Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

 Leap Day this year is the fortieth anniversary of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s announcement that during a “walk in the snow” he had decided that he would step down and not lead the Liberal Party into the next Dominion election.  He had been leader of the Grits for sixteen years since Lester Pearson stepped down in April of 1968.   With the exception of the six month premiership of Joe Clark he had been Prime Minister all that time.   His was the third longest premiership in Canadian history.   The longest was that of William Lyon Mackenzie King who had been a different kind of Liberal leader.   King, like Trudeau, had been a traitor to Canada, her history, heritage, and traditions, but in his case it was American-style capitalist liberalism to which he had sold us out.   In the case of Pierre Trudeau it was Soviet and Chinese Communism that was his true master.   Canada’s second longest premiership was also her first that of Sir John A. Macdonald.   Sir John had been the leader of the Fathers of Confederation and never betrayed us.   Nor did Canadians ever grow tired of Old Tomorrow.   Shortly before his death in 1891 he won his sixth majority in that year’s Dominion Election by campaigning for “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader” against a Liberal Party that sought to move us closer economically and culturally into the orbit of the United States.   By contrast by the time Trudeau took his famous walk Canadians had grown absolutely sick and tired of him.   The Liberals were heading to defeat, Trudeau knew it, and in the interest of preserving his legacy and what was left of his reputation jumped off the ship before it sank.

 

The electorate’s having grown sick of Trudeau and his party should be regarded as the expected outcome when a Prime Minister remains in office for a long period of time.   Sir John’s enduring popularity can be taken as the exception explainable by the fact that he was an exceptional statesman, identified with the country he led as no other Prime Minister could ever hope to be due to his central role in her founding, and a personable leader to whom people could relate.   When a Sovereign, like Queen Victoria during whose reign Confederation took place or like our late Queen Elizabeth II of Blessed Memory, has an exceptionally long reign this is cause for celebration and rejoicing.   It is the role of the Sovereign, after all, to embody the principle of continuity and everything that is enduring, lasting, and permanent in the realm.   The man who fills the Prime Minister’s office, by contrast, is very much the man of the moment.   Premierships, therefore, are usually best kept short.

 

Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, has been Prime Minister since 2015 and Canadians are now far sicker of him than they ever were of his father.   Personally, I had had more than enough of him while he was still the third party leader prior to the 2015 Dominion Election.   Why it took this long for the rest of the country to catch up with me I have no idea but here we are.   It is 2024 and Canadians are divided on whether they would like Captain Airhead to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow, whether they would like to see him suffer the humiliation of going down in defeat in the next Dominion Election or whether they would like to see him brought down in an act of direct divine intervention involving a lightning bolt that strikes the ground beneath him causing it to open up, swallow him whole, and belch out fire and brimstone.  What unites Canadians is that we all wish that he would make like Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney and “please go now.”   Thermidor is rapidly approaching for Captain Airhead and his version of the Liberal Party as it eventually comes for all Jacobins.

 

The Canadian Robespierre seems determined, however, not to go to his inevitable guillotine without one last stab at imposing his ghoulish and clownish version of the Reign of Terror.   On Monday the Liberals tabled, as they have been threatening to do since the last Dominion Election, Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that would enhance government power in the name of combatting “online harms.”   A note to American readers, in the Commonwealth to “table” a bill does not mean to take it off the table, i.e., to suspend or postpone it as in the United States, but rather to put it on the table, i.e., to introduce it.   Defenders of omnibus bills regard them as efficient time-savers.   They are also convenient ways to smuggle in something objectionable that is unlikely to pass if forced to stand on its own merits by rolling it up with something that is desirable and difficult or impossible to oppose without making yourself look bad.   In this case, the Liberals are trying to smuggle in legislation that would allow Canadians to sue other Canadians for up to $20 000, with the possibility of being fined another $50 000 payable to the government thrown in on top of it, over online speech they consider to be hateful and legislation that would make it possible for someone to receive life imprisonment for certain “hate crimes”, by rolling it up in a bill ostensibly about protecting children from online bullying and pornographic exploitation.  As is always the case when the Liberals introduce legislation that has something to do with combatting hate it reads like they interpreted George Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother in 1984 as a “how-to” manual.  

