South of the Border

As you are aware, if you have been a reader for any period of time, I am not an American.   I was born a free subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the Dominion of Canada, have lived in said Commonwealth Realm all my life, and have no desire to change this.   Long time readers will also know that by political conviction I am a staunch, “Freedom Wears a Crown”, Tory, who believes firmly in the institution of hereditary, royal, monarchy and the Westminster Parliamentary constitution.   I have, in other words, no personal stake in this year’s American Presidential election any more than I had in that of 2016.     Indeed, I see both of these elections as demonstrations of the foolishness of having an elected head of state who is chosen in a popularity contest.    While factionalism is a problem in a parliamentary system as well as in a republican system, being an unavoidable element of an elected legislative assembly, it is much worse when the person who is supposed to represent the country as a whole – as a side note to all of my fellow Canucks out there this is not the role of the Prime Minister – is chosen by election.   Far better for the office to be above the process of partisan politics and grounded instead on hereditary right, tradition, prescription, and sacred oath.

 

None of this means, of course, that I have not been following the campaign, nor does it mean that I do not have a strong preference for one of the candidates.   The Second Greatest Commandment, Our Lord said, was “To love thy neighbour as thyself” and, for all of their misguided, small-r republicanism, the Americans are our southern neighbours, and it would be a major violation of the Second Greatest Commandment to wish Kamala Harris upon them as their president.   Let us not deceive ourselves as to who the true Democrat candidate has been this year.

 

When Donald Trump first sought the Republican nomination for the election of four years ago, like everyone else, I knew him mostly as a very rich real-estate developer who had been very famous simply for his wealth back in the 1980s, before becoming a television celebrity as the host of “The Apprentice” decades later.   I did not initially think his candidacy was a serious one but, as he sought the nomination, won the nomination, and then won the election, on a platform that read like it had been written by Pat Buchanan, I came to be impressed. It was about time, I thought, that, someone was taking such long verboten ideas as “a country needs to be able to control its borders”, “free trade is not all it is cracked up to be”, “the United States should not be the world’s police”, “governments should act in the best interests of their own countries instead of some global vision”, and “there are such things as too much immigration and the wrong kind of immigration” and bringing them back into the public debate from which they had been long excluded and desperately needed.   When Trump challenged the established leadership of his own party as well as the Democrats, the mainstream media, and all the other liberal, progressive, and left-wing forces arrayed against him, I developed a respect for him, which only kept growing as he won, and then, in office, set out to do the things he had said he would do in a way that no other elected leader in any country at any level of government that I can remember in my lifetime had ever done.

 

The progressive left in the United States and elsewhere were enraged by Trump’s election.   As anybody who remembers the 1990s and the 2000s knows, the venom directed against the two George Bushes and the unsuccessful Republican candidates who ran against Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did not come remotely close to the hatred unleashed against Trump and his supporters.   Even the anti-Reagan hysterics that progressive liberals liked to engage in when I was a kid was nothing like this.    Every presidential election for the last twenty-five years or so, has been followed by a “derangement syndrome” on the part of the losing side.   “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has dwarfed them all.

 

The organized, militant, extremists of the left, such as Antifa - the masked, blackshirted, thugs, who with no apparent consciousness of the irony proclaim themselves to be fighting “facism” – began a campaign of intimidation and violence, directed against Trump, his supporters, anybody who held views they disapproved of, or in many cases, anybody who just happened to be white or elderly.   They have not let up since, and, indeed, took the violence to a whole new level this year, along with their allies, the Black Lives Matter movement.   Throughout this entire period – I am talking the entire last four years, remember - they were aided and abetted by the vast majority of the mainstream media, that constantly talked about mostly non-existent “white supremacists” and “right-wing extremist” while pretending that groups like Antifa were a laudable and legitimate protest movement. In the United States, Democrat politicians almost never repudiated these violent extremists, nor were they called upon or pressed to do so to the extent and as repeatedly as Republican politicians, and especially Donald Trump, were called upon to repudiate the Bogeyman of white supremacism. 

