The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Hillary: An Historic Campaign?

As a Canadian High Tory I do not approve of republics and presidents, much preferring our own parliamentary monarchy system in which the head of state, the representative of the country as a whole including past and future generations not merely those who cast votes in the present, is above the political process, having come to her position through a constitutional, hereditary, line of succession through which the sovereignty she possesses, exercised, for better or for worse, in her name by the elected government, is hers by prescriptive and divine right.

That having been said, this year’s Presidential election in the republic to our south is certainly an interesting and entertaining one, far more so than any other than I can remember in my life time. The primary season is now over, and the candidates for the Republican and Democratic parties have been chosen. I have written about the Republican candidate, Donald Trump previously, and will likely do so again in the future. Today I would like to talk about the Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The news media has declared Clinton’s campaign to be an historic one, because she is the first woman to be the nominee of a major political party. The Hillary-sympathetic media will be attempting to get as much mileage out of this fact as they can, just as they got as much mileage as they could out of Barack Obama’s being the first black President, and if Americans fall for this trick twice it will demonstrate just how debased, degraded, and inane their system has become.

There are other better reasons for describing Hillary Clinton’s campaign as historic than her sex. There is, for example, the fact that she sought the nomination of her party while under investigation by the FBI for misdoings while Secretary of State. Has that ever happened before?

Actually, perhaps even this is not particularly history making. You might recall the word “Whitewater” being tossed around quite a bit when Clinton’s husband, Bill, was seeking the Democratic nomination in 1992. Whitewater was the name of a real-estate development company founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal in the late 1970s. The purpose of the company was to buy up land to develop into vacation estates – which it sold, repossessed, and resold, fleecing people out of their money in an underhanded, but apparently legal, manner. The scheme eventually failed, and McDougal, who had been trying to keep it afloat with funds misappropriated from a bank he managed called Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, came under investigation just before the bank collapsed in the big S & L crisis. Bill Clinton was accused of using his influence as Governor of Arkansas to benefit Madison Guaranty. Hillary Clinton, as an attorney with the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, represented Madison Guaranty for much of this time. During the federal investigation of this scandal early in Bill Clinton’s presidency, many of the relevant legal documents mysteriously disappeared, eventually being discovered in the White House with the fingerprints of Hillary Clinton and Vincent Foster Jr. all over them.

You remember Vince Foster don’t you? The colleague of Hillary’s from Rose Law, rumoured to have been her lover, who became Deputy White House Counsel only to turn up dead in Fort Macy Park six months into Bill Clinton’s presidency. After the body was discovered, and before the office was sealed, Hillary’s staff removed several boxes of documents. The death was ruled a suicide, but there is a reason that the term “Arkancide” was coined to describe a murder disguised as a suicide.

Whatever really happened to Vince Foster there is much blood on Hillary’s hands. In March of 1999, Hillary called up her husband from Africa and urged him to bomb Serbia. Bill did so – without the approval of the American Congress but with the support of other NATO leaders such as the UK’s Tony Blair and our own creepy Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chretien. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get”, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright declared. Albright was appointed, like so many other members of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, at Hillary’s choice. The excuse for the bombing was the accusation – later proven to be false – that the Serbian government was ethnically cleansing the Albanians in Kosovo. The bombing benefited the Albanian Islamic terrorist organization the KLA at the expense of Orthodox Serbia, which saw its infrastructure devastated and thousands of its civilians murdered by NATO bombs.

Speaking of American military interventions that should never have taken place and which had disastrous consequences, Hillary Clinton, as Senator for New York State, voted in favour of the Iraq War in 2002.

Then along came 2011. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State in the administration of Barack Obama, urged a “humanitarian intervention” in Libya. She got her way, an Obama led NATO bombed Libya, and Colonel Qaddafi was ousted and killed, and jihadists gained control of Libya. The following year those jihadists attacked the American embassy in Benghazi, killing the American ambassador J. Christopher Stephens and ten others. The consulate had requested that their security be beefed up, but the request had been denied by the State Department headed by You Know Who.

“Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?” Hillary Clinton asked in the speech she gave to the Democratic National Convention, accepting the party’s nomination, but it is a question that might properly be asked of her, considering her track record as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State and the bellicose language she uses when speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the same speech, Hillary Clinton called the foreign policy ideas of her opponent “dangerously incoherent”, but her own could be described as “dangerously coherent.” They are the same failed ideas that have guided American foreign policy since the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. In the last two and a half decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the forces of Islamic jihad have emerged as the biggest external threat to Western civilization. During that time, each American administration has thought that the appropriate way to handle this threat was to introduce more democracy into the countries that produce and support jihadists – unless their governments regularly do business with the administration and its friends – and to bomb the hell out of these countries. At the same time they have encouraged large scale immigration from all over the world, including Islamic countries. This policy would continue under a President Hillary Clinton. It is a policy that might serve the interests of the new, internationalist, globalist order, that every President since the first Bush has believed in, but from the perspective of anyone concerned about the safety and security of the United States, or the larger Western world for that matter, it is clearly a recipe for disaster, for converting an external threat into a much more dangerous internal one.