 

Nobody with an IQ that can be expressed with a positive number could possibly be stupid enough to think that this Prime Minister or any of his Cabinet cares about protecting children.   Consider their response to the actions taken over the last year or so by provincial premiers such as New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith to do just that, protect children  from perverts in the educational system hell-bent on robbing children of their innocence and filling their heads with sex and smut from the earliest grades.   Captain Airhead and his corrupt cohorts denounced and demonized these premiers’ common-sense, long overdue, efforts, treating them not as the measures taken in defense of children and their parents and families that they were, but as an attack on the alphabet soup gang, one of the many groups that the Liberals and the NDP court in the hopes that these in satisfaction over having their special interests pandered to will overlook the progressive left’s contemptuous disregard for the common good of the whole country and for the interests of those who don’t belong to one or another of their special groups.  

 

Nor could any Canadian capable of putting two and two together and who is even marginally informed about what has been going on in this country in this decade take seriously the Prime Minister’s posturing about hate.    The leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, when asked about what stance the Conservatives would take towards this bill made the observation that Captain Airhead given his own past is the last person who should be dictating to other Canadians about hate.   Poilievre was referring to the blackface scandal that astonishingly failed to end Captain Airhead’s career in 2019.  It would have been more to the point to have referenced the church burnings of 2021.  In the summer of that year, as Captain Airhead hosted conferences on the subjects of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that consisted of a whole lot of crying and hand-wringing and thinking out ways to get around basic rights and freedoms so as to be able to throw in gaol anyone who looks at a Jew or Muslim cross-eyed, Canada was in the midst of the biggest spree of hate crimes in her history.   Christian church buildings all across Canada were targeted for arson and/or other acts of vandalism.  Not only did Captain Airhead fail to treat this violent and criminal display of Christophobia as a serious problem in the same way he was treating these other types of hatred directed towards specific religions he played a significant role in inciting these attacks on Canada’s Christian churches by promoting a narrative in which all allegations against Canada’s churches and her past governors with regards to the Indian Residential Schools are accepted without question or requirement of proof. (1)

 

Clearly Captain Airhead does not give a rat’s rump about hate qua hate.   If hatred is directed towards people he doesn’t like, like Christians, he shrugs it off even when it is expressed through violent, destructive, crime.   If it is directed against people he likes, or, more accurately, against groups to which he panders, he treats it as if it were the most heinous of crimes even if it is expressed merely in words.   While I am on principle opposed to all laws against hate since they are fundamentally unjust and by nature tyrannical (2) they are especially bad when drawn up by someone of Captain Airhead’s ilk.

 

Captain Airhead’s supposed concern about “online harms” is also a joke.   Consider how he handles real world harms.   His approach to the escalating problem of substance abuse is one that seeks to minimize the harm drug abusers do to themselves by providing them with a “safe” supply of their poison paid for by the government.   This approach is called “harms reduction” even though when it comes to the harms that others suffer from drug abuse such as being violently attacked by someone one doesn’t know from Adam because in his drug-induced mania he thinks his victim is a zombie space alien seeking to eat his brain and lay an egg in the cavity, this approach should be called “harms facilitation and enablement.”   Mercifully, there is only so much Captain Airhead can do to promote this folly at the Dominion level and so it is only provinces with NDP governments, like the one my province was foolish enough to elect last year, that bear the full brunt of it.   Then there was his idea that the solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons and criminal recidivism was to release those detained for criminal offenses back into the general public as soon after their arrest as possible.   Does this sound like someone who can be trusted to pass legislation protecting people from “online harms”?

 

Captain Airhead inadvertently let slip, last week, the real reason behind this bill.   In an interview he pined for the days when Canadians were all on the same page, got all their information from CBC, CTV, and Global, before “conspiracy theorists” on the internet ruined everything.   He was lamenting the passing of something that never existed, of course.   People were already getting plenty of information through alternative sources on the internet long before his premiership and the mainstream legacy media became far more monolithic in the viewpoints it presented during and because of his premiership.   What he was pining for, therefore, was not really something that existed in the past, but what he has always hoped to establish in the future – a Canada where everyone is of one opinion, namely his.    This is, after all, the same homunculus who, back when a large segment of the country objected to him saying that they would be required to take a foreign substance that had been inadequately tested and whose manufacturers were protected against liability into their bodies if they ever wanted to be integrated back into ordinary society, called them every name in the book and questioned whether they should be tolerated in our midst.

