You and me, baby, ain’t nothin’ but mammals

I’m going to put on my amateur sociologist/evolutionary psychologist hat and ramble at you, so I’d appreciate some preemptive forgiveness at my uninformed indulgence.

The survival of a species is driven by two distinct primal forces: creation and destruction. Humans, like most animals, have these forces allocated by sex. Male is destruction, female is creation. I know some of you flinch immediately at the mention of destruction, but a primal force is not inherently good nor evil. It simply is. And a thriving species needs both forces working in concert.

Creation encompasses not only the most important and literal manifestation (children) but also the creation of strong group cohesion for the in-group: the family, the tribe, the community. Using empathy to resolve conflict between members of the in-group and to prevent internal threats to community stability.

Destruction shapes the external world and bends it to the good of the in-group. And it defends the in-group from the out-groups that threaten the safety of the tribe, securing the resources that the tribe needs to live.

These forces are not exclusive to their respective sexes. Men have empathy for their in-group. Women use social violence to maintain order and to prevent the upheaval of direct competition within the tribe. It’s a dynamic relationship that works for the human animal. But each force must be bound by the other.

2 things have happen in modern society that have upset this balance.

First, destruction has been marked as unredeemable evil, and creation as absolutely good. In practical terms, men have been condemned as dangerous beasts who must be restrained and trained to never use violence. And with enough stern lecturing and scolding about feelings and empathy, they will be able to remove the ‘stain’ of violence from their souls. But scolding does not, and will never stop the ill intention actions of hostile members from the out-group. By shackling the strong men in your tribe, you submit yourself to the tyranny of weak men from outside the group. And destruction as a primal force is hard-coded into our DNA. The same biology that gives men the capacity for terrible physical deeds also fuels the most heroic of our actions: soldiers defending their children, firefighters rushing into a burning building, cops chasing down violent psychopaths. In a healthy society, the force of destruction is used as a tool to protect the weak and vulnerable of your tribe.

The second disruption is unbounded empathy. It’s been expanded so that effectively every human is part of the in-group, and empathy is allocated on an emotional basis of who you most feel bad for. But for empathy to be effective there must be a shared priority of the welfare of the entire group. The former out-groups that you have no classified as part of your tribe have no allegiance to you or your actual tribe. And by spending limited resources on the out-group, you expose your group to danger.

Here is an example of empathy gone horribly wrong. To summarize, a non-citizen was spared a criminal conviction, because a conviction would have prevented him from becoming a Canadian citizen. The crime that he was charged with? Trying to pay at 15-year-old girl to have sex with him. Our empathy-driven criminal justice system prioritized adding this man to the Canadian in-group instead of protecting Canadian children from sex predators. So the safety of our internal group has now been compromised (repeatedly. This is sadly not the only example of our failed rule of law). And since empathy has not only failed to stop the danger, but actively increased it, men will come to the decision that they must take action. THIS IS NOT A GOOD SITUATION FOR SOCIETY. I believe in the value of strong laws that are applied fairly, to prevent violence as a solution. But when the Rule of Law fails to protect the weak, men will take the law into their own hands. And there will be blood.

The fear that drives a nation

(Oh no I’m on my non-writing bullshit again. Buckle up for nation state psychology theory!)

A government sets its course of action with a series of policy decisions that (hopefully) are well-thought out and integrated to benefit the population they represent. There should always be a coherent positive vision that the government in question is trying to achieve. But in addition to that, I suspect that there’s a core fear that shapes a government’s planning. Sometimes they share that fear with other similar nations/provinces/municipalities, like Western Europe’s fear of invasion from the Soviet Union. So, I’ve spent literally minutes thinking over what the primary fear of a few major countries are right now, and how that fear shapes their policy.

U.S.A. fear: China becomes hostile

It’s hard to pick out a clear policy vision from the U.S. right now, since their president constantly “floods the zone” with poorly explained and hastily put together announcements. There is a distinct chance that it is just random policies crashing into each other. But for the sake of argument, I will assume that there is a coherent concept. I tend to ignore almost everything the president says, and instead look at what the vice-president and the Secretary of State say. And based on what Vance and Rubio have said repeatedly, the threat of China invading Taiwan is the primary fear that they have. That invasion, which China has been threatening for years, would suddenly cut off the worlds supply of semi-conductors and advanced computer chips. America would need to defend Taiwan to protect the chip supply, which would mean a hostile relationship with China. Chinese exports to the U.S. would be stopped. If this is the premise that shapes your government’s view of the world, then you’d make it a priority to decouple your manufacturing from China. By applying massive tariffs to Chinese goods, you’d be signaling to your domestic producers that they need to make new plans based on limited access to China.

And hostilities with China would mean conflicts in adjacent regions, as China attempts to gain control of sea lanes. To prevent that, you’d want to have better control of your neighbouring territories like Greenland and Canada. China, or their effectively proxy state of Russia, would attempt to claim the Arctic as theirs, bringing the threat of Chinese troops much too close to the U.S. Keep in mind that there is considerable evidence that China has considerable influence over the current Canadian government, and that government has shown a suspicious lack of concern over Chinese Communist Party interference in Canadian affairs.