This, ultimately, is what this year’s election will be all about. If Americans want more of the same – more bombing countries overseas and more potential jihadists being allowed in – then they have Hillary Clinton to choose. If they want the opposite of this, then they had better consider voting for her opponent, for he is the first candidate of a major party in decades to offer anything different. That is the true historic first in this election.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

What is your true Faith?

Do you call yourself a Christian?

If so, please permit me to ask you the following two questions.

If someone were to deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, to say that He did not rise bodily from the grave, would you want that person to be punished by the state with a fine or a prison sentence or to be driven from career and community and turned into a pariah?

The second question is the same as the first except that instead of denying the Resurrection of Jesus Christ the person in question denies that the Holocaust took place, or questions the veracity of certain elements of the Holocaust narrative, such as the death count of six million.

If your answer to the first question is yes then I would suggest you need to think through your faith. If you are a Christian then you yourself believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead for you cannot be a Christian without believing this. If you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead then you believe that this was an actual event. The truth of that event does not depend upon your faith or that of anyone else and therefore cannot be harmed by anyone’s denial. Nor should another’s denial be able to harm your own faith in the Resurrection if you recognize that your faith relies upon the truth of what you believe, rather than the other way around, and are well-familiar with the evidence for that truth. The denier, therefore, can only harm himself by his denial, and so the appropriate response on your part, as a Christian, is to testify to your own faith in the Living Christ and to pray that the eyes of the denier would be opened that he might see the light of the Gospel, be converted, and believe.

If a yes answer to the first question suggests that the believer is insecure in his own faith, a yes answer to the second question, especially when joined with a no answer to the first, indicates a far more serious problem. It indicates that the Holocaust is of greater importance to you than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the Holocaust is now in the space which the Gospel ought to occupy in the heart of the Christian believer.

These are all things that Canadian Christians ought to keep in mind in hearing or reading the recent news story about one Monika Schaefer and contemplating what they ought to think about the whole affair.

Schaefer, the Canadian born daughter of German immigrants who were of the generation that saw the Third Reich, is a violin instructor in Jasper, Alberta who has run, unsuccessfully, as the Green Party candidate in the federal constituency of Yellowhead on several occasions. In June she posted a video on Youtube, in which she played the violin and apologized to her parents for believing their generation to be guilty of perpetrating the Holocaust which she has come to believe to be “the biggest and most pernicious persistent lie in all of history.”

As you have probably guessed, certain people are rather upset about this. The head of B’nai Brith, an organization which, if I had as little class as they have I would describe with a considerably greater degree of accuracy than they have ever seen fit to exercise, as a Christophobic hate group, demanded that the Green Party “must denounce Schaefer and distance itself from all Holocaust denying groups and individuals.” Of course the party did just that, declaring that “The Green Party of Canada condemns in the strongest possible terms comments by Monika Schaefer, a former candidate, regarding her views on the Holocaust” and that at the next meeting of their Federal Council they will hear a motion to revoke her membership. Elizabeth May, the party’s leader, declared her condemnation of Schaefer’s “terribly misguided and untrue statements,” saying that Schaefer “does not represent the values of the Green Party nor of our membership.”

The matter of whom the fringe, leftist, eco-crackpot Green Party kicks out of their movement is of no concern to me in and of itself, although I find B’nai Brith’s bullying political parties into kicking out people they do not approve of for reasons that have nothing to do with the party’s policies and platform quite irritating. Schaefer faces more than just being kicked out of her political party, however. Thanks to Ken Kuzminski, the president of the Jasper legion who, according to the CBC was at one time a friend of Schaefer’s, a charge has been filed against her with both the Alberta and the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. That yet another person may find herself the victim of the injustice of being punished for expressing forbidden thoughts at the hands of these Stalinist inquisitions is something which concerns and ought to outrage all Canadians.

The Canadian and provincial Human Rights Commissions are fundamentally un-Canadian institutions if by Canada we mean the Dominion of Canada that fought against Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich alongside the United Kingdom and the other countries in the great British family of nations between 1939 and 1945. The Dominion of Canada was established in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation on the Loyalist foundation of preserving in the new country they were building, our rich British heritage including our parliamentary monarchy form of government, our Christian religion, our English Common Law, and the basic freedoms and legal rights that developed in the course of over a thousand years of history that included such highlights as the constitution of Alfred the Great of Wessex and the Magna Carta Libertatum. These Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, which investigate and pass judgement upon the expressed thoughts of Canadians to determine whether they have committed what in the Newspeak of George Orwell’s 1984 was called “crimethink,” are foreign to that heritage and tradition, being much more at home in totalitarian ideological states like the Soviet Union, Red China, and North Korea.

