The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

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.


  1. When it comes to ‘Diversity’—- “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.”

    The First rule of ‘Diversity’: Diversity means everyone MUST think alike about ‘Diversity’.

    The Second Rule of ‘Diversity’: Nobody must EVER point out the First Rule of ‘Diversity’

    Pavlov had a bell. Stalin had a bell. Liberty has a bell. And now everyone in the West has a bell around their necks. It is attached to a noose. The Bell demands that ‘Diversity is OUR strength!!!’ Even when it isn’t. Even if it means White Genocide. Even if NOBODY wants it.

    When the Bell rings you had better applaud–or ELSE. This is NOT freedom.

    White Privilege contains the most insidiously Orwellian, genocidal, parasitic, and totalitarian motives of anything the most envious communist Comintern could have dreamed. Stalin would be proud! It is a term of tacit anti-white hate, meant to disparage a people and cast their accomplishments, history and identity as justified only if it serves others interests.

    What we have is a government and elite who wish to turn basic economic, social and cultural freedoms into privileges that will be controlled and allotted as they please based on their own political, ethnic or economic agenda. Free speech be damned — consider it a privilege.

    Keeping your earnings??? Consider it a privilege to be taken away if determined to be ‘unearned’. Freedom of association — and non-association — consider it a privilege a bureaucrat will dictate the terms on. Today’s privileges will justify tomorrow’s thefts — all in the name of equality of course.

    Equality of outcome – not freedom. Equality will be achieved when the envious run out of objects to covet, people to envy, status to seek and needs to satisfy.

    Meaning NEVER.

    Its the 'current' year? Remember the last time such rhetoric was pronounced proudly: 1789, 1917, 1966, '1984'.

  2. As a fellow Canadian, I enjoy your blog immensely; in fact I think I said, or meant to, that your previous post on Canada's Leftism being largely an import from the USA was the essay I've been wanting to write for a long time.

    I thought I was inured to most things, but I was horrified this past week to see would-be leaders of the Conservative Party(!), the party of Stephen Harper, marching in the homosexual pride parade. Either they feel they *have* to, or else they genuinely want to, and I can't say which of those is worse.

    The comparison between modern alphabet soup and the Soviet phenomenon of "don't stop clapping" is apt - except for one thing. Have you heard about the idea of the "preference cascade"? This is the supposed phenomenon where a crack in the politically-correct wall appears, and more people feel free to express their true (politically-incorrect) opinions, and pretty soon everyone realizes that everyone secretly holds the same politically-incorrect opinion.

    Well, I'm not so sure the preference cascade obtains in Canada. I've read that in the Soviet Union, everyone mouthed the proper platitudes without actually believing them, but I'm not so sure it's the same in Canada in [current year]. I fear that many, if not most, have really and truly gone over to supporting the alphabet soup. At least, if there's any sign, any hint, any whisper behind closed doors that people aren't REALLY on board, they're only SAYING they are... I don't see it in my daily life.

    1. Indeed, you won't see it, and many people sincerely 'believe' these things......

      AS LONG as you ask no real questions. As long as they avoid a conversation with facts. As long as they don't have to answer.

      They are unconscious with these issues, in a trance.

      Indeed, its called a consensus trance.

      But, once they do, and they can;t just spout shibboleths and move on.... things change.

      I can see it in my family-- everybody all agrees on these PC things, now don;t you dare talk about it at all. Ever.

      ITs a tenuous consensus based on keeping reality at bay. Ignoring it, actively. Reality is coming.

    2. Samson, I have been waiting for the established political correctness to crack open in this country for years. It is possible, I suppose, that most people actually do believe this nonsense, but apart from millennials I don't think that is likely. When I was in high school, apart from a handful of extremely outspoken liberals - the kind we would call SJWs today - the general view of homosexuality and transsexualism was even more negative among the unbelievers than among Christians, who, after all, believed in hating the sin but loving the sinner. Few wanted to go through the hassle of arguing with the outspoken liberals however and so let them dominate the discussion of these matters. What we are seeing in the larger society now strikes me as the same thing on a much larger scale.

