Amerika

A Conservative MP points left

Most Canadians — liberal and conservative alike — see America as a huge, looming power, simultaneously feared and resented for its prosperity and size, and envied and loved for the same reason. Canadians enjoy bashing America and Americans as a means of differentiating themselves, and compensating for a sense of inferiority. Think of the skinny nerd who tells himself that the smiling jock, who could knock him flat with an effortless blow, is such an idiot because he’s probably never even heard of the band the nerd likes.

Canadians will plug themselves into a stream of 90% American pop entertainment while telling each other how boorish, rude, and uncultured Americans are. In order to assuage their inferiority complex, they project an image of being ahead of their neighbors, of being morally superior. Having internalized the filth of American pop culture, they attempt to predict from a progressive mindset where American cultural trends will lead in ten or twenty years, and try to be that now. As a result, Canada legislated “gay marriage” more than ten years ahead of America, and it made Canadians feel so good.

On the other side of the 49th, liberal Americans imagine Canada as liberal Canadians want to be imagined: ahead of them, more progressive, the future. A refuge to pretend to want to retreat to when the winds of change are forecast to temporarily wane, and a utopia to point to as justification for more liberalism. Conservative Americans see the signaling, and a hateful grimace forms on their face whenever they say “Canada.”

After a humiliating defeat of the eleven-year party leader to the son of the man who made multiculturalism an official Canadian institution, the Conservative Party is doing some soul-searching. At the party convention a few weeks ago, a sound decision was made to enshrine firearms as a Canadian Heritage, and this week a decision was made to abandon a sound conception of marriage, completing a capitulation long in the making:

The Conservative Party gave itself a makeover, donning a more moderate and modern face as grassroots members voted overwhelmingly to ditch the traditional definition of marriage from the party’s policy book.

Notice how leftists always talk about the “definition” of marriage? They want you to pretend that marriage is a completely arbitrary idea that is simply defined one way or another, that as long as there’s more than one warm body and some vague warm feelings involved, it’s just as good as any other definition of marriage. They see marriage as solely a social construct, and ignore the necessary foundation of human reproductive biology and sexual differentiation. A database engineer freed from any connection to the messy, difficult to quantify real world, can spiral down into an abyss of ever-refining “definitions” of marriage until all connection to the actual concept of marriage is lost, and a final exhausted destructive conclusion is made: “Perhaps the simplest solution would be to ban marriage outright.”

There are two major reasons why we should always be opposed to what’s called “gay marriage.” The first is overtly practical: marriage is a fundamental component of civilization in that it is the linchpin of the family structure, which allows for a loving environment to nurture and guide the healthy growth of children. It is the channeling of base animal instincts of sexual desire and offspring protection into a more organized form that reduces confusion and unnecessary conflict. Within this formalized unification of the genetic interests of a breeding pair these base instincts become refined and ennobled for both the individuals and their wider community. The individuals gain richer and more meaningful sexual and reproductive experiences, and the community gains clarity in intersexual relations and an environment that allows for selection of traits beyond short term opportunistic brutality, the benefits of which reverberate for generations.

None of this rooting in reality makes sense with two men, or three women, or five men and a sheep, which points to the second major reason: it’s a lie. A “redefinition” of marriage means using the word for something that it isn’t. It’s not a matter of “differing views,” it’s a matter of failure to view. “Gay marriage” is an absurd concept, and going along with the illusion for tactical reasons, to give this to liberals so that we can focus on something deemed more important, is to sanction the acceptance of yet another popular lie. It’s giving up on yet another truth. This sounds like an idealistic point, a moral luxury unaffordable to those who desperately fight a leftist behemoth bloating further every moment into every aspect of our lives thereby providing more tangible battlegrounds to fight more concrete harm than some abstract notion of truth, but there are of course practical implications when any mass of humans agrees to deny truth. Abandoning truth is giving up.

The Conservative Party has done this, and has ceded ground to and legitimized the liberals. They are continuing the tried and failed cuckservative method of simply being yesterday’s Liberal party, or the party of slightly lower taxes plus guns. Through this change, the Party is able to stay in power as the official opposition candidate, but gives people no option to the ever-accelerating liberal dominion. So the voters stay home, and curse the television, then forget about it the next day. Conservatives surrender what should be defended in the name of convenience, and this, too, is merely giving up.

Tags: canada, cuckservative, gay marriage, marriage