The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Obama's Legacy

The last year of the US presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is now half over and it is abundantly clear what his enduring legacy – that for which he will be remembered – will be. It will not be his disastrous attempt to give the United States a socialized health care system that has all the failings of ours up here in Canada and none of the more positive aspects. It will not even be the relentless jihad his administration has waged against traditional Christians on behalf of birth control, abortion, gay rights, and other aspects of the ongoing sexual revolution. Rather it will be a legacy of racial division and strife.

It would not have taken a great degree of prescience to have predicted as much in the fall of 2008 when Obama was first elected president. At the time media progressives in an orgy of self-congratulatory rejoicing proclaimed that the election of Obama was ushering in a new age of a new “post-racial” America, oblivious to the reality that in a republic which, for the first time its history, had chosen its president largely on the basis of his skin colour, race was obviously more important than it had ever been before. Less than a month after Obama’s first inauguration, his Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. provided another clue as to the direction in which this administration would lead the United States when he berated Americans as a “nation of cowards” that has “still not come to grips with its racial past” and called for a “national conversation” on the subject of race. What Obama and Holder meant by “conversation”, of course, was not a dialogue, an interchange in which varying points of view are respectfully heard and discussed, but a monologue in which blacks voice their complaints and everyone else listens and grovels.

Then began the long stream of incidents in which the media shamelessly politicized the private suffering of black families who had lost a son to the gunfire of police or, in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case that started it all, a neighborhood watch co-ordinator, and Obama, even more shamelessly, interjected himself, and tried to make it all about him. “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.” “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

This gave birth to “Black Lives Matter”, which started as a banal cliché and then grew into a radical protest movement. The movement is founded upon the idea that the United States of the present day is a white supremacist country in which black lives are devalued and the police, the agents of white supremacism, systematically target blacks with violence causing a disproportionate number of black deaths. This idea is, of course, completely contra factual, although every smug, snarky, self-assured, progressive on the planet seems to be convinced of its truth.

As was reported last year, far more whites die at the hands of the American police each year, than blacks. In Philadelphia, at least, black and Hispanic cops are more likely to shoot at blacks than white cops. Forty percent of cop killers in the United States are black, making blacks much more likely to kill cops than the other way around. For that matter, violent interracial crime in the United States is overwhelmingly black on white rather than vice versa. Finally, far more blacks die at the hand of other blacks each year, than at the hands of the police. If anyone devalues black lives in the United States, if anyone thinks that black lives do not matter, it is not white police officers, but other blacks.

If the people who parade under the banner of “Black Lives Manner” really believed their own slogan, they would be preaching at other blacks, rather than at white cops.

The slogan and the movement, however, have never really been about bringing down the black death count in America so much as stirring up bitterness, anger, and hatred against white people and especially against white cops. That there was an abundance of such bitterness, anger, and hatred already is quite in evidence in the statistics referred to above. To deliberately stir up more can only be regarded as an act of pure malice especially in the light of the deadly consequences that we have seen over the last couple of weeks.

On Tuesday July 5th a black man named Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the following day another black man, Philando Castile was killed by a police officer in St. Paul, Minnesota. The media immediately began to fit these killings into their narrative of racist white cops killing innocent blacks – despite there being plenty of facts which do not fit that narrative (1) - while politicians like Obama and his heir designate Hilary Clinton took the opportunity to do the usual grandstanding and posturing. Then on Thursday, July 7th, at a protest over these killings organized in Dallas, Texas by Black Lives Matter, a black army veteran named Micah Xavier Johnson, having declared that he “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers” put this wish into action and went on a shooting spree, killing five officers and injuring about a dozen other people before holing up in a college building, where, in a bizarre sci-fi twist to the story, a police robot armed with a bomb took him out.

It did not end there, naturally. The next day similar incidents, albeit on a smaller scale, took place in Bristol, Tennessee, Valdosta, Georgia and Ballwin, Missouri. On the Saturday night after that someone began shooting at the police headquarters in San Antonio and that same weekend protests in Baton Rouge and St. Paul turned violent, with protestors in the latter attacking the police with crude projectiles and Molotov cocktails. Then, on July 17th, a man named Gavin Eugene Long, who referred to himself as a “black separatist,” shot six police officers in Baton Rouge.

At the recent Republican National Convention, David A. Clarke Jr., the Sherriff of Milwaukee Country, Wisconsin called these events “guerilla urban warfare against the police”, which seems an apt description. Perhaps it would be more apt, however, to paraphrase the notorious remarks of the American president’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and say that “Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

At the beginning of his presidency, Obama’s administration asked for a national conversation on race, and at the end of it, what he has given America is a race war. This will be all that history will remember him for.

(1) Among other contra-narrative facts were that both men were armed, Sterling was resisting arrest, and the cop who shot Castile was not white.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

When do we get to Stop Clapping?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tells in the Gulag Archipelago of a conference in the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin in which a tribute was given to the tyrant and the standing ovation went on for over three hours because the NKVD were watching to see who would be the first to stop. Eventually, the director of the paper mill sat down, thus relieving everybody else, but later that night he was arrested. At the end of the interrogation, before he disappeared into the Gulag for ten years, he was reminded “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.” The same held true for all the speeches of the Soviet dictator himself. Eventually a system was devised whereby a bell would ring letting people know when they could stop clapping.