    3. Cecil, that is a good point about how their beliefs do not stand up to serious questioning, and so they avoid any real discussion, i.e., where they can be put on the spot and do not dominate, like the plague.

  3. The concept of "diversity" doesn't have a built-in value like, for instance, "reform". Whether diversity is preferable to homogeneity in any particular case, is always a matter of argument.

    I haven't posted here before, but wish to say now that I've learned a lot from the brilliant commentaries published on this blog. The writing is also of exceptional quality.

    1. Indeed, it depends very much on the nature of the diversity. Imagine someone trying to sell a bottle of water with all sorts of toxic chemicals mixed in on the grounds of its being more diverse in composition than pure water.

      Thank you for your remarks. I am glad that my writings have been beneficial to you and hope that they will continue to be so in the future.

  4. How are the individual parishes allowed to make their own call on performing these abominations? If so, what was the point of the vote?!

    I can say with almost certainty, if an Orthodox Church was found doing such a thing, it would be anathematized, declared absolutely heretical, and in many countries it would not surprise me if the faithful diligently burned it to the ground as a house of satan.

    1. It is being called the "local option". That the bishops are resorting to it indicates that they were determined at attaining their desired outcome no matter what. It will be interesting to see how the bishops who approve same-sex marriages in their dioceses prior to the second vote will handle the question of parishes within their dioceses that wish to opt out. Will they tolerate a "more local option"? When it was a matter of "blessings" rather than "marriage" - the distinction between which is not worth explaining as everyone knew the one was merely the stepping stone to the other - the dioceses that approved the blessings usually included very clear "conscience clauses". That was, for example, the case here in Rupert's Land. My understanding is that no such mechanism is in place for when the marriage canon changes, or, if there is, the dissenting bishops do not regard it as strong enough.

      The Orthodox, I think, are not going to face this problem unless it is pushed on them by the state, although I can think of one high-ranking Orthodox bishop, sadly here in Canada, who I suspect sympathizes with the apostates in my own church on this issue. The RCs will have to face this sooner than the Orthodox, and probably sooner than later what with the apostate they presently have as "pope". Sadly, a large chunk of "evangelicalism" seems to be going liberal on this issue as well.

  5. Have you noticed how Canadians are so obsessed with Trudeau that they can not see Canada crashing down upon them.Soldiers from the past two world wars who died for our freedom must surely be rolling in their graves.Canadians are slowly being trained to the communist ideology and do not even realize it. As much as I do not like the Muslim religion. They are making the other religions in this country look pretty foolish as a country who has lost all direction. The sad thing is that our grandchildren will suffer greatly because of what the liberals have done today.

  6. Have you noticed how Canadians are so obsessed with Trudeau that they can not see Canada crashing down upon them.Soldiers from the past two world wars who died for our freedom must surely be rolling in their graves.Canadians are slowly being trained to the communist ideology and do not even realize it. As much as I do not like the Muslim religion. They are making the other religions in this country look pretty foolish as a country who has lost all direction. The sad thing is that our grandchildren will suffer greatly because of what the liberals have done today.

  7. What should be done with the Anglican Church of Canada?

    When I heard that it was defeated it was honestly the first time that I really felt like I could say that I was proud to be a member of that church.

    A part of me thinks I should just join the Anglican Church of North America - but they compromise on matters far more serious (divorce, WO) and it seems that outside of already established parishes there isn't much hope of getting a traditional liturgy.

    Looking at their proposed prayer texts is not impressing me - ugly, modern and in certain ways theologically suspect. Not much better than the BAS really.

    What are faithful Anglican to do? I don't want to pull a Byfield or whatever - but I don't know what to do to help Anglicanism find itself again.