It was the ideology that drove these states – the ideology of Marxist-Leninism, more commonly known as Communism – to which the Liberal Prime Ministers who governed Canada from 1963 to 1984 subscribed, secretly in the case of Lester Pearson, more openly in the case of Pierre Trudeau who was responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Act which established these Soviet-style tribunals. This ideology was an enemy of National Socialism, the ideology behind the Third Reich, but the enmity was that of bitter rivalry between virtually identical twin siblings. The only significant difference between the two was that National Socialism, being racist and nationalist, rejected the liberal universalism, internationalism, and cosmopolitanism of Communism. Otherwise they were revolutionary ideologies that attracted young thugs, hated the old, traditional, order, and established virtually identical party-ruled, police states that governed by fear and required everyone to at least give lip service to the tenets of their ideology.

The British family of nations, including the Dominion of Canada, was forced to make a temporary alliance with the Soviet Union in the war against the Third Reich, but the wisest of our leaders, such as Sir Winston Churchill, recognized that the ideology of the USSR was just as bad and dangerous as that of Nazi Germany and it would serve us well in this day to remember that the two ideologies were twins. Those who think that ideas like those of Monika Schaefer ought to be punished by law maintain that they hold this position to prevent a resurgence of National Socialism. The Nizkor website, on its home page, asks the question “Given the evidence…why do people deny the Holocaust?” which it answers with a quotation from some American neo-Nazi group “The real purpose of holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again.”

This, however, is clearly nonsense. The first holocaust revisionist was Paul Rassinier, a French Communist and pacifist, who joined the anti-Nazi resistance and was himself imprisoned in Buchenwald and Dora. The American history professor, Harry Elmer Barnes, who had Rassinier’s books published in English, was an American classical liberal. Calvinist theologian Rousas J. Rushdooney, after reading Rassinier and Barnes, pointed to the claims of the standard Holocaust account which they disputed as an example of bearing false witness against one’s neighbour in his commentary on the Ten Commandments in his Institutes of Biblical Law. David Cole, who became a Holocaust revisionist in his youth, going to the site of Auschwitz to investigate after the fall of Communism in Poland, is a fairly mainstream American conservative and certainly no Nazi-sympathizer. None of these men had or have an interest in making National Socialism “an acceptable political alternative again.” Most holocaust revisionists, according to journalist John Sack, in an Esquire article from 2001 in which he described his encounters with David Irving, Ernst Zundel, and other revisionists at a meeting of the Institute for Historical Review, were simply ordinary people of German descent who did not want to think ill of their ancestors.

It would be more truthful to say that it is the influence of Communism, National Socialism’s rival sibling, that lies behind the suppression of Holocaust revisionism. Due to the similarity between the ideologies, it is therefore also true to say that those who want to see people like Monika Schaefer silenced, dragged before Human Rights tribunals, and punished for their views, are closer to the spirit of Adolf Hitler than those they seek to persecute. It has been pointed out that the adherents of these totalitarian ideologies often had no problem switching from the one to the other and it is interesting to note that when the Dominion of Canada was fighting Hitler at the side of Great Britain, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the author of the Canadian Human Rights Act who throughout his political career praised Communist tyrants like Mao and Castro, was riding around on his motorcycle, denouncing the war effort, with a German helmut on his head and a big swastika on his back.

Fellow Canadians, if any of the spirit of the old Dominion still lives on in you, I urge you not to remain silent while another Canadian is persecuted for expressing an unpopular point of view. It is those who wish to silence and punish Monika Schaefer, not Schaefer herself, who represent all of the things our country went to war to fight in 1939.

As for the Holocaust – make up your own minds about it. Read both sides – conventional history books, such as Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of The European Jews – and those by the revisionists. David Cole, for example, has an interesting summary of his present views on the matter in the last chapter of his memoir Republican Party Animal. If you find the conventional history more convincing, believe it. If you find the revisionists have better arguments, believe them. If you cannot make up your mind, don’t be afraid to admit it and say that you just don’t know. Any of these options is fine. Just don’t let bullies like B’nai Brith tell you what to think.

Finally, Canadian Christians, when you see Holocaust revisionists being persecuted for their views, recognize this for the injustice that it is. This, and not the unevenness of the distribution of wealth, is what real injustice looks like. Do not be fooled by the wolves in sheep’s clothing, who preach social justice, while licking the jackboots of the ideology responsible for these injustices, an ideology that has been dedicated to the destruction of our faith since the moment its founder penned his foul Manifesto in 1848. If you do not want people thrown in jail or otherwise persecuted for denying the Resurrection – and you should not want that – then you ought to be opposed to their being persecuted for denying the Holocaust. Otherwise, you testify that the Holocaust is more important to you than the Resurrection, raising the question of where your faith truly lies.

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 Matter” 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 Hillary 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.