Stalin’s Soviet Union was what is known as a hard tyranny – a state where the absolute rule of the tyrant is enforced by naked force such as making people disappear into hard labour camps or just outright shooting them. Today, in a Canada whose government is once more led by a Trudeau, the son of the Communist traitor who did everything he could to replace our beloved Royal Dominion with a People’s Republic, we have what is known as a soft tyranny. The enforcers wear smiles on their faces, speak softly, and use sweet sounding words like “compassion”, “tolerance”, “understanding” and the like. Rather than forced labour camps and bullets we have sensitivity classes, the loss of jobs and careers, and Human Rights Tribunals, the last mentioned of which should perhaps be classified as medium-soft, or medium-hard tyranny. The effect, however, is remarkably similar. People are afraid to be the first to stop clapping – not for the goofy, sappy, superficial, empty-headed, shallow little twit who is a disgrace to the office of Her Majesty’s First Minister – but for the causes he champions, foremost among them being that of the alphabet soup gang.

Twenty years ago the average Canadian, if asked, would say that what people did behind closed doors was their own business, that if it was two men or two women rather than a man and a woman it wasn’t hurting anyone else, and as long as they weren’t shoving it down everyone else’s throats, we shouldn’t care. In the Canada of the Current Year, it is no longer safe to take that attitude. Today, we are all expected to agree – in the name of diversity, no less – that if a man likes men, or a woman likes women, or a man thinks he’s a woman, or whatever, that it is wonderful, superb, marvelous, and of course, absolutely fabulous, that they are that way, and if your enthusiasm is detectably less than that of the next person, you might be suspected of being a horrible, homophobic bigot with criminal thoughts from which the public must be protected.

If you think this to be an exaggeration contemplate the words of Justin Trudeau during his recent visit to Auschwitz “Tolerance is never sufficient. Humanity must learn to love our differences.” Those differences which we must learn to love do not include, of course, differing in opinion with Trudeau and other progressives. Observe also the amount of pressure that is now being placed on public officials and politicians of all parties, to attend the ostentatious displays of depravity and bad taste that are now known merely as Pride parades, “gay” being too limited a designation to please the crowd that calls itself something like LGBTTQAEIOUANDSOMETIMESY.

As bad as it is that progressives like the Trudeau Liberals insist on bullying everyone into professing conformity with their “enlightened” way of thinking, it is even worse when this sort of thing goes on in the church. Which is exactly what has been going on in the Anglican Church of Canada. At the General Synod of the ACC, which convened this month in Toronto, a motion was heard proposing that the marriage canon be changed to allow for same-sex marriages. When the motion, which to pass required two thirds support from the bishops, clergy, and lay delegates each, was initially defeated by a small margin, the activists who have been agitating for this change despite its clear and obvious violation of the teachings of both Scripture and Church tradition and the fact that it threatens the ACC’s standing with the See of Canterbury and the larger Anglican Communion worldwide which, in contrast with the ACC and the Episcopal Church (USA) in North America, is overwhelmingly orthodox, demanded a recount, and several of the bishops declared that they would allow same-sex marriages within their dioceses with or without the canon change, on the grounds that it is not explicitly prohibited. One wonders how these bishops would react if one of their parishes were to justify holding a Black Mass, complete with human sacrifice, with the same reasoning (assuming this is not explicitly prohibited by canon law – I have not bothered to check). At any rate, the next day the vote was examined, it was determined that someone’s vote had been misclassified, and Archbishop Fred Hiltz declared the motion to have passed. It requires a second vote at the next General Synod before the change can take place, although the same bishops, with the same specious reasoning, have said that they will be going ahead and authorizing the ceremonies anyway.

I am not going to spend a whole lot of time explaining why the Synod had no business hearing such a proposal in the first place. The arguments I put forward in my essay “Why the Church Should Not Perform Same Sex Blessings” when my own Diocese (Rupert’s Land) approved the blessing of same-sex couples four years ago are as applicable to the fiction of same-sex marriage. It can be added that the Founder of the Christian Church, when asked about the lawfulness of divorce, pointed out that in the beginning God made mankind “male and female” and said that “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh”, concluding that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:4-6) If man ought not to break up the union of marriage because God is its Author, how much less ought he to mutate it beyond recognition. The Anglican Church has considered itself since the Reformation to be both Catholic – a Church in organic and organization descent from the Apostolic Church in possession of magisterial authority to teach the Word and administer the Sacraments – and Reformed – acknowledging the revealed Word of God as the highest authority. The Church’s authority, therefore, does not extend to changing the truth of God, which is not subject to democratic vote, and to make this change makes complete mockery of the admirable canon of St. Vincent of Lérins, supposedly revered by Anglicans, in which Catholic orthodoxy is defined as holding to that which “has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”

My point, rather, at least for the sake of this essay, is that the same kind of smiley-faced Stalinism that is the essence of the Liberalism of Justin “Sunny Ways” Trudeau, has been the tactic used by the Gaystapo to effect this transformation in the Canadian arm of the Church of Richard Hooker, Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson and C. S. Lewis. As Dr. David W. Virtue reports:

VIRTUEONLINE has received word that intimidation and bullying took place behind the scenes at the recent Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada over the push for same sex marriage…Here is what VOL learned. When the Synod members broke up into small discussion groups, some members complained about being “intimidated” and “harassed.” Archbishop Fred Hiltz spoke against harassment tactics, but the victims weren't identified. It wasn't until later that the identity of the "harassed" was made public. Those bishops and their delegates from the orthodox dioceses of Caledonia, Yukon, and the Arctic, because of their opposition to same-sex marriage, were identified as the victims.

The same harassed and intimidated bishops have issued an excellent dissenting statement, which I recommend that you read in its entirety, drawing your attention in particular to the following:

The Resolution as carried does not provide adequate protection for the consciences of dioceses, clergy and congregations. We are concerned for all those of a traditional conscience on marriage within the Anglican Church of Canada.

