The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Brief Thoughts on Assorted Matters: Special Charlottesville Edition

- While I am, on principle, opposed to all republics and presidents - states should be headed by royal monarchs - I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and the Donald deserves much credit over his press conference the other day. How refreshing to hear someone tell the truth - that it was not only neo-Nazis and white supremacists participating in the protest of the tearing down of Robert E. Lee's statue, that the antifa counter protesters who unlike the "Unite the Right” crowd did not get a permit were violent thugs, that there was blame on both sides, and that the tearing down of the one statue could lead to the tearing down of others, such as Washington and Jefferson. The press were furious because finally someone who could not be silenced, no-platformed, or ignored was saying these things and exposing them for the unmitigated liars that they are.

- Progressives – in which category I would include John McCain and Mitt Romney - don’t like it that the Donald treated white nationalists and the antifa as moral equivalents. They are, in a sense, correct – the two are not moral equivalents – but not for the reason they think. The antifa are much, much, worse. Spare me the snivelling, hypocritical, handwringing about the one group being racist and the other being opposed to racism. “Antiracist” activists only ever seem to oppose racism when the racists are whites. This is itself a form of racism, racism against white people. The real moral difference between the two groups, is that the one went there to hold a peaceful demonstration after having obtained legal permission to do so, the other went there to shut down the other group with violence. It was one of their own that ended up dying from the violence that day but that does not alter the fact that they were the ones who turned it into a violent event and went there with the intention of doing so.

- In Canada today, those who honour our country’s British history, heritage, traditions, and institutions are frequently accused of being Nazis by the followers of the Trudeau Liberals’ cult of diversity. It was British Canada, of course, that went to war with the Third Reich in 1939, and it was because we were British that we did so. The architect of Canadian multiculturalism was a draft dodger who reputedly expressed his contempt for Canada’s war efforts by wearing a German army helmet and a swastika.

- There are only really two kinds of people in North America today that would – other than ironically or when portraying a role on film – goose step, wave a swastika flag, or wear a Nazi uniform or Klan robe. The first group is the mentally ill. Liberals ordinarily demand that we look upon members of this group with compassion and, if they happen to have committed a heinous crime like beheading a fellow passenger on a bus, excuse them, but they make an unprincipled exception in this case. The second group is government agent provocateurs. In Canada, for example, the composition of the Canadian Nazi Party of the 1970s and the Heritage Front of a couple of decades later, both resembled that of the World Council of Anarchists in G. K. Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, i.e., almost entirely government agents.

- If, for some reason, you actually wanted to radicalize white people to swell the ranks of a resurgent Nazi movement, the way to go about it would be to do exactly what the liberal left has been doing since 1945. You would reduce their percentage of the population in Western countries through ongoing large-scale immigration and blame them for all the woes of the world while denying them any legitimate means of protecting their collective interests by vehemently condemning any individual or group that attempts to speak for these as racist.

- If you take the way soi-disant “anti-racists” talk about white people and substitute “Jews” for “whites” you will end up with something that sounds like a Nuremburg Rally speech or reads like a chapter of Mein Kampf. Now you know who the real Nazis are today.

- The left have always, first and foremost, been scapegoaters. Unwilling to accept that sin, sorrow, suffering, and woe has always been and always will be a part of human existence east of Eden and this side of the Second Coming, they are always looking for someone to blame for the inevitable failure of their schemes to retake lost Paradise by force. In the eighteenth century it was the king, the aristocrats, and the church. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was the bourgeoisie and middle class. For the National Socialists it was the Jews and today it is whites, Christians, males, heterosexuals, and especially, white, Christian, heterosexual males.

- Nazism was a movement of the left not the right. The left began its life in the eighteenth century as the revolutionary movement that deposed the Bourbon monarchy in France. A militant movement, with the flashy slogan “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” and holding the “Rights of Man and of the Citizen” as its ideal, it formed the first totalitarian regime in what is known as the “Reign of Terror” in which, having murdered the king and queen, and whatever aristocrats had failed to flee its clutches, it then turned on its own, as the Jacobin club divided into warring factions, and the Montganards led by Robespierre ousted the Girondists who had led the Revolution in its early stage, sending the latter and a host of their other enemies to the guillotine before eventually being hoist on their own petard. In the nineteenth century Marxism became the leading ideology in the continental left, producing the Communist movement which in Russia, split like the Jacobins into warring factions the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, with the former coming to power to form the Soviet Union. In Italy, when Benito Mussolini left the Communist Party to found the Fascist Party which, when in power, put the Communists in prison, this was yet another example of the left dividing into warring factions, for the repressive terror state of the Italian Fascists resembled nothing else so much as what the Bolsheviks had put in place in Russia. Even closer in its resemblance to the Soviet Union was the Third Reich in Germany, established by Adolf Hitler whose rise to power began with his taking over a German labour party and transforming it into the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler, who fully acknowledged his debt to Marxism, gave his party the name of two nineteenth century left-wing movements – socialism, of course, but also nationalism which was recognized as liberal, progressive, and left-wing in the nineteenth century because its basic concept, the sovereignty of the nation, came from the philosophy of Rousseau and had been used by the French Revolutionaries to challenge the sovereignty of the king. The Nazis were revolutionaries rather than reactionaries. That they themselves recognized this is reflected in the words of the Horst Wessel Lied. They were fundamentally opposed to everything that the right stood for, whether it be the king, aristocracy, and church of classical Tory conservatism or the classical liberal individualism and middle class capitalism of the American right.