 

At one point, just after Trump’s victory, there was a moment when it looked like the thinkers on the left were willing to take a hard look at themselves, and consider the possibility that Hilary Clinton’s “deplorables” rhetoric, and the entire Obama-Clinton strategy of demonizing middle and working class, white Americans, evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics, and males, was what cost them the election and ought to be abandoned.   That moment quickly passed, and instead, the left opted to double down on that strategy.    The message from the mainstream media, almost monolithically left-wing, became that Donald Trump was a crypto-Nazi and that anybody who supported him was likely the same.

 

They did not hesitate to tell the most outrageous lies to bolster this insane message.   How these companies have remained afloat without being deserted in droves by their viewers, readers, and advertisers, as their credibility sank below that of the supermarket tabloids that specialize in celebrity gossip and alien abduction stories is beyond me.  

 

First there was the entire “the Russians are responsible” nonsense, which was especially rich seeing that it came from the people who up until that point had been digging up the skeleton of Joseph McCarthy and rattling it around every time anyone said anything bad about Communists and Communism.  

 

Then, about seven months after Trump was sworn into office, somebody who had until shortly before been a Democratic Party organizer, put together a rally called “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville, Virginia to protest the scheduled removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee.   Some of the protestors, most likely left-wing agents provocateurs, showed up in Klan robes and SS uniforms.   Although these hardly constituted the majority of the protesters, the left-wing media declared all of the protestors to be “white supremacists” and “neo-Nazis”.   When Antifa “counter protesters” stirred up violence – with the Charlottesville police, upon orders from the city’s mayor, refusing to do their job and keep the two sides separate – the media pinned the blame for all of this on the protestors.   When Donald Trump, the voice of reason at the time, addressed the matter, condemning the violence from the left that the progressives refused to condemn, he said, with regards to the rally and its opponents, that there are “very fine people on both sides.”   The media has persistently quoted these words ever since, applying them to the kind of people that those in the Klan robes and SS uniforms purported to be, without mentioning that Trump clarified his own remark later in the same interview, and said “and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists – because they should be condemned totally.”    He should have refrained from giving them even that much, and said that he would condemn the people they want condemned, when and only when they are willing to condemn Antifa and other Marxist extremists.  

 

Since to relate the entire story of the media’s dishonest war against Trump would require an essay much longer than what I intend this one to be, I am going to skip ahead to the events of two nights ago.   It is now the morning of Guy Fawkes Day, which, contrary to the delusions of Alan Moore, does not commemorate some sort of libertarian hero but rather the defeat of the plot of a terrorist to blow up Parliament and King James I.   The Americans held their election on November the third, two days prior.  As of this moment, the outcome still hangs in the air.

 

On the evening of the third, as results of the election were counted, at first, Biden, the nominal Democratic candidate, gained a lead.  While some took this as an indication that the polls, which had been suggesting that Biden would win by a large margin, were accurate, I, in conversation with a couple of such people, said that this was merely the result of the early votes being tabulated first.   As the votes from Election Day itself, were added to the early votes, states that were showing blue on the map would start to turn red.   This prediction was soon borne out.   Amusingly, as this happened, the numbers on the top of the map, supposedly indicating electoral votes for Biden and Trump, became increasingly disconnected from the map itself.   It was apparent that the media had come up with a new form of mathematics for this election.   Biden’s total included both states where he was the declared winner and states where he was significantly ahead.   Trump’s only ever included the states where he had been declared the winner.   As states switched from blue to red, their numbers were not subtracted from Biden’s total.   States that Biden won were called as quickly as possible.   Other states, such as Florida, were not called for Trump until hours after it was obvious that he had won them.  By around 11 pm, the numbers from the states where Trump had won and was leading, if you manually added them up, showed a Trump total of close to 300 electoral votes, well over the 270 he needed.   The number on the top of the screen, however, still read just over 100.   