There is plenty of reason for such concern. Intimidation, harassment, and bullying have been the tactics of the pro-homosexual activists within the Church all along, as anyone who has followed the sad story of how they have gotten their way over “same-sex blessings”, by hook or by crook, in diocese after diocese, beginning with New Westminster in 2002, is well aware. Now that they have a sympathizer in the Prime Minister’s Office, these bullying wolves-in-sheep-and-shepherd’s clothing, are even more emboldened and brazen about it.

It is somewhat ironic that these Social Justice Warriors claim to be motivated by the desire to protect the alphabet soupers from something called “homophobia”, when this term would seem to more accurately describe the fear and hatred that are sure to be generated by their tactics than that to which it is more usually applied, namely the orthodox doctrine that male and female were designed to be attracted to each other, that homosexual erotic relations are sinful, and that forgiveness and freedom from such can be found in Jesus Christ through faith and repentance. Stalin, was not exactly highly esteemed after his passing, except among idiotic liberal academics, and eventually, when the progressive regime falls, as all regimes that govern by fear do, Justin Trudeau and those marching under the banner of the Pride that precedes their inevitable fall, will be remembered in the same way.

In the meantime, kudos to the orthodox bishops who dared to sign their name to the dissent. One wonders when all other Canadians will get to stop clapping.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Hic et Ille III

The Next Step Down the Slippery Slope

The Christian dating site, Christian Mingle, has now been compelled, through a discrimination suit brought against them by a couple of homosexual men, to expand the options available from “men seeking women” and “women seeking men”. Mark Richardson of the Oz Conservative blog has observed that this case “demonstrates clearly how liberal claims to tolerance and neutrality simply don't work in practice.” It is also the next step down the path of antidiscrimination towards the outcome that I discussed in my essay “Discrimination and Justice” last month, namely, mandatory universal omnisexuality. We are fast approaching the time where social and legal pressure to conform to the new culture of “tolerance” will be the instruments of a raptum omnium ab omnibus.

Speaking of Bad Court Rulings

On November 1st, 2015, an Indian woman named Tamara Crowchief went up to a white woman named, ironically, Linda White outside a pub in Calgary and, yelling “I hate white people”, punched her in the face causing her to lose a tooth. Calgary provincial court judge, Harry Van Harten just ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support classifying this as a “hate crime”. “I am not satisfied”, the judge declared “beyond a reasonable doubt that this offence was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.” Does anyone seriously doubt that he would have been satisfied if the scenario had been reversed? Hate laws, which declare a criminal act to be more serious and to come with a more severe penalty if motivated by prejudice are fundamentally bad laws because they forbid politically disapproved thoughts and feelings rather than criminally unacceptable acts. Punching someone and knocking her tooth out is properly against the law regardless of the motivation. Although hate laws are bad at the conceptual level, it is even worse for judges to apply them to members of one race but not to members of another even if the racial hatred of the latter is overt, obvious, and explicitly stated. What this case demonstrates, as if we needed any more evidence, is the truth of the meme that states that anti-racist is merely a code word for being anti-white.

Feminism and Anti-Racism Kill Brain Cells

Judge van Harten isn’t the only one who applies rules differently to different races. Over in Sweden, where an über form of political correctness has sadly replaced Lutheranism as the state religion, and where rape is rampant with just under eighty percent of the rapes being committed by those their victims identify as foreigners, Barbro Sörman, a feminist politician with the Swedish Left Party recently raised eyebrows by tweeting that it is worse when Swedish men commit rape than when immigrants do because the former, having been programmed to be egalitarian all their lives, should know better. In North America, feminists spend all their time complaining about the “rape culture” on university campuses, all of which resemble mini-Swedens in their ultra-liberal thought control, but their Swedish counterpart, excuses rapes on the grounds of the culture of those who commit them. People really ought to be warned about the dangers of opening their mouths while under the influence of feminism.

The Religious Right Died A Long Time Ago

A little over a week ago Lydia McGrew made the remark that “the religious right has died, not with a bang but an abject whimper” and referred her readers to an article by Michael Farris of the Christian Post declaring that the event late last month when thousand or so evangelical leaders went to Trump Tower to hear Donald Trump speak and meet with him signalled “the end of the Christian right.” I hate to break this to Mrs. McGrew and Mr. Farris but the Christian or religious right, died a long time ago. Its demise is indeed related to the Donald Trump campaign, but not in the way supposed. The efforts of the American religious right, since the formation of the Moral Majority almost forty years ago, have been concentrated on rallying the support of American evangelicals for approved candidates in the Republican primaries, and then for the Republican nominee in the American presidential election. The intended end of this was the turning back, or at least the halting, of the tide of moral, religious, and cultural decay represented by decreasing church attendance, increasing secularism, the new sexual permissiveness, rising divorce rates, and the abortion holocaust. Yet even when their candidates – such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush – won both the Republican nomination and the presidency, the decay continued unabated and the globalist agenda pursued by these presidents in practice, if anything, accelerated that decay. It is this same globalist agenda of free trade, open immigration, and the erasure of national boundaries in general, that is being rejected by those rallying behind Trump today. If the religious right has ceased to be, in the words of Lydia McGrew, “any sort of credible force in politics” it is not because its leaders are now embracing Donald Trump, but because they spent the last forty years embracing the kind of globalist politicians that Trump is getting so much mileage out of railing against today.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Dominion Day

One-hundred forty-nine years ago today, the British North America Act came into effect, establishing the Dominion of Canada as, a new country within the British Empire, governed by its own federal Parliament under our shared Sovereign. At the time that Sovereign was Queen Victoria, who had signed the British North America Act into law, and the era which bears her name was a far superior one to our own, although our present Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, is as fine a Christian lady as she was. As evidence of the inferiority of the present era, I point to the fact that today all over our country people will be greeting each other with “Happy Canada Day”, many unaware that the anniversary of Confederation was known as “Dominion Day” until 1982, and an even larger number unaware of the underhanded and unconstitutional manner in which the name change was accomplished.

