multiculturalism is, in many ways, deeply reactionary, even.

and, no - the abolition of cultural or religious or racial identity would not make us all the same, but would rather give us the freedom to define ourselves as individuals, against the conforming forces of identity politics.

i've been over this before: this idea that having a bunch of different representatives from a bunch of different religious groups is reflective of a diversity of opinion is laughable. there are few institutions that stamp out independent thought as effectively as christianity and islam do; you walk into a mosque, and everybody thinks the same way, dresses the same way, acts the same way and says the same things, in response to a wide variety of questions - this is the opposite of a diversity of thought, and if you want to increase a diversity of thought, you don't increase their numbers, but break up their system. this panel of religious representatives is reflective of a conformity of thought, rather than a diversity of it.

if we want actual diversity, and actual independence of thought, and actual critical thinking, then we must fight against the conforming and dulling intellectual effects of religion at every turn.

so, it would follow that a world free of cultural and ethnic identity would be an algorithm to maximize diversity, not one to stifle it - and that this insistence on maintaining cultural and ethnic identity is the actual retarding force in normalizing critical thinking.

i might even make the following argument: while nationalism is a rejection of globalization, what we refer to as multiculturalism is the conservative way to embrace it, by maintaining the existence of distinct cultural identities within the globalizing process - and what should be called postculturalism is the truly liberal way to embrace it, by embracing the true abolition of nationalism, and discarding the insistence on holding to cultural identity as backwards in a globalizing society.

there's an abstract for an essay for you, kids.

the lingering effect is a kind of brain fog - a constant lethargy, lack of energy and inability to focus.

again: there's a difference between finding a puff here and there (my usual habit) and chronic exposure to high-potency strains of the stuff hourly for months. habitual marijuana use makes you lazy and stupid - that's not news. what i'm trying to figure out is how long it takes to clear it out.

and, the answer is a long time, apparently.

and, yeah - i'm now 38 years old, apparently. how'd that happen?

i don't really celebrate birthdays. i think it's bourgeois.

but, what i'd like to give myself is the gift of clear-headedness - not sobriety, exactly, as i don't have a problem with that, but clarity, to be free of the effects of the habits of others, and to regain the mental alertness i took for granted until around this time last year.

i'm coming up on eight months of abstention, and four months in a cleaner, if not completely clean, environment. and, yes - i'm still feeling it.

one day at a time.

it can't be forever.

it's a relatively large area covering most of bc and some of the yukon - maybe the last one left in north america.

but, they're real life injuns. really, truly. never conquered. never ceded. just right there, the whole time.

but, i also need to keep pointing out that the duty to consult should only be applicable in situations where eminent domain is legal, which are situations under some kind of treaty, which is not the case in bc.

in bc, it needs to be understood that these are fully sovereign tribes and that acting without consultation is invading and occupying a sovereign territory.

so, the courts can come up with these kinds of rules of thumb, but the more foundational issue in this case is the jurisdictional one - the only meaningful ruling from the court is for it to rule it doesn't have jurisdiction, which it has actually come fairly close to doing, already.

the case law stipulates that you have what is a called a "duty to consult", which is semantically identical to a request to seek consent. that said, the case law does not necessitate that the consultation is adhered to in any way.

it's basically down to the judge. there have been cases that have been overturned on appeal under the claim that the consultation was not legitimate, and i might suspect that this would be the case if the lng issue were brought to the supreme court, as the consultation was not through the appropriate body.

but, it may just buy time, as a meaningful consultation wouldn't be legally binding.

the globe article was frustrating to me because it made it seem as though the issue was being pushed down by a meddlesome international body, when the opposite is actually true: the canadian courts are actually responsible for a substantial amount of the direction and tone of the conceptualized internationalization of aboriginal law.

am i going to get killed if i call for the mass conversion of mosques into planetariums and observatories?

meh.

come at me, bro.

so, what's the difference between a multiculturalist and a postculturalist?

a multiculturalist wants to build more churches and more mosques and more temples and more synagogues, and then have the people that frequent them build networks of solidarity and understanding, whereas a postculturalist wants to empty the places of worship and convert the structures into something more useful, depending on the context - some of them would make excellent libraries or data centres, while others would make good homeless shelters, and still others could be converted into museums, while those domes could be converted into awesome planetariums....

i could go through a dozen examples, bu t i think you get the point.

i want less religion, not more of it.