- Nazism was the bastard child of Communism and imitated its parent’s evils – secret police, show trials, mass murders, forced labour and other worse types of camps, etc. - but it was a short-lived threat that died with its Fuhrer in a bunker in Germany in 1945. The same cannot be said of Communism which retained the power that it had seized in Russia in 1917 until 1990, conquered a much larger portion of the world than Nazism had, retained control of it longer – the Communist Party is still in power in China today – and committed atrocities on an even larger scale, having murdered over 100 million people in the last century. It is only Communism that has a vested interest in promoting the idea that its estranged child, Nazism, is a universal threat that can pop up anywhere at any time and if you look closely at the various anti-racist or antifa activist groups today I suspect that you will find that apart from Christophobic hate groups like the Anti-Defamation League and hypocritical money-making scams like the Southern Poverty Law Centre they are virtually all fronts for Stalinist, Maoist, and other Marxist-Leninist organizations.


  1. Have you heard about what's happening at the Rebel?

    I guess Faith Goldy went on the Stormer for an interview, and so they've been raked over the coals; Brian Lilley and Gavin McInnes have left, as has Faith herself, and now, Andrew Scheer won't have anything to do with them, the spineless cuck:

    Somebody has decided, clearly, that they are to be no-platformed. And they're neo-con Zionists led by a Jew! Doesn't matter; they refuse to hew to the Canadian media prog line. So they're to be crushed.

    1. Excuse me; Levant let Goldy go, and maybe he also pushed out Gavin, as he likely did Lauren Southern when she left them a month ago or so. I suspect Lilley left voluntarily.

      Either way, it looks awful. And I would be sorry to see the Rebel die, not because I have any great love for them, but Levant is truly an independent thinker and journalist, who does march to his own drum, unlike almost all other Canadian journos; certainly, all with paid journalism jobs in this country.

    2. He apparently never learned from Trump and Rob Ford: never apologize; just stick to your guns.

    3. Yeah I have been following it. I'm more or less on the same page as you regarding the Rebel. It was not exactly my cup of tea - but better than the nothing that we would otherwise be left with. I thought the same thing about Levant's previous media venture - not Sun News, but The Western Standard. It was a very poor substitute for the Alberta Report in that it allowed for far less deviance from the neoconservative party line than the Byfields ever did. However, it was better to have it than to have no competitor to the monolith that is the rest of the Canadian media. Jay Currie thinks that a Breitbart Canada might take its place. I commented that that idea was less than thrilling to me. We need a right-of-centre media outlet in Canada, but not a branch of an American one, no matter how good. The left has dominated our country for so long because the Canadian right refuses to be two things: Canadian and right. It needs to be "Red Toryism, hold the Red", George Grant, minus the sympathy with socialism, feminism, and pacifism (although without neoconservative warhawking either). It needs to fight for our personal freedoms against socialism, statism, and political correctness, but to ground those freedoms in our own country's tradition of Common Law, parliamentary government, and constitutional monarchy. It also seriously needs to cease being completely and totally cucked.

    4. Agree completely! I was irritated by the Western Standard, because it was so inferior to Alberta Report. But looking back, it was preferable to the Rebel. And yes, we damn well need a Canadian one. We're not the same as America; our right needs to be independent of theirs, precisely because we're a monarchy, etc.

  2. Excellent point about the new Nazis.

    I believe Mussolini was a socialist before being a fascist. I have alwsys appreciated his principle, "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." It's useful in countering the stupid view that fascism is right-wing.

    1. That is correct. The Socialists kicked him out over a disagreement over World War I (they were pacifists, he thought the war effort could be used to topple the anti-socialist, conservative monarchies). This, and not an ideological departure from socialism led to the founding of Fascism. It like National Socialism, was a mutant child of Marxism, and not anything right-wing.