There was nothing wrong with the holiday’s original name. As Robertson Davies, the great Canadian novelist, essayist and educator, wrote to the Globe and Mail at the time, the old name was “splendid” whereas the new one was “wet” being “only one letter removed from the name of a soft drink” Of the change itself, Davies described it as “one of the inexplicable lunacies of a democratic system temporarily running to seed.”

There had been much of that “inexplicable lunacy” in the two decades of nearly uninterrupted Liberal government that preceded the change of the name of the national holiday. During that time the Liberals had avoided our country’s full appellation like a plague. Or, as the late Senator Eugene Forsey put it in his memoirs:

The assault on ‘Dominion’ especially was characterized by bad law, bad history, bad logic; by chopping and changing, cringing, creeping, crawling (sometimes to Americans or other ‘foreigners’, sometimes to ‘many good and loyal Canadians’ – unspecified); by dodging, ducking, wriggling, squirming, backing and filling; by confusions (notably between the ‘name’ of our country, which is Canada, and its ‘title’, which is Dominion); by untruths and fairy tales. The perpetrators of this performance did almost all their work darkly, at dead of night, the sod with their bayonets turning. They took the word ‘Dominion’ off official documents and even out of the telephone book, surreptitiously, without any legal authority. (1)

During this time and subsequently, the Liberals have maintained, that “Dominion” was a hold-over from colonial days and that it denoted the subservient status of a territorial possession of another country. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. It was the Fathers of Confederation themselves who decided upon “The Dominion of Canada” as the full title and name of our country in 1867.

Donald Creighton, Canada’s greatest historian, told how this came about in his The Road to Confederation. According to Creighton:

There was no doubt about the choice of the British Americans. They wanted to call their new nation a kingdom. At Halifax, at the time of the Charlottetown Conference, MacDonald had talked of ‘founding a great British monarchy, in connection with the British Empire’; the delegates had come to the Quebec Conference, Frances Monck reported, to create a ‘United Kingdom of Canada’. ‘There exists in Canada and I think also in the other provinces,’ Monck informed Carnarvon in September 1866, ‘a very strong desire that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to designate the union a “Kingdom” and so give to her representative the title of “Viceroy.” (2)

This proposal met with objections in the Colonial Office, Creighton went on to relate, because of “fear of incurring the displeasure of the irascible republic” to the south of British North America, and so:

The first desire of the British Americans had been denied; they found a second-best alternative in the title ‘Dominion’. It was perhaps Tilley [Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, Father of Confederation] who discovered how appropriate to the ultimate territorial limits of confederation were the words of the Seventy-second Psalm, ‘He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth’. (3)

“Dominion” was chosen from the Scriptures as an equivalent of “kingdom” that would be less overt and therefore less offensive to the Yankees, a marvellous compromise embodying the evolving Canadian tradition.

So why did the Liberals hate it so much?

The Liberals who were in power from 1963 to 1984 seemed to hate everything about the Canada that had been established in 1867 and were determined to wipe it out of history and replace it with something completely different. Forsey described these efforts as “attempts to rob Canada of her history,” a process which had begun with the replacement of the national flag in 1965 during the premiership of Lester Pearson. The previous flag, the Canadian Red Ensign had served as our country’s national flag informally from Confederation until 1945, when it its status was made official by order-in-council. Pearson’s determination to replace it was a gross insult to all the Canadian soldiers who had fought and died under that flag during the Second World War but this did not seem to matter to him. Was this simply a matter of ego – a politician determined to leave his own brand on the country he governed at the expense of its roots and traditions – or was it something more sinister than that?

When Pearson changed the flag, there was a huge controversy over it in Parliament, with John Diefenbaker leading the Conservatives in opposition to the change and defence of the old symbol. The subsequent changes, such as the elimination of many “Royal” designations and most references to Canada’s being a “Dominion”, were accomplished much less openly, during the premiership of Pearson’s protégé, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This is true of the change of the name of the national holiday of which Forsey wrote:

Finally they changed the name of ‘Dominion Day’ by Act of Parliament – put through the House of Commons by something very close to sneak-thievery, when it is pretty certain there was not even a quorum. (4)

There were only thirteen members present in the House on that day, a hot Friday in July, when the private member’s bill to change the holiday name was bumped up the queue and passed. That was indeed, insufficient for a quorum, but Parliament, in violation of its own rules and the Constitution, allowed that to slide.

Pierre Trudeau’s motivations are simple enough to figure out. He was a man who never met a Communist regime that he did not love. In 1952 Joseph Stalin had hosted an international conference of Communists in Moscow to which Trudeau was an invited Canadian delegate. (5) While in power as Prime Minister he fawned all over the Chinese Communist tyrant and mass-murderer Mao Zedong and had a bromance with Fidel Castro. Communism is even more anti-royalist than American republicanism. When it first seized control of Russia in 1917 it murdered the Russian royal family, the Romanovs, and its founding philosopher, Karl Marx, wrote his infamous Manifesto for the Communist League, an organization founded to continue the ideals of the French Revolution, which had overthrown the Bourbon monarchy in France. Is it surprising, therefore, that a man whose sympathies were so obviously with the Communist movement behaved like he was trying, in a sneaky and surreptitious way, to transform Canada from the traditional, royal, Dominion it had been founded as into a People’s Republic?