Canada’s fear: We’re going to run out of people

It’s a little bit more difficult to pick a primary fear for the Canadian government This is a government that has been driven by emotion and vibes for 9 years. Progressivism is a feelings-based ideology. But I’ve settled (for now) on the fear of depopulation as the primary fear. Total fertility rate in Canada is below the replacement rate of 2 babies per woman, as it is in most countries. Even the African countries with high TFRs are seeing a decline. And a nation that has a low TFR has massive problems on the horizon. Society depends on new humans to take on the burden of supporting the old ones. Without enough babies being born, you run out of workers and money. So, they decided to massively increase the number of people coming into Canada.

They could not speed up the legal immigration pathway to a sufficient level to meet this goal, because of the onerous process and lack of state capacity. But they could relax the enforcement on asylum claims, and increase the number of international students and temporary foreign workers allowed. This created an alternate path to permanent residency that was much quicker and easier than legal immigration. Foreign national comes to Canada on pretense of working or studying, then claims refugee status when their temporary permit runs out. That gives them about 2 years before their refugee claim is processed, and during that time they can move freely about the country and simply disappear. The Canadian government has admitted that there are tens of thousands of non-citizens that the government has lost track of. Add to this number of new residents, the increase in legitimate refugees brought in by the federal government. This increase in refugees may satisfy their Progressive Guilt/Savior complex, but the practical effect has been a housing and healthcare supply crisis.

Russia’s fear: We are no longer relevant

Russia has been more of a mob boss than a nation in the last decade. No grand vision, and only a sad trace of their previous Empire. As China has become ascendant, the importance of Russia as a geopolitical force has steadily decreased. Even the threat of their nuclear arsenal has become stale. So they now claw and scrape at Ukraine in an attempt to revie the Russian empire. In actuality, they’ve weakened themselves into a client state of China, a slightly more prosperous version of North Korea. The danger they pose is limited to their immediate European neighbours, and that threat could easily be nullified if/when Europe decides to protect itself.

Europe’s fear: Change will bring chaos

The European Union is defined by a love of restrictive regulations, and a fondness for censorship. At the root of both of these impulses lies a fear of the uncontrolled. Europe sees itself as a finished product, and anything new must be brought under control and kept from upsetting the established order. And anyone who questions the status quo is a “far right” agitator that must be kept from participating in public discussion. This leads to a stifling of technological innovation, weakened democracy and a slow, managed decline of society. In attempting to keep their nations frozen in a state of near-perfection, they are atrophying into irrelevance. This approach has been made possible by a complete reliance on America to provide military deterrence to Europe’s enemies. This was a necessary position after World War 2, when the nations of Europe were in ruins. But it led to learned helplessness in the last 20 years, and a deliberate lack of investment in their national defense. Poland has changed its course, being fully aware that Russian aspirations always include Poland. But the EU is designed to make change difficult and time-consuming, and your enemies will not abide by your regulated timelines.

Hardboiled or Noir?

Did you read the title of this post and wonder “what the hell is he talking about? Are those even real words?” Well I don’t blame you. The whole sentence fragment sounds like nonsense.

But they are real terms, used to describe types, or ‘genres’ of Crime fiction. Normal people don’t describe books using genre classifications, but publishers and literary agents lust after them. So authors desperately trying to woo the industry and get it to pay them some sweet attention (and cold, hard cash) will shout out their genres to anyone who will listen.

My new book, Falstaff Gets Found, has a number of genre categories it could grease its way into. Crime? Yes. Detective? Yup. Thriller? I think so. Erotic? ….no, not unless you’ve got some really weird kinks and I do NOT want to know about it.

I’ve narrowed it down to either (or both) of the Crime subcategories of ‘Hardboiled’ or ‘Noir’. In part because I love the idea of these genres. Both came into existence in 20th century America, though you can always find an ancestral book or film from Europe that could be called the true start of the genre. Regardless, the two came into popularity in the U.S. of A.

Hardboiled was a product of the dirty thirties, the period between World War 1 and World War 2. It has tough men fighting against dirty criminals and corrupt cops. The hero takes his lumps, but ultimately he perseveres and saves the day.

Hardboiled man shoots the news. Who could blame him?

Noir emerged at the end of World War 2. It paints a world where no one is innocent, society is infested with liars, cheats and general scum. Even the heroes are flawed and morally questionable, trapped by their own weaknesses in a world that simply doesn’t care.

Driving in a Noir movie is dangerous stuff. Turn on a light, Robert!

To be honest, John Falstaff is a noir ‘hero’. He’s a coward, a junkie, and a liar who is hiding from his past and the guilt he can’t escape. He fails routinely, usually due to self-sabotage. And there are no good people in this story. Some aren’t that bad, but some are real stinkers.

And yet, these awful, miserable wretches keep trudging forward. They find solace with each other. Maybe, some day, they will find some grace. That’s the door I’m leaving open for John. I don’t know if he’ll ever step through it.