 

By some point around midnight – keep in mind, I am talking Central Standard Time here – the total electoral vote acknowledged for Trump had risen to 213.   Biden’s total had not been revised downward, in accordance with the red surge of the previous hours, but was sitting at 238 on the network news stations, 227 on Decision Desk.   The counts remained at those numbers until morning, although the map continued to show Trump with a sizable and winning lead over Harris and her stand-in Biden.

 

No, it is not standard procedure to put an election count on hold, send everyone home for the night, and start again in the morning.

 

By the time the morning came around, it was evident that the Democrats were returning to one of their older traditions.   Since they have been acting in recent years, as the devil possessed party of wokeness, Cultural Maoism, and Year Zero, it might be thought that for them to return to their party’s older traditions was a major improvement.  Sadly, however, I am not talking about Jeffersonian decentralized anti-federalism and agrarianism.   I refer to the tradition of Tammany Hall, Joseph P. Kennedy, and the long-standing Democrat lock on the cemetery vote.   The tradition, to put it plainly, of voter fraud.

 

The left had long signaled that they were planning this.   This is what all those fake polls – obvious to some of us at the time, to everybody now – and all of the talk about Trump refusing to concede was all about.   That is why the Democrats were so insistent upon a mail-in vote option, and, if it were not happening all around the world, I would have suggested that this is what was behind the whole “lets blow the latest strain of respiratory disease way out of proportion by giving it a scary new name and lying about it being an Apocalyptic superbug that will end all life on earth if drastic measures are not taken” all along.   Sure enough, overnight, under the cover of darkness, in districts locally controlled by Democrat bosses, some of which had been irregularly delaying reporting their returns, others of which “discovered” a whack load of ballots all marked for Biden at the last minute, tipped what had been a sizable lead for Trump in some key states into a lead for Biden.  

 

At the moment that I write this, the mainstream media are claiming that Biden is six electoral votes away from winning and fifty electoral votes ahead of Donald Trump.   Decision Desk has Biden leading, but at only 253 electoral votes.   They give the same 214 to Trump.

 

What is somewhat odd about all of this is that the Democrats seem to have put very little effort into disguising what they are doing.   With a paper trail a mile long, whistleblowers coming forward to testify to the cheating ordered by their higher ups, and the statistical impossibility of some of what we have seen, the likelihood that Donald Trump will win a legal challenge to all of this is incredibly high.   Is it possible that the left’s intention in all of this is not actually to steal an election, but to lay the foundation for a new set of charges against Trump – that he won by stacking the court – in order to justify a new wave of revolutionary violence?

 

In either situation, for the sake of our American neighbours, let us pray that the Donald is triumphant yet again.

 

God bless our American neighbours and God save the Queen!

The Moral Cowardice and Idolatry Among Today's Christian Leaders

Almost a century ago, poet and critic T. S. Eliot famously remarked “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” This was in a Cambridge University lecture given in 1939, on the eve of the war that was precipitated by the short-lived alliance between these rival alternatives to God, the text of which would be included in the book The Idea of a Christian Society. Seventeen years earlier a young Eliot had decried the cultural and spiritual bankruptcy of post-First World War Western Civilization in the poem “The Waste Land.” Five years later he had found the roots he had been looking for – note that he would later write the forward to Simone Weil’s The Need for Roots – when he converted to orthodox Christianity, joined the Church of England, and swore his oath of loyalty to the Crown becoming a British citizen. He had found the true path and in the words quoted above warned those who were pursuing materialistic ends and placing their hope in democracy of where their path would ultimately lead them.

It is just under eighty years since Eliot spoke those words and Western Civilization has not turned back to God in the interim. Indeed, it has become far more godless, materialistic and secular than anyone could have imagined back then, and in the process, despite Stephen Pinker’s recent arguments to the contrary, become far more crude, vulgar, and immoral. Sad to say, much of the blame for the state of our civilization belongs to the leaders of the church. If you read the historical and prophetic books of the Old Testament you will be struck by the number of times a particular cycle recurs – the leaders of God’s people go whoring after heathen idols, the people follow them into sin, and judgement and a curse comes upon them and their land as a result.