It is possible that the same dark motive guided even Lester Pearson. Pearson achieved fame in the 1950s when he won the Nobel Peace Prize – a prize that only ever seems to be awarded to subversive scoundrels – for his role in bringing about a resolution to the Suez Canal Crisis. Since Pearson favoured the American position in the crisis against that of Britain, France, and Israel, those who rightly accused him of betraying Canada’s pro-British tradition at the time, assumed that it was because he was acting in the interests of the United States. Often overlooked is the fact that the Soviets were on the same side as the United States in that crisis. Certainly, Pierre Trudeau could never have risen to the premiership of Canada, had Lester Pearson not brought him into the Liberal Party and groomed him to be his successor. Was Lester Pearson Canada’s equivalent of a Kim Philby or a Guy Burgess? (6)

Perhaps we will never know. At any rate, I for one remain a patriot of the Dominion of Canada that was founded by men like Sir John A. MacDonald during the Victorian era and refuse to recognize the New Canada of subversive scum like Pearson and Trudeau.

So I wish you all a Happy Dominion Day.
God Save the Queen!

(1) Eugene Forsey, A Life On The Fringe: The Memoirs of Eugene Forsey, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 200.
(2) Donald Grant Creighton, The Road To Confederation: The Emergence of Canada 1863-1867, (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1963), pp. 421-422.
(3) Ibid., p. 423.
(4) Forsey, p. 200.
(5) David Somerville, Trudeau Revealed: By His Actions and Words, (Richmond Hill: BMG Publishing Ltd., 1979 pp. 50-67. “In the conference report printed afterwards”, Somerville writes “Trudeau’s name is listed first in the Canadian delegations. While no delegations had designated leaders, a perusal of other countries clearly shows that the most important member of the delegation is listed first.” (p. 53)
(6) Philby and Burgess were two of the “Cambridge Five”, who had been recruited by the Communists to spy on their own country for the Soviet Union in their student days at Cambridge University in the 1930s. Philby served as a mole in MI6 for decades, rising to a high rank, before his treason was discovered and he openly defected to the Soviet Union. Burgess worked as a diplomat in the Foreign Office. The implication of the question in the text of this essay may seem ludicrous but CIA boss James Jesus Angleton certainly suspected Pearson of being a Soviet agent and warned the RCMP of such. This in itself is hardly evidence of anything, the CIA being a notoriously incompetent intelligence agency, but Elizabeth Bentley, who spied on the United States for the Soviet Union via the American Communist Party from the late 1930s until her defection in 1945, testified before a US Senate subcommittee in 1951 that Pearson knowingly passed information on to the Communists through Hazen Sise. Amy Knight, who quotes Bentley’s testimony on page 219 of her How the Cold War Began: The Igor Gouzenko Affair and the Hunt For Soviet Spies (New York: Basic Books, 2005, 2007) does not appear to believe the testimony to be credible, but information both from Soviet archives that became available after the fall of the Soviet Union and from the declassification of the Venona Project files in 1995 has established Bentley’s testimony, like that of Whittaker Chambers, as being very accurate, far more so than liberal academics were willing to admit for decades.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Discrimination and Justice

Imagine the following scenario. You are at a bar or a nightclub and someone comes up to you, expressing romantic interest, and asks you for your name and contact information. This person is of the same sex as you and you, not being into that, politely explain this and turn this person down. The next day, you are notified that you have been charged with discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation. You think the charge is absurd but find yourself dragged into a long, expensive, legal battle, at the end of which, a judgement is made against you, and you are slapped with a fine that exceeds your annual gross income and which you cannot possibly pay.

“Preposterous,” you say. “That could never happen!”

Why not?

“It is not discrimination for a heterosexual to turn down an advance from someone of the same sex.”

Actually, yes it is. To discriminate is to observe a difference or make a distinction and to act as if that difference or distinction mattered. A man, who turns down a sexual advance from another man, because he himself is heterosexual, is discriminating against potential sexual partners on the grounds of both their sex and their sexual orientation.

“That cannot be right. There is nothing wrong with a person rejecting an advance from someone he is not attracted to.”

That is my point precisely. There is nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, since there is nothing wrong with it, there is nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination.

It is a matter of basic logic folks. A heterosexual man, being attracted only to women, will turn down advances from other men. In doing so, he is making and acting upon a distinction between men and women, and therefore discriminating. If discrimination is wrong in and of itself, then it is wrong for him to do so. Since, however, everyone who is not crazy knows that there is nothing wrong with a man who is attracted only to women turning down another man, it must therefore follow that discrimination in itself is not wrong.

As impeccable as this logic is, the conclusion will still be resisted by those who, lacking all capacity for thinking outside of the “discrimination is wrong” box, will sputter in helpless rage at this demonstration of how everything that they have been brainwashed into thinking by the news media, popular entertainment and the Stalinist indoctrination camps that are our public educational system all their lives is wrong. To pour salt on their wounds, I will point out that logic brings us to the same conclusion if the scenario is altered so that it is a lesbian rather than a heterosexual man rejecting the advances of a male suitor.

“Not so fast”, someone might object, “to arrive at the conclusion that discrimination is not intrinsically wrong from that starting point would requires that the lesbian be right or at least not wrong in rejecting her male suitor, and does not traditional Christian morality teach that lesbianism is wrong?”

Traditional Christian morality does indeed teach that lesbianism is wrong but not in a way that would affect the outcome of our argument. It is not the lesbian’s rejection of men that traditional Christian morality condemns as sinful but her having sexual relations with other women. It is modern liberalism that runs into a problem here, because liberal ethics seeks to simultaneously affirm the goodness of homosexuality and the injustice of discrimination. The lesbian’s choice of sexual partners, however, is no less discriminatory based on sex than that of the heterosexual male – or for that matter those of the homosexual male and the heterosexual woman.

