots as this would make the declining acceptance of the settler-state further open to offensive approach.

In the end, the immediate threat of ruthless expansion and genocide by groups such as ISIS is nothing the world can reasonably close one eye to without risking the loss of both. It isn't strange that we should desire to avoid and combat such an unprecedented global phenomenon that grows with every passing day, leaving its fingerprints—both physical and electronic—across the breadth of the globe. The danger comes in the form of the precedent we have set in our conceited perception of righteous superiority, toying with the world in a way not at all unlike the 'terrorists' we so quickly denigrate as almost less-than-human in their barbarous sadism. Canada is built on the destruction of indigenous populations; it is founded on a moral base capable of such horrors as physical and cultural genocide. It's a country founded on a land very openly stolen from others, victim of an expansionism so irrationally absurd that its claimed national landmass is greater than the entirety of the European continent. If we're to lend ourselves any sense of moral validity—not only on the world stage, but also historically—we must set a new precedent. There must be a full capitulation to the demographic and historical realities of Canada by the political settler-structure, one which will allow every culture with a stock in Canadian society the freedom to grow and evolve on an equally recognized basis. Doing so will prevent the development of marginalization and will thus dramatically reduce radicalization and its attractiveness thereof. In setting this new precedent, we leave nothing to retaliate against, pulling the rug out from under the extremists' feet as any validation in their rhetoric against Canada dims until it disappears entirely. Both of John Nuttall's hands shivered with adrenaline. “Whose plan is this?” an undercover officer—posing as an international terrorist—asks in regard to the proposal to place pressure cookers stuffed with C4 in front of the B.C. Legislature buildings in Victoria. “It's kind of all of our plan," Nuttall replies, referring to the other undercover officers involved in the sting (Omand). The same undercover officer later writes off Nuttall's plan as “hokey and harebrained” (Omand), seemingly unaware of the perversely extreme nature of his own operation.

You can't fight fire with fire unless you're ready to burn yourself in the process.