 

Some have suggested that Bill C-63 is not that bad compared with what the Liberals had originally proposed three years ago.   It still, however, is a thinly-veiled attempt at thought control from a man who is at heart a narcissistic totalitarian and whose every act as Prime Minister, from trying to reduce the cost of health care and government benefits by offering people assistance in killing themselves (MAID) to denying people who having embraced one or more of the letters of the alphabet soup, had a bad trip, the help they are seeking in getting free, deserves to be classified with the peccata clamantia.   It took a lot of pain and effort for this country to finally rid herself of the evil Section 13 hate speech provision that Captain Airhead’s father had saddled us with in the Canadian Human Rights Act.   Captain Airhead must not be allowed to get away with reversing that.

 

It is about time that he took a walk in the snow.   Or got badly trounced in a Dominion election.   Or fell screaming into a portal to the netherworld that opened up beneath his feet.   Any of these ways works.  

 

The time is come.  The time is now.  Just go. Go. GO!   I don’t care how.  Captain Airhead, would you please go now?! (3)

 

(1)   Anyone who thinks the allegations were proven needs to learn the difference between evidence and proof.   Evidence is what is brought forward to back up a claim.   Proof is what establishes the truth of a claim.   That the evidence advanced for the allegations in question simply does not add up to proof and moreover was flimsy from the onset and has subsequently been largely debunked is an entirely valid viewpoint the expression of which is in danger of being outlawed by the bill under discussion.   In a court of criminal law the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove the charge(s) against the defendant.   Not merely to present evidence but to prove the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The same standard must be applied to allegations made against historical figures and past generations.   They, after all, are not present to defend themselves against their accusers.   To fail to do so is to fail in our just duty towards those who have gone before us.   The ancients had a term for this failure.   It is the vice of impiety.

(2)   The folly of legislation against hate was best expressed by Auberon Waugh in an article entitled “Che Guevara in the West Midlands” that was first published in the 6 July, 1976 issue of The Spectator, and later included in the collection Brideshead Benighted (Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986).    Michael Wharton, however, writing as “Peter Simple” was second to none, not even Waugh, in ridiculing this sort of thing.

(3)   Apologies to Dr. Seuss.

The Start of a Reaction?

It is good to see that there are twelve sane people left in this world.   It was starting to look doubtful that this many could be found.   Somebody managed to find them, however, and appointed them to the jury which last week unanimously found Kyle Rittenhouse “not guilty” of all the charges including first degree murder under which he was being persecuted.   No, that is not a typo.   

 

 

Now, since many people have spent the last two years hiding under their beds in their basements, sucking their thumbs and clutching their security masks tightly, hoping that the bat flu Bogeyman won’t get them before they can take the magic needle that will make him go away, at least until it is time for their next in an interminable series of jabs, it is possible that there are many people who don’t know the name Kyle Rittenhouse.   Granted, these are for the most part the sort of people who are the least likely to ever wish to read a word I have to say, but just in case this essay finds its way to one of them, I will remind you of who Kyle Rittenhouse is.

 

 

On the twenty-third of last August a woman in Kenosha, Wisconsin called 9-11 to report that her ex-boyfriend, against whom she had a restraining order, was trying to steal her vehicle.   The police, who had a warrant for this man’s arrest on charges of criminal trespass, sexual assault and domestic abuse involving the same woman, showed up.   The man, Jacob Blake, resisted arrest and, reaching into his ex’s SUV, probably for the knife he had there, was shot several times, which left him paralyzed from the waist down.   Since Blake was black and the cop who shot him was white, Kenosha soon found itself besieged by the same sort of agitators of racial violence and strife who had been rioting and looting and burning down cities all over the United States since earlier that year when George Floyd had become the only exception to the rule that anyone who dies with the bat flu virus in his system must be counted a bat flu death regardless of other co-morbidities not excluding decapitation and dismemberment.

 

 