It is not wrong to discriminate. That does not mean that it is always right to discriminate, of course, but it does mean that the rightness or wrongness of an act of discrimination lies elsewhere than in the mere fact of its being discriminatory. This is one of the reasons why laws against discrimination are themselves unjust.

It is a little over fifty year since the first anti-discrimination bill, the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The United Kingdom followed suit with the Race Relations Act of 1965 and Canada with the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. Other Western countries brought in similar legislation and the US, UK and Canada have all subsequently amended and expanded their initial anti-discriminatory bills.

Advocates of this sort of law point to injustices of the era in order to justify the introduction of these laws but the interesting thing to note about that is that the injustices in question consisted of laws and government policies whereas the anti-discrimination bills forbade private acts of discrimination. Segregation in the southern United States, for example, the justification given for the US Civil Rights Act, was the separation of the races by laws enacted by the state governments in the late 1800s, laws which were struck down by the American Supreme Court ten years before the US Civil Rights Act, which forbade discrimination on the part of businesses, employers, and those looking to sell or rent a house, was passed.

It is one thing to tell a magistrate, responsible for hearing and settling disputes between two parties, that he is required to base his ruling on the facts of the case and not on the wealth and social status of the parties in question. This has been recognized as a basic principle of justice from time immemorial and the violation of it is the classic example of a kind of discrimination that is also an injustice.

It is a different matter altogether to tell an employer that he cannot discriminate in his hiring practices. Imagine if the government were to pass a law that says to employers “if a member of group X comes to you looking for a job, you are required to hire him, and you must never fire him.” That such a law would be a grotesque injustice to employers is easily recognizable by all sane people but laws which forbid discrimination on the part of employers inevitably translate into such laws in practice. If the law says you are not allowed as an employer to discriminate against members of group X, and a member of group X applies to be hired and is turned down, he can then charge you with discrimination and you will be faced with the burden of proving that your decision was not based on discrimination. That is not something that can be proven to a human judge, however, because discrimination takes place in the heart and mind which the judge cannot see for himself and can hardly be required to take your word for it. Therefore, the only way to protect yourself as an employer from a false charge under a law that says “you cannot discriminate against members of group X” is to treat the law as if it said “you are required to hire members of group X.”

Laws that forbid discrimination by placing the onus of proof upon the accused rather than the accuser and by presuming to dictate what we can and cannot think or feel in our thoughts and hearts violate our civilization’s traditional principles of justice and are experiments in totalitarian thought control that would be right at home in kind of Communist hellhole that Stalin and Mao ran and George Orwell satirized. Which is why, unless these laws are revoked, we can expect that someday in the not so distant future we will see the absurd hypothetical scenario with which I began this essay, become an absurd reality. It is the fundamental nature of these laws to produce such an outcome.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Liberalism Exposed by Orlando

“It's just obvious”, Chicago School economist Milton Friedman told Peter Brimelow back in the 1990s, “you can't have free immigration and a welfare state.”

These words are not as well-known as his “there is no such thing as a free lunch” but they ought to be. It is perfectly consistent to be opposed to both open immigration and the welfare state. One can make a rational case for either against the other. To try and have both, however, as all Western ex-nations have sought to do for decades, is to invite every would-be free rider in the world to come to your country and leech off of you.

Friedman, who was a libertarian, would have chosen free immigration over a welfare state. I, a somewhat libertarian, High Tory patriot, would lean towards having neither, while regarding a modest welfare state – much more modest than we have today – as the lesser of the two evils. These are positions that can be intelligently defended. The progressive or left-liberal position that we must have both is not, which is perhaps the reason why progressives, rather than try to intelligently defend the indefensible, instead try to silence everyone else with emotional accusations of being cruel, hard-hearted, inhumane, bigoted, unfeeling and the like.

This is not the only example of progressive liberals simultaneously endorsing two things that are mutually exclusive. If someone were to say “it’s just obvious that you cannot have a culture that affirms and celebrates homosexuality while also being open to Islam” he would be just as right as Friedman was. Once again, a person can argue against both of these things simultaneously without self-contradiction. Or he might make a convincing case for the one that excludes the other. It is those who insist on having both who are writing a prescription for disaster. Once again it is progressive liberals who do this and who denounce anyone who opposes either of their pet causes as being bigoted and unenlightened.

If the folly in this had not already been obvious before, it was certainly exposed for all the world to see by the events in Orlando, Florida this past weekend. In what has been described as the worst such shooting in American history, a twenty-nine year old son of immigrants from Afghanistan, called 9-11 to announce his intentions and his allegiance to the Islamic State and then went into a gay club called the Pulse and shot the place up, killing about fifty people and wounding about fifty others.

Liberals, with the exception of those gay rights groups that have now endorsed the Donald Trump campaign, have learned absolutely nothing from this about the mutual exclusivity of the causes they espouse in the name of such banal drivel as “social justice” and “human rights”. If we do not include US President Barack Obama’s emotional meltdown and hate-filled tirade against Trump the liberal response to the shooting has basically been twofold.

First, quite predictably, they are blaming the incident on the accessibility of guns in the United States and what they call the American “gun culture” and calling for more restrictions on gun owners. That way, the next time someone declares his loyalty to ISIS and hatred of the United States, and in the name of Allah sets out on a one-man jihad, his efforts will be frustrated and defeated by the fact that he has to obey a law that prevents him from owning guns. Peter Hitchens has already said all that needs to be said about this kind of stupidity when in his reflections on Orlando he observed that America’s gun laws were a lot laxer fifty years ago before these kind of shooting incidents became common place, noting that such shootings also occur in countries with strict gun control like Britain, Germany and Finland while being much rarer in Switzerland. Hitchens argued that “an inquiry into the correlation between drug abuse and violence” would be “the most rational and effective response to the horrific news from Orlando” which suggestion contains far more good sense than all of those coming from the gun-hating lunatics on the left.