  3. I would have expected better scholarship from you; but instead I read a rehashing of Goldberg’s great lie here. If the appearance of the word socialist in a name is enough to render that organisation socialist by default, I guess we can all applaud the democracy that is N Korea, or was East Germany hey? Hitler called his party what he did to try and peel away supporters from the real German Socialist parties. He knew the cache that the term had with ordinary Germans at that time, but he was not a socialist in any shape or form, as was confirmed by his treatment of the Strasser brothers in the early 30s. FYI - The Strasser brothers and their few followers were the only socialists in the NSDAP until they weren’t around anymore. Hitler is on record as despising socialism and praising capitalism and this was based on his race theories that underpinned every aspect of his beliefs. His firm belief in Social Darwinism meant that he viewed the leaders of industry as being in their position because they were racially superior – well excluding those who were Jewish of course. He said these leaders “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.”
    Another of his statements “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.” Doesn’t have him sounding too much like a pinko to me.
    Above all the Hitler state was a racial state, while any Marxist state was not. Marxism envisions an internationalist future, not a nationalist one; and that brings me onto your bizarre claim re nationalism “which was recognized as liberal, progressive, and left-wing in the nineteenth century because its basic concept, the sovereignty of the nation, came from the philosophy of Rousseau and had been used by the French Revolutionaries to challenge the sovereignty of the king.” What a tremendous rambling example of incoherent attempt to weld two opposing ideas together to form one. Nationalism was something Kings used for millennia to appeal to their subjects to die for them, so it was hardly new or anti-Monarchy in any way. Indeed an appeal to patriotism/nationalism has been a tried and tested tactic by many a leader, socialist, fascist, capitalist or otherwise, so please dispense with the contortions to dump this on those you disagree with.
    The final nail in the coffin of your assertion about the lefty-ness of the Nazis is to look at who their allies, unwilling or otherwise, were. Here one sees the picture more clearly and it is clear that capitalists, Monarchs, the army, Conservatives, industrialists, the Church (both protestant and Catholic) and Islam line up squarely behind the nazi leader in his fight against communism. Why would that be? As Tim Stanley says in his well research Telegraph article
    “… the destruction of the Strasserite element of the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives (1934) was ordered to satisfy two traditional enemies of socialism: the aristocratic army and the nervous bourgeoisie. That Hitler did this to appease these powerful reactionaries sums up his approach to politics better than a million quotes.”
    I was expecting something better form someone who at least pretends to be a cut above the average rightist when it comes to argumentation. Instead all I saw was a rehashing of some hoary old far right chestnuts along with some truly bizarre extrapolations that bore no resemblance to a supported position.


    1. The reasons for regarding Hitler and his party as men of the left rather than the right are far weightier than merely the presence of the word socialism in their party’s title. Nazism, like Communism, is a descendent, albeit through several nineteenth and early twentieth century mutations, of the ideology that inspired the French Revolution. The Nazis were Jacobins, not Jacobites, revolutionaries, not reactionaries. In one sense, the Nazis were closer to the original left than the Bolsheviks. Hitler’s concept of the “volk” is much closer to what Rousseau meant by the “people” that would be sovereign in the revolutionary state than Marx’s “proletariat”, although Mussolini was closer yet, as his concept of the nation owed less to nineteenth century developments, particularly the Darwinian concept of life as a constant conflict between races in which only the fittest survive, than Hitler’s.

      Hitler despised everything that the original right, which defended the traditions and institutions that had survived from medieval Christendom into the Modern Age, stood for.

      He was opposed to the institution of royal monarchy. His autobiography is full of abuse of the House of Hapsburg, the traditional Catholic reigning dynasty of his country of birth and when he went on his state visit to Italy, he was displeased at having to meet with King Victor Emmanuel III whom he wanted Mussolini to depose. This was Mussolini’s wish as well, but the Italian army’s fierce loyalty to the king stood in his way, and ultimately it was the king who removed him. At any rate, it Mussolini, not Victor Emmanuel III who was Hitler’s ally. Nor was there any love lost between Hitler and Germany’s own deposed monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Hitler held the Kaiser in contempt, believing that he had lost the first World War for Germany, and the Kaiser in turn said of Hitler – a year before the Second World War began: “But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics.”

    2. Hitler also despised aristocracy and aristocrats. Although his thought diverged from Marx in that he viewed everything primarily through the lens of race rather than class, he shared Marx’s class animosities. The bourgeoisie – the liberal middle class – are treated no more kindly in “Mein Kampf” than they are in “The Communist Manifesto.” If anything, Hitler’s scorn for them was greater than Marx’s. He also shared the class animosities of Marx’s predecessors, the French Revolutionaries. He despised the titled, the noble, the families of long pedigree, the gentry, the aristocracy in general, and saw himself as one of the common people. In his vision of Germany, race would be the only class. Needless to say, the old German aristocratic families, especially the Catholic royalists, held him in contempt too, and the active, if ineffective, efforts to depose him from within the German military, came largely from representatives of these families, Claus von Stauffenberg being only the most celebrated example.