A note about these agitators.   These are a new kind who make the shakedown hustlers of thirty-forty years ago – the kind brilliantly parodied by Tom Wolfe in the character of “Reverend Bacon” in his Bonfire of the Vanities – look tame by comparison.    The latter were, for the most part, merely concerned with using accusations of racism – and the threat of discrimination lawsuits – to browbeat companies into paying them off.   The new kind, who claim to be advocates of justice in the face of a society that holds black lives cheap, care very little themselves about the black lives that are taken by black criminals, although each year these far exceed the number of black lives taken by white cops.   A similar phenomenon can be found here in Canada in those who loudly proclaim that every child matters, although they never seem to include the thousands of unborn children lost each year in abortion, talking only about kids who died mostly of smallpox over the course of a century at the Indian Residential Schools, in an attempt to slander and libel our country and her churches with a trumped up charge of genocide.  It is actually quite rare for a white cop to kill an unarmed black man.   It only seems to be otherwise because every single time it happens the liberal allies of the race agitators in the media talk about nothing else for weeks, if not months.   Every such victim becomes a household name.  These new race agitators are driven by ideological racial hatred of the kind peddled by Ibram X. Kendi, Nicole Hannah-Jones, and Robin D’Angelo.   The kind that looks like it was plagiarized from the writings of Adolf Hitler, with “Jews” scratched out and “white people” written in on top.   Come to think of it, the same thing could be said, mutatis mutandis, about the rhetoric that most mainstream politicians, media commentators, and medical associations use about the “unvaccinated”.

 

 

Kyle Rittenhouse is a young man from Antioch, a village in Illinois that is just across the state border from Kenosha of which it is essentially a satellite community.   He was seventeen years old at the time and had come into the city the day after Blake was shot to stay with a friend.   The violence, looting, destruction, and general mayhem that had been begun the previous night continued into that one.    The next day, the sort of thing that the lying corporate news media liked to call a “peaceful protest” was scheduled to occur and, predictably, it broke out into a riot.   Rittenhouse and his friend, after participating in the city’s clean-up efforts earlier that day, went to an automobile dealership that had been targeted by the rioters the two nights previously.   They had armed themselves to protect the property.   Rittenhouse carried an AR-15 rifle that he kept at his friend’s house.   

 

 

Towards midnight, a serial pederast named Joseph Rosenbaum who had been convicted on multiple counts of raping prepubescent boys confronted Rittenhouse and, backed by a mob, chased him across a parking lot throwing things at him, before cornering him and attempting to seize his gun.   The mob urged him to kill Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse – obviously in self-defense – pulled the trigger and fatally shot Rosenbaum.   Rittenhouse, heading towards the police to report the killing, was attacked by the mob.   One of them knocked his hat off, then, when he had tripped and fallen into the street, another jump kicked and curb stomped him.   Another rioter, Anthony Huber, also a convicted felon, grabbed the barrel of Rittenhouse’s gun and whacked him with his skateboard.   Rittenhouse, again in obvious self-defense, shot Huber in the chest, killing him.   At this point Gaige Grosskreutz, who claimed he was present as a volunteer paramedic and an observer for the American Civil Liberties Union, approached Rittenhouse.  When he was a few feet away from him, he pulled out his own Glock semi-automatic pistol for which his conceal-carry permit had expired (he had pleaded guilty three years previously to carrying a firearm while intoxicated).   Aiming it at Rittenhouse’s face, he lunged towards him.    Rittenhouse, still on the ground, shot Grosskreutz in the arm, wounding but not killing him.  He, that is Rittenhouse, then turned himself in to the police.   

 

 

Rittenhouse, if he had been the kind of dangerously violent serial killer/domestic terrorist the deceitful liberal corporate media later portrayed him as being, could easily have taken out dozens of people with the kind of semi-automatic rifle he was carrying.   He only shot three people, each of whom attacked him first, each of whom was a convicted criminal participating in a violent, rioting, mob.   Any sane, non-corrupt, prosecutor with any sense of justice and decency, would never have charged him with a crime at all, much less had him tried as an adult.   Especially when the media were already preparing to crucify him in their court of manufactured opinion.   As these events had taken place in the midst of a riot in which the state governor, city mayor, and other high civil officials had taken the side of the anarchistic mob and tied the hands of law and order, it is hardly a surprise that the prosecutor jumped on the “lynch Rittenhouse” bandwagon and charged him.

 

 

The liberal, or more accurately left-wing extremist, media subjected Rittenhouse to intense vilification.   It was not a mere Two Minutes Hate, as with Emmanuel Goldstein the object of the ire of Orwell’s Big Brother, or even a Hate Week, but what is now going on Fifteen Months of Hate.   They accused him of being a “white supremacist”, although they could produce no evidence of this accusation, such as statements of a racial supremacist nature that he had made or proof of his membership in a white supremacist organization.  

 

 

The accusation seemed particularly odd to several who took note of the fact that all three men whom he had shot were white.   They ought not to have been surprised.   Had they been paying attention they would have noticed that the extremely illiberal “liberal” left is now using “white supremacist”, which formerly was reserved for people ideologically committed to formal doctrines of white racial supremacy such as National Socialism and attached to groups that promote the same, the way they used to use “racist”, that is to say, as a slur thrown at anyone who stands up to their agenda, whether it is on a point that has anything to do with race or not.  