Secondly, and again predictably, they have been blaming conservative Christians for the incident. The same people who consider it to be a horrible and unfair generalization to blame the actions of this man on his own religion have no problem blaming it on another one altogether. This is what enlightenment looks like, folks, and it is indistinguishable from what we used to call being just plain crazy.

According to the looney-tune left, Christians are responsible for creating a “culture of homophobia” which drove this young Muslim into a murderous frenzy. He pledged his loyalty to a regime that kills homosexuals by throwing them from rooftops. Islam is the dominant religion in the ten countries in the world where homosexuality is a capital offence. Yet, liberals expect us to believe that the source of his murderous hatred is not his own religion but Christianity, a faith whose adherents are also routinely targeted by ISIS for death.

Who do they think they are fooling?

Liberals maintain that all religions are equal, an idea that can be held only in a mind that regards all religious beliefs as false and therefore takes seriously the beliefs of neither Christians nor Muslims. As Sir Roger Scruton recently explained it “the new ideology of non-discrimination” means “not sounding too certain about anything in case you make people who don’t share your beliefs feel uncomfortable.” Not believing anything himself, the liberal cannot accept that Christians might genuinely believe that God made mankind male and female and gave the sexes to each other in marriage so that we are not therefore free to change this institution to accommodate homosexuals in the way the liberal considers to be reasonable. No can he accept that Muslims might sincerely believe in anything that would prevent their full integration into Western society or lead to a violent clash with Western culture or a portion thereof. Faced with evidence that somebody does actually believe something, he seeks to silence that person and extirpate the belief for, as Sir Roger further explains “What we might have taken to be open-mindedness turns out to be no-mindedness: the absence of beliefs, and a negative reaction to all those who have them.”

Despite their promises of twenty years ago that their campaign for gay rights would not infringe upon anyone else’s rights and certainly not upon the freedom of religion of devout believers, the ink had hardly dried upon the legislation and court rulings that secured their victory in Canada, the United States, and throughout the Western world, before Christians were being dragged into court, fined thousands of dollars, and forced out of their businesses because they would not alter their Christian convictions to suit liberalism.

This is the behaviour of bullies, and bullies are natural cowards. It is not surprising therefore, that much depends upon whose beliefs have come into conflict with liberalism. Liberals are not about to risk the beheadings, bombings, and other messy possibilities that might result from offending believers whose faith has not been three-quarters diluted with liberalism already and includes concepts like jihad. Therefore, when someone does something in the name of Islam that offends them, they take it out on Christians. Which is why today, their response to Orlando looks less like genuine outrage over a horrible atrocity and more like the cynical use of the suffering of one of the groups for which they feign compassion at the hands of another to further kick a defeated foe while he is down.

That’s just how classy they are.

Monday, June 13, 2016

The Conservative Party’s Capitulation in the Culture War

It is almost thirty years since the label “culture war” was first attached to the relentless onslaught of liberalism, the ideology that misleadingly took its name from an adjective used by the Romans to denote generosity and all that is worthy of free people, against the traditions, religion, and ancestral ethnic groups of the Christian civilization that succeeded the Graeco-Roman civilization of antiquity. In Canada, the Liberal Party had turned the Supreme Court into a weapon of offence in this war by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to our Constitution in 1982 and in 1988 that weapon was used to strike down all the laws against abortion in Canada, scoring a major victory for what Pope John Paul II would a few years thereafter call “the culture of death.” At the time, the Progressive Conservative Party was inclined to fight back against liberalism and in 1989 introduced Bill C-43, which would re-criminalize abortion while allowing it in instances where a mother’s life was in danger. The bill passed in the House of Commons, but died on its third reading in the Senate in 1991, when it received a tie-vote. The Tories, lamentably, did not press the issue further and today it would appear that the Conservative Party has raised the white flag in the culture war.

Last month, when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals introduced Bill C-16, Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party, declared that she would not oppose the bill. Several other Conservative MPs followed suit. Bill C-16 is the bill which will make it illegal to discriminate against transgender people, i.e., people who think that they are a sex other than the one they actually are. In practice, what this means is that public facilities designated for the use of one sex, including washrooms, change rooms, and showers, will be required by law to be open to people of the other sex who maintain that they think or feel that they are of the sex for which the facilities have been reserved. It also means that anyone who turns down someone who is in disagreement with their X and/or Y chromosomes as to what sex he/she/it is for a job, passes over for promotion, or fires that person, may face a charge of discrimination in which he will have to bear the impossible onus of somehow proving that he is not guilty of the crimethink of which he accused. If all that were not bad enough the bill will also make “hate speech” against transgender people into an offence punishable with up to two years in prison. Note that the words “hate speech” do not, as sane people might be tempted to think, merely refer to explicit incitement to violence but include the expression of thoughts that contradict what progressives have decided all enlightened people must believe. If ever there was a time for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose something, this is it.