      His contempt for the Church was also well known and very similar to that of Marx’s. He described religion as an “organized lie that must be smashed.” He went on to say that as a young man he had believed, like the Bolsheviks, that dynamite was the answer to religion, but had adopted an approach with “a little subtlety” as he matured, i.e., became a politician who sought popular support, and that by rallying the “young and healthy” to his side, eventually the Church would be left with nothing but silly old women. He looked upon Christianity with suspicion because of its Hebrew roots, as something alien that had been imposed on the Aryan people towards the end of the first millennium, which they had done well enough with before, and would do well without. The Nazi Party in its platform affirmed “Positive Christianity” by which it meant a substitution of the doctrines of Nazism for those of Christianity. It rejected everything in Christianity that was of Hebrew origin and thus bore no relationship to orthodox, Nicene-Constantinopolitan Christianity. The orthodox Church in the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and the Creed that these Councils produced affirmed that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament were one and the same, which the Gnostic heretics had denied. The belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God was not essential to this obscene perversion of the faith, which basically replaced Christ with Hitler, asserting that he had ushered in a new age and a new revelation.

    3. Socialism, in the nineteenth century sense of the word, meant a belief that private ownership should be abolished in favour of public ownership, for productive property, especially the factories that had come into being with the Industrial Revolution. Early in the twentieth century, many socialists began to realize that this would not work out well in practice. At this point they switched gears towards a policy of state control rather than state ownership – the idea that that the state would play a much larger role in directing an economic in which private ownership still existed in order to achieve the ends of socialism. Discussions and disagreements between those who took this new approach and more ideologically pure socialists of the older type could be found in every socialist movement and party – the Labour Party in the UK, the CCF/NDP here in Canada, and even the Communist Party, at least in China. The 1930 argument between Hitler and the Strassers that Tim Stanley cites to “prove” that Hitler was not a socialist in his extremely poorly researched Telegraph article is just one example of these discussions. In practice, of course, financiers and businessmen have played a large role in every socialist movement, party, and revolution including the Bolshevik Revolution of 100 years ago. That socialism and capitalism were converging, coalescing, and colonizing one another was noted while the process was well underway by James Burnham in the “Managerial Revolution” but this had been foreseen by Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton decades earlier. Nor does Hitler’s nationalism mean that he was not a socialist. Classical Marxism had been internationalist but the failure of Marx’s prediction that the workers, united by class across international boundaries, would join and revolt together when a general war broke out, had already required Marxists to rethink their theories and in the Soviet Union this very distinction – international socialism vs. “socialism in one nation” was what divided the Trotskyites from the Stalinists.

      The earliest use of the word nationalism in the English language is 1844. Nationalist was used earlier in the eighteenth century with a sense similar to patriot, but nationalism is a nineteenth century word to describe an ideology that came into existence in the eighteenth century, as the rationalization of a phenomenon – the nation-state – that is only slightly older, having begun to take shape in the Renaissance at the beginning of the Modern Age. Its genesis is identical to that of democracy in the modern – not the classical – sense of the term, the ideas of Rousseau, and particularly the idea that the nation/people should be identical with the state. Nationalism, therefore, is not the same thing as patriotism which has been around since antiquity. Indeed, although it is possible to read too much into etymologies, in this case the roots of both words shed light on the difference between their meanings. Patriotism is derived from the Latin patria, -ae, which means one’s own country or fatherland and has as its focus a place. Nationalism is derived from natio, -onis, which means a people in the sense of a nation, i.e., people group of common ancestry, and has such a people as its focus. Patriotism is about “my country”, nationalism is about “my people.” These concepts overlap to a certain extent – “my country” would not be “my country” if all the people, their ways, and their institutions were to be replaced wholesale and the idea that “my people” ought to be sovereign must naturally include the concept of a territory within which they are such – but the difference in emphasis points to a fundamentally different way of thinking. Patriotism is an attachment that develops naturally out of affection to home and family, nationalism is an ideology that requires formulation and dissemination.

    4. That's a lot of handwaving and apologetics without much attention to what happened in reality.
      If the most Conservative, Monarchist, Church-like authorities in Germany swore allegiance to the Fuhrer personally, then it was clear that the Conservative establishment in Germany saw something that separated Hitler and his goons out from the Socialists. The fact that Hitler had to assassinate what Socialist influences remained within the party and those who demanded that workers be looked after speaks volumes as to the true beliefs of Hitler.
      As always one should follow the money and here the money went with Hitler. The Church, the Monarchists, the chattering classes, the Army, the Aristocracy... they all prostrated themselves before he who would save them from socialism... and the capitalists did very well out of this deal. Boss, IG Farben etc all well known companies today.. all founded on slave labour that comprised of Jews, Roma, socialists and Slavs.
      Your flowery nonsense cannot hide the reality of Nazi Germany and the role Conservatives/Tories played in their growth.