 

 

The crazier among them attempt to back up this practice with Critical Race Theory, the aforementioned anti-white ideological racial hatred that is promoted in academe.   It uses the same kind of irrationality that was employed by Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, and others in the lunatic fringe of the second-wave of feminism, a lunatic fringe that quickly became the mainstream of that movement, in coming up with their arguments for their positions that all men are rapists and that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.   Those arguments were along the following lines: rape is not about sex but about power, its function is to keep women subordinate to men, all men benefit from this whether they commit actual rape or not, all women are oppressed by this whether they are actual rape victims or not, therefore all women are victims and all men rapists, and because of the imbalance of power between the sexes there can be no real consent in heterosexual intercourse ergo it is all rape.   If you think I’m making any of this up, read Brownmiller’s Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1975) and Dworkin’s Intercourse (1987).   Feminism has since doubled-down on this insanity and in women’s studies and gender studies courses across academe indoctrinate their victims with the idea that lesbianism is the norm and heterosexuality is a false social construct imposed upon women by the patriarchy.   Critical Race Theory imputes white supremacy to all who commit the sin of existing while white by a similar process which starts with the premise that everything in Western civilization, down to and including the words we speak and the way we do arithmetic, exists for the purpose of oppressing “people of colour” and empowering white people, especially white men.   It is this sort of nonsense that has so rotted the liberal mind that in a civic-minded young man, defending a business against attack from violent rioters, looters, and arsonists stirred up by agitators of racial strife and then killing in self-defense when said anarchists attacked him, they see something like a Klansman or a goose-stepping, swastika and jackboot wearing, sieg heiling skinhead.   Ironically, a strong case could be made that someone who actually is one of those things is today likely far less filled with dangerous and violent racial bigotry and hatred than the average “liberal” news commentator as  “Peter Simple”’s prejudometer might show if it actually existed.

 

 

Mercifully, despite the prosecutor’s politically-motivated mala fide prosecution and the left’s attempts to sabotage Rittenhouse’s chances of a fair trial by trying him in the media before the jury had a chance to hear the evidence much less deliberate, justice has prevailed.   Hopefully, Rittenhouse will now sue everyone from the creep currently occupying the top position of state in the American republic down for all the character assassination he has been forced to endure.   The Washington Post and CNN agreed to settle out of court with Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic high school student who was similarly subjected to a hate fest by these and other media after he was accosted by a drum-beating Native Indian activist while attending the March for Life at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in 2019 and dared to stand his ground, over the multi-million dollar defamation suits his family filed against them.   While under ordinary circumstances I would be loath to suggest making an already too litigious society more so, the only way the corporate media is ever going to stop demonizing non-leftists in this manner is if enough such defamation suits cause them either to re-think their behaviour or to go bankrupt.

 

 

Predictably, the left has been throwing a collective tantrum ever since the verdict was announced.   Up here in the Dominion of Canada, the leader of the furthest to the left of all the parties with representation in the House of Commons, Jimmy Dhaliwal, issued an idiotic tweet in which he said that the verdict “feels like another failure by a broken system designed to protect some and hurt others”.    If you ever want to know what the truth about any hot topic issue is, find out what Jimmy Dhaliwal has said about it.   The truth will almost always be the exact opposite of that.

 

 

Down south, the left has just thrown one of their own, one Mary Lemanski who had been the social media director for the Democratic Party of DuPage County, Illinois under the bus for connecting the Rittenhouse acquittal to the actions of one Darrell Brookes Jr., who drove into a crowd during the Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Sunday, killing five people and leaving about forty more wounded.   Lemanski called the act “karma” and said “You reap what you sow, Wisconsin”, tweeting out that “it was probably self-defense”, as if mowing down a crowd with a car was the same thing as shooting three people who were attacking you.  This is the sort of confusion that is only to be expected from the sort of twits who do not understand the difference between what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing in Kenosha - protecting property as a private person against the threat of destructive crime and vigilante justice.   The latter is what happens when private persons, after a crime has been committed, track down the person they think or know to be guilty, and exact vengeance upon him as cop, judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one.  Whether the verdict was connected to Brookes’ act in the sense of being its motivation, or part of its motivation, is not yet clear, although the vehemence with which some portions of the left are denying it would seem to suggest that it probably was.   Indeed, I only bring this up because what happened to Lemanski is so unusual.  The left does not ordinarily police its own for language considered to be extreme in this way.    This suggests that they are terrified that more people will make the same connection that she did, although racial activist Vaun Mayes said something similar – he suggested that Brookes’ actions were the “start of a revolution” in response to the verdict, and does not seem to have been punished for it.