Yet, not only is the Conservative leader supporting this insane new bill but the party, in its national convention held later in the same month, voted by a very large margin to abandon its position that marriage is something that exists “between one man and one woman.” It also voted to change its policy on marijuana and to take the position that the possession of small amounts ought to be decriminalized. The latter is a much lesser matter than the former but we can see the same train of thought at work in both decisions. The Conservatives were trounced majorly by the Liberals in last fall’s election and are now reasoning that this was because the Liberal positions on same-sex “marriage” and marijuana were more popular than theirs and that this means they must change their positions in order to survive as a party. To reason this way seems to be a perennial temptation for Conservatives whenever they lose elections. As long as Conservatives keep succumbing to this temptation, liberalism will keep winning, and will keep moving further and further to the left, dragging the rest of us along with it. The Liberal Party already has a pair of doppelgangers in the NDP and Green Parties and it does not need another one in the Conservatives.

The idea that it was the Conservative Party’s right-wing positions on matters like marriage and election that cost them the last election is absurd when one considers that they had done next to nothing about these issues while they were in office for the last nine years, even in the four years in which they had a majority government. The Civil Marriage Act that created the legal fiction of same-sex “marriage” nation-wide – the courts had already done this at the provincial level through most of the country – was passed during the Liberal premiership of Paul Martin in 2005, the year before the Conservative took power. It was only in that first year that they attempted to re-open the issue, at a time when they had a minority government making it inevitable that the attempt would fail. Nor did they attempt to reintroduce restrictions on abortion – indeed, then Conservative leader Stephen Harper had declared that the abortion debate would not be reopened during his premiership. On the matter of doctor-assisted suicide, Steven Fletcher, at the time a Conservative MP, actually introduced legislation similar to the bill the Liberals are currently ramming through Parliament a year previously.

In other words, the Conservative Party had already basically surrendered in the culture war by the beginning of the Harper premiership. This surrender was even more complete when it comes to immigration and the issues surrounding it than with regards to abortion, same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia and the other issues that are conventionally categorized as “social.” In the late 1960s, during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals launched an aggressive assault against white Anglophone Canadians. Their weapons were mass immigration, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the public schools and the national news media. Under the pretence of making Canada’s immigration laws fair and race-neutral, which the Conservatives had already done during the premiership of John Diefenbaker in 1962 having a negligible effect on the composition of immigration, the Liberals changed that composition from being almost ninety per cent traditional European at the beginning of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership to being seventy per cent Third World by its end. In the Canadian Human Rights Act they made it a civilly liable offence to discriminate on the basis of race. On paper, this looks like it applies to everyone – whites cannot discriminate against blacks, blacks cannot discriminate against whites – but in practice it was only enforced against whites, and only intended to be enforced against whites. This anti-white bias is what the Liberals really mean whenever they say “protecting vulnerable minorities”. They turned the public schools into indoctrination camps to program people into thinking that racism, bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and xenophobia – on the part of white people, that is - were all greater sins than Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony and Lust. The news media branded anyone who dared to publicly disagree with the Liberals on any of this as a Hitlerite even if, like the late Doug Collins, he was a man who actually fought against Hitler during the war. No subsequent government has dared to do anything about any of this, certainly not the thoroughly cucked Conservatives under Stephen Harper’s leadership.

While liberals claim open-mindedness and tolerance as their virtues, on all of these matters they have insisted every time they have scored a victory in the culture war that all discussion of the issue ought to be closed, and that people who disagree with them publically ought to be punished. Since Canadian liberalism has made it absolutely clear that it will accept no victory short of a Carthaginian peace in this culture war, the Conservatives, in the face of such an attitude, ought never to have ever contemplated surrender.

Having said that, I could have told you thirteen years ago that something like this would happen.

That was the year that the present Conservative Party was formed when the merger between the old Conservative Party and the right-populist Reform Party was completed. Theoretically this could have produced a superior party that would combine the best of both. From the original Conservative Party, formed in the year of Confederation and which under the leadership of Sir John A. MacDonald, Father of Confederation and the first Prime Minister of Canada, governed the country for nineteen of its first twenty-four years, it could have taken its royalism, patriotism, Anglophilia, and economic nationalism. To this it could have added the small town, rural common sense of the Reform Party, founded as a Western protest party in 1988, as well as its opposition to such things as bureaucratic overregulation, progressive social engineering, and socialist wealth redistribution. The social and cultural conservative defence of the Christian religion, its ethical teachings and its traditional and historical role in Canada, an element the two parties had in common, could have served as the glue to make such a union work.

I could not see this happening, however. The old Conservative Party was hardly recognizable as the party of Sir John A. MacDonald any more. Having foolishly added the adjective Progressive to its name in 1942, thus creating a self-contradicting title and a confused identity to go along with it, the party ousted in 1966, John Diefenbaker, a leader who was patriotically fighting for Canada’s traditional symbols such as the old flag against Liberals determined to replace them, and, back in power in the 1980s, abandoned its traditional anti-contintentalist economic nationalism and negotiated a free trade deal with the United States. After its one failed attempt to recriminalize abortion it gave up and it made the immigration problem, started by the Liberals, even worse by jacking the yearly target of immigrants to be accepted up through the roof. As for the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as it was then called after an initial, incomplete, attempt at merging with the Conservatives, its capitalism was always more important to it than its social conservatism. By 2003 – indeed, long before then – capitalism had evolved from a relatively benign, small town, competitive market into a globalist economy controlled by multinational megacorporations who, as an examination of the list of those who have intervened legally against state governments south of the border that have sought to protect traditional marriage or even the freedom of conscience of traditional religious believers, will reveal, have joined forces with liberalism in the culture war. I predicted that the new party would join the worst elements of the two parties rather than the best, and that social conservatism would be the first thing on the chopping block. I decided it would not be worthwhile joining.

Unfortunately, since all the other parties in the House of Commons are completely and extremely liberal, the betrayal of the Conservatives leaves those of us who love this country and would like to pull it out of the abyss of cultural and moral insanity into which it has sunk without a voice in the federal legislative assembly.