That the leaders of the church in our day and age are just as prone to lead their flocks into worshipping the false gods of the day as the leaders of the ancient Israelites were is evident in the moral blindness or cowardice that so many have displayed in their response to the recent events in Charlottesville even while tooting their own horns about their great courage in daring to resist the evil of white racism. It requires no courage whatsoever to speak out and condemn white racism in this era. All you have to do is go along with the mob. The true test of your moral courage is whether or not you dare to condemn the anti-white racism that hides behind the mask of anti-racism. Those who do so risk incurring the wrath of both the mob and the corporate globalists. The vast majority of church leaders, even among the supposedly orthodox, have failed this test badly. This is because they have bowed the knee to the false deity that presides over today’s pantheon of idols – the idol of diversity.

The events in Charlottesville as reported by the mainstream media seem to have produced a wide-spread breakdown in moral reasoning. Which is interesting because the disparity between the facts and the interpretation placed on those facts by the media is particularly glaring when it comes to this incident. We are told that because the “Unite the Right” rally was unambiguously pro-white and because neo-Nazi and KKK-types were unquestionably among the participants that all of those participating in the protest were white supremacists, and that therefore because of who they were, and because one of the counter protestors, Heather Heyer, was killed, it is the organizers and participants of the rally who must be singled out for blame and moral condemnation over the violence that occurred that day. This is morally bankrupt nonsense. It confuses consequences with culpability – just because the former were unevenly distributed between the protestors and counter protestors with the most severe consequence of death falling to one of the latter it does not follow in the slightest that in the allotment of blame the largest share must go to the former. Worse, it requires the premise that if a group’s views are regarded as repugnant or even if those views actually are repugnant, it is to be blamed for the violence that ensues when another group attacks them.

The facts of the case are these: the organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally went through all the legal hoops to get a permit to hold a legal demonstration; the antifa showed up armed and masked with the intention of shutting the demonstration down with violence; the Charlottesville authorities declared a state of emergency and ordered the police to shut down the legal demonstration; the police forced the demonstrators to evacuate the park, leaving them only one way out – through the antifa; and the antifa then attacked the demonstrators with baseball bats, clubs, homemade flamethrowers, and projectiles of various sorts. The man, James Alex Fields, who drove into the crowd injuring several and killing Heather Heyer may very well have been acting out of fear for his life rather than homicidal malice – that remains to be determined. What is clear is that the bulk of the blame for this event going violent is to be divided between the Charlottesville authorities and the antifa.

Although the media have been consistently portraying the antifa as “counter protestors” it would be more accurate to call them terrorists. They do not show up to picket, hand out literature, and forcibly but peacefully express their disagreement with those they consider to be racists. They show up masked and armed, to intimidate, harass, and attack, to block access and shut down events. Although “antifa” is short for anti-fascist, in their tactics they bear a far closer resemblance to the thugs who followed Hitler and Mussolini than do their opponents, which can be explained by the fact that they are generally fronts for Marxist-Leninist groups, Marxist-Leninism or Communism being the parent ideology of which Fascism and Nazism were mutant offspring. They claim they are fighting racism but you will never find them trying to shut down a lecture by a Marxist academic who calls for the abolition of whiteness or a concert by a rapper who explicitly calls for violence against whites in his lyrics. They show no sign of comprehending either that a racist might not be white or that a white might not be a racist but instead treat racist and white as if they are synonymous. This is itself, of course, a form of racism.

The voice of moral clarity in the aftermath of Charlottesville has been that of American President Donald J. Trump of all people. He unequivocally condemned white supremacism and neo-Nazism, but rightly distinguished between white supremacists and neo-Nazis on the one hand and those who were neither but participated in the rally to protest the erasure of history and the changing of culture. He did not shirk from calling out the antifa and allotting them the share of the blame that they so rightly deserve. This refreshing moral clarity was sadly lacking among many Christian leaders.