 

 

For my part, I hope the Rittenhouse acquittal is the start of a reaction – that “opposite of a revolution” that the great Joseph de Maistre called for - and a return to common sense, law and order, the right of self-defense, and all other aspects of civilization that have been in short order during the racial madness of recent years.

 

Bring Back Bron!

There has been an awful lot of finger pointing going on in the aftermath of the unfortunate incident in Texas a couple of weekends ago. The question “who is to blame” has been on everyone’s minds. Nobody is much interested in the obvious answer, i.e., that the shooter himself is to blame, as that answer, however truthful, is lame and boring. So the blame has been shifted onto virtually everybody else. I use the qualifier “virtually” because I have yet to hear anyone blame country and western singer/songwriter and NASCAR speed demon Marty Robbins for the shooting. Yet the case against him is as sound and logical as the case which progressives, liberals, and other left-wing kooks and weirdos have been pressing against Donald the Orange.

The song that established Robbins’ country and western career and won him his first Grammy award was “El Paso”, written and recorded for his 1959 album “Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs.” The song is a first person narrative in which the character of the narrator sings about falling in love with a Mexican girl named Feleena, a singer at Rosa’s Cantina in the “west Texas town of El Paso.” When another cowboy comes to town and he sees the two of them together in the saloon he jealously challenges the newcomer to a duel and shoots him dead. He steals a horse and flees to New Mexico, but is unable to resist the urge to see Feleena again. On his return he encounters several mounted cowboys who are out looking for him and runs the gauntlet to get into town, being severely wounded in the process. He makes it to the backdoor of Rosa’s, only to be shot down, and dies in Feleena’s arms moments later.

Here we find the inspiration for the unhappy turn of events that has been all over the news as of late. Clearly, Whatever-the-heck-his-name-is, was listening to this song one day and the idea popped into his head “Hey, this song is saying that in El Paso, the thing to do when you are mad is to go around shooting people” and the massacre ensued.

What’s that you say? “Preposterous!” “Absurd!” “Nonsense!”

Of course it is. No more so, however, than the ridiculous claim that Donald the Orange’s supposedly “racist” rhetoric is to blame.

The accusations against the American president utilize the same sort of illogic that progressives here in Canada, as well as in the UK and Europe, have used for decades to justify laws against so-called “hate speech.” According to their way of thinking, hate speech, which does not mean expressions of literal hatred such as “I hate you” so much as statements which reflect negatively on an identifiable group of people leads to violent actions and so should be treated as a violent act itself and prohibited and punished by law. This sort of thinking is very similar to the basic concept that underlies the practice of magic, the non-sleight-of-hand-type of magic that is, - the idea that you can produce effects in the physical world simply by uttering the right word or combination of words. A lot of progressive thinking is like this. Note how they seem to believe that governments have the ability to alter reality by passing laws and that an individual is whatever sex or made-up gender he, she, it or whatever declares himself, herself, itself, or whatever to be. Given the way the left-wing mind seems to operate, perhaps, if you ever find yourself in the situation of being afflicted with unrequited love for a person of the progressive persuasion you should follow the advice of David Seville’s shaman and try uttering the words or syllables or whatever they are: “oo ee oo ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang” – it might actually work.

It is at times like this that we really feel the loss of the late, great Auberon Waugh, who knew no equal – with the exception of Michael Wharton aka Peter Simple – in his ability to poke fun at this sort of thing. Mercifully, an article he wrote many years ago can be applied to the situation at hand. It appeared first in the July 10th, 1976 issue of The Spectator and was later included in the anthology Brideshead Benighted, published by Little, Brown and Company in 1986, where it can be found on pages 153 to 156. The title is “Che Guevara in the West Midlands.”

In the article, Waugh begins by talking about an interview, which had just been published, with John Tyndall, the leader of the National Front, and goes on to discuss Robert Relf, whose difficulties with the Race Relations Board were highly-publicized at the time and who is the “Che Guevara” alluded to in the title. “I don’t know why it is that race relations should attract so much foolishness and pomposity on both sides of the fence”, Waugh began one paragraph and in the next added “For myself, I see nothing to choose between the National Front and the Race Relations Board. Both are a collection of bores and busybodies and both are harmful to the extent they are taken seriously.” In his concluding paragraph he wrote that “I feel certain that the only thing which gives the National Front glamour or popular appeal at the present time is the attempt by foolish, well-meaning people to suppress its views and treat its language as unfit for publication” and of the Race Relations Board “The kindest and wisest thing to do is to laugh at them.”

This, for those who have forgotten, which is probably most people since there is so much of the opposite floating around these days, is what sanity looks like. The part of the article that is most relevant and which is what brought it to mind is the following excerpt:

They [the National Front] may well be a nasty, boring and humourless collection of fanatics, but I have never seen that there was anything more wicked about race hatred than there is about class hatred or religious hatred or the peculiarly intense and inexplicable hatred which my dear wife feels for Jimmy Connors, the tennis player. They are all part of the rich panorama of life. If I forbade my wife to express her true feelings for Jimmy Connors, I have no doubt they would fester inside her, creating little black eddies of resentment and paranoia which would eventually burst out in some hideous drama on the Centre Court at Wimbledon when Connors would expire, coughing blood, in front of the television cameras, with a lady’s parasol sticking between his ribs; public subscriptions would create a Jimmy Connors Memorial Trust and we would be stuck with a hideous modern statue of the young man somewhere on those green and pleasant lawns. So, wisely, I let her have her say.

The insight this shows is truly profound. The verbal expression of hatred is not the cause of violence but a safety vent that helps prevent it. I am persuaded that Waugh was on to something here and that if civilization ends up being consumed in a race war it will be progressive anti-racists who demand that the law be used to force those they disagree with to shut up who will be to blame for it.

In addition to saying that the current American president’s rhetoric inspired the El Paso shooter, progressives also maintain that he has been promoting “white nationalism.” “White nationalism” is an expression which has been used to mean anything from white people engaging in the kind of racial identity politics that the progressive Left promotes for every other race to the violent ideology of National Socialism but it is the latter end of that spectrum that progressives have in mind when they make this accusation against Trump. They are as wrong in the one accusation as they are in the other and for the same reason. Their own promotion of identity politics for all other groups together with their vilification of whites as a race makes white identity politics legitimate as a defensive, response. Their denial of that legitimacy, is what creates the risk of white racial identity politics turning radical, revolutionary, and violent. Someone like Trump, who provides a voice within the system whereby whites can air their legitimate racial grievances, is the best safeguard against that outcome. Only a total moron could fail to realize that.

Of course progressives are wrong about this just as they are wrong about everything else that has to do with race. Eleven years ago Barack Obama ran on a platform that basically amounted to “vote for me because I am black, you have to vote for me because I am black, oh, and by the way, did I mention that I am black.” This proved to be a winning strategy and American voters responded by electing their first president chosen on the basis of the colour of his skin. When this happened, progressives hilariously declared that his election signified that the United States had entered into a post-racial era. In reality, it was Obama, not Trump, who ushered in a new era of highly racialized politics. Progressives are pointing to El Paso and Christchurch as proof that a wave of white supremacist terrorism is upon us when in reality these incidents completely disprove their argument. Since every time a white person anywhere in the world commits a violent act which can possibly be attributed to racial motives the media makes it the top story for weeks if not months on end we can be certain that we have heard of every such incident that has ever occurred and they are a miniscule fraction of a fraction of the violent incidents that occur on a daily basis. Neither the Christchurch nor the El Paso killer was part of any organized movement. Both incidents were carried out by deranged loners and in both cases in order to create the narrative spin they desired the liberal media had to cherrypick the killer’s manifesto. By contrast, the anti-racist terrorism that the liberal media and progressive political leaders refuse to condemn even while they demand that all right-of-centre political leaders disavow and condemn white advocacy whether violent or not is systematic, organized and widespread.

Yes, this sort of insanity is crying out for the return of Auberon Waugh to once again satirize the unsatirizable. While raising him from the dead is beyond my abilities, Naim Attallah of Quartet Books has done the next best thing by publishing a new anthology of his writings entitled A Scribbler in Soho. For any sane person looking to lighten his spirits in these dark and gloomy days I highly recommend it.

Be careful, however, about the messages you soak in while listening to 1950’s era country and western music. I would hate to hear that any of you had shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.