Take Timothy J. Keller, for example. Keller is the founding pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. An apologist and the author of numerous books, Keller has something of a celebrity status among evangelical Protestants. In an article for The Gospel Coalition that came out the same day that President Trump gave his press conference, Keller began by asking the question:

How should Christians, and especially those with an Anglo-white background, respond to last weekend’s alt-right gathering in Charlottesville and its tragic aftermath?

Note the words “especially those with an Anglo-white background”. Keller is guilty of the very racism that he condemns so vehemently in this article. Indeed, he is guilty of the worst form of racism possible – racism against your own people.

Later in the article, Keller commits gross eisegesis when he reads the modern political discussion of race into St. Paul’s address to the Epicureans and Stoics at the Areopagus in Acts 17. The Apostle was not addressing the Greek idea that other peoples were barbarian, when he said that God had made “of one blood” every nation on the earth, but rather was establishing that the God he was preaching and Whom he identified with their “unknown God” was not a tribal deity but the One True God Who created the universe and to Whom all people owe worship. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that Keller does not know this and that this was an honest hermeneutical error on his part rather than sheer mendacity in order to pander to the spirit of the times.

Keller makes reference to “the idolatry of blood and country.” Keller has written extensively about idolatry in his book Counterfeit Gods. There too he refers to the idols of blood and country or race and nation. Now, I have no objection to what Keller says about this form of idolatry. Obviously blood, country, race, and nation can be made into idols, as the history of the early part of the last century proves all too well. Let us return to the quotation from T. S. Eliot with which I began this essay. “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” Hitler, was the very embodiment of the idolatry of blood, country, race and nation. Note, however, that Eliot saw another option for God-rejecters in Stalin.

What I don’t see anywhere in Keller’s article – or his book for that matter – is any condemnation of the idolatry of those who brought the violence to Charlottesville on August 12th – the antifa. Again, it is easy to rail against the idols of blood, country, race, and nation, for these are the idols of a century ago. These idols were popular in the early twentieth century, but when they devoured their worshippers in the bloodbath of the Second World War, twentieth century man rejected them. He did not, however, turn back to the true and living God, but erected yet another idol – the idol of diversity. It is this idol whom the Stalinistic antifa worship and barring a revival in which there is a mass turn back to the true God, she, by the time her cult has run its course, will have exacted more in the way of blood sacrifices from her worshippers than her predecessors ever did. It is this idol that the faithful and courageous man of God is called to speak out against in our day and age. This is precisely what Timothy Keller – and far too many other – Christian leaders refuse to do, preferring to bow their knee to the new idol, just as the “Positive Christianity” cult that Keller rightly condemns as heretical, prostituted itself to the idols of the Third Reich.

Orthodox Christian teaching is that God divided the nations at Babel but in the Kingdom of God outside of history (the Fall to the Second Coming) He will gather “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” before the throne of the Lamb. Within human history, the Kingdom of God is represented on earth by the church, the body of Christ indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that accepts into its membership through baptism, anyone from any nation who believes in Jesus Christ. There is nothing in orthodox Christianity that requires us to support efforts to undo Babel politically, whether they be by dissolving the nations of the world into a global order of world federalism or by maximizing diversity within countries through mass immigration and then attempting to administer race relations bureaucratically. Indeed, to do this is to commit the utmost folly, to do the very thing most likely to exacerbate racial tensions, hostility, and violence. It is what the idolatry of diversity looks like.

Those who today are returning to the idols of blood, race, and nation are doing so because they have had a glimpse of the apocalyptic disaster that lies ahead of us if we continue down the path of the idolatry of diversity. Their solution is no solution – we must turn back to the True and Living God, through Him Who is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life.” It is not likely that this will happen, however, if Christian leaders continue, like Timothy Keller, to whore around with the idol of diversity, and to refuse to name the evil of anti-white racism disguised as antiracism, while hypocritically pretending to a moral courage they do not possess by reserving their vehement denunciations only for those evils the mob is howling after.

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.