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!

Re-Open the Churches Now!

On Monday, June 15th, the provincial government of Manitoba announced that it was extending the state of emergency that we have been under since March for another thirty days. There had been no new cases of the bat flu from China reported that day. The total number of deaths from this virus in Manitoba remains at seven. There are, as of the afternoon of Friday June 19th, nine active cases in the province. Two hundred ninety-three people have recovered. Nobody is currently hospitalized here, let alone in the Intensive Care Unit, because of this disease. There is clearly no cause for extending the state of emergency. Its original justification, remember, was to prevent hospitals and ICUs from being swamped. This was always a dubious justification for suspending everyone's basic liberties and putting us under universal house arrest. Today, there is clearly no foundation for it whatsoever.

Friday the 19th also marked the fourteenth day after a radical Marxist anti-white, anti-cop hate group that many consider to be a terrorist organization, was allowed to host a rally on the grounds of the provincial legislature. The social distancing rules were not enforced at this rally which was reported to have been attended by a couple of thousand people. This rally was one of many that the same organization has been holding in cities across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe since the death of George Floyd. Floyd, a repeat criminal offender with multiple convictions, died of a heart attack on May 25th. Although his death is being treated as a homicide he had overdosed on fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opiod, related to heroin but much more potent. A dosage of 3 milligrams is fatal and people have been known to die just from touching the stuff or catching a whiff of the fumes. Floyd had 11 nanograms per millilitre in his blood when he died and 5.6 ng/mL of norfentanyl, which is a metabolite of fentanyl. Nobody has yet survived having more than 4.6 ng/mL in his blood. He also had the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has the distinction of being the first person with this virus to have his death attributed to something else. This is because after purchasing a pack of cigarettes with a fake $20 bill, he was arrested as he was entering into a state of Excited Delirium due to the mixture of drugs - he also had methamphetamine, morphine and THC in his blood - in him. In this state he was uncooperative and the police restrained him using a nasty-looking but non-lethal knee hold as they called the paramedics. He had already begun uttering his famous last words "I can't breathe" before officer Chauvin's knee was upon him because he was already entering into the state of respiratory and heart failure that fentanyl overdoses produce. With the amount of drugs in him he would not have survived the day even if the storeowners had called social workers to come and let him talk about his feelings over tea and cookies rather than summoning the police. Nevertheless, thanks to a video of part of the police's encounter with Floyd that portrays the police in the worst possible light, which the mainstream media pounced upon because it supports their lying narrative about how blacks - who commit a much higher percentage of the murders and robberies in the United States every year than their percentage of the population - are unfairly picked on by the police, most people were convinced that a cop murdered Floyd. Black Lives Matter and their Antifa allies took advantage of the outrage thus generated by the media to organize these meetings that they call "rallies" and "protests" but which frequently break out into violent and highly destructive riots. In other words, not something that merits a special dispensation from following all the rules and restrictions that are still being imposed on everyone else.

The significance of the fourteen day marker is that this is the incubation period of the bat virus. This period did not produce a major spike in cases. Quite the contrary, on Friday it was announced that there was no evidence that the virus spread at all during the rally, which mercifully did not devolve into the burning of the city although it was as full of anti-white race hatred rhetoric as any other of these "protests." This eliminates anything that remains of the case for keeping the province in a state of emergency and not immediately lifting all restrictions.

By the way, the period since Floyd's death in which the media has been preoccupied with trying to stir up a race war and burn what remains of Western Civilization to the ground, saw any number of quietly underreported discoveries and admissions from public health organizations that this virus simply was not as dangerous as they were claiming in March.

I remarked weeks ago that the Churches would be the last that these drunk-with-power politicians and health bureaucrats, who consider abortions to be "essential" and have allowed marijuana shops to remain open throughout the lockdown, would allow to reopen. A petition has been started asking the Manitoba government to remove the restrictions on worship. Premier Brian Pallister, when asked about the petition, said that the Churches should "have a little faith."

I wonder if he realizes how blasphemous this is. It could be paraphrased "I want and expect and demand from you that which belongs to God alone."

He also said "We've liberalized our rules and deregulated faster than almost every jurisdiction in the country." In other words, we ought to be grateful that he is loosening tyrannical, totalitarian and draconian rules that should never have been imposed in the first place faster than the other provincial despots.

He also said:

The churches won't make health policy. Dr. Roussin and our health experts are making that health policy and they have good reason for being careful about the restrictions that are necessary to keep us all safe. I think it would be in the best interest for all of us to show respect for that and to make sure that we're, all of us, working together to protect our own health and the health of others.


Dr. Brent Roussin, whom I grew sick of seeing in the news every day as far back as March 21st, allowed thousands of people to gather for an anti-white hate rally two weeks ago, but will only allow Churches to open at 30% capacity as of Monday. That alone is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that he and his experts are incompetent at making health policy.


Brian Pallister and his chief public health officer clearly consider Churches to be less "essential" than doctors who murder unborn babies, stores that sell mind-destroying hemp by-products, and the purveyors of anti-white hate rhetoric. They have actually managed to out-Communist Pierre Trudeau. It was Pierre Trudeau who added the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada's Constitution in 1982. The second section of the Charter identifies conscience, religion, and peaceful assembly among the "fundamental" freedoms of all Canadians. The above mentioned petition simply asks the government to respect those fundamental freedoms. If these freedoms are fundamental then Churches and other places of worship are essential. They ought to have been declared such at the beginning of the unnecessary lockdown, even though, as I argued at the time, the distinction between essential and non-essential is not the government's to make.

In the 365th line of his tenth Satire, Juvenal said "orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano." This means "pray for a sound mind in a healthy body" and alludes to an already extant saying that went back at least as far as Thales of Miletus. It is often used today to convey the message that physical health is important to psychological health, usually to promote exercise, nutrition and other wellness programs. It works the other way around, however, that psychological health is essential to physical health and this is how the ancients used the phrase as is evident in the larger context of Juvenal's poem. The ancients were also not as prone to compartmentalizing the psychological and the spiritual as we in this materialistic age are. Spiritual and psychological health go together and are essential to physical health.

In other words, open up the Churches. The longer they remain closed, the more mental and spiritual breakdowns will occur and manifest themselves in things like anti-white hate rallies, and that will be far worse for our physical health in the long run, than the bat flu from China.

The Convergence of Capitalism and Communism

In the eighteenth century, the harnessing of steam power, the rapid invention of labour-saving tools, and other related factors, came together in what historians call the Industrial Revolution, to give birth to the system of mechanized production in the modern factory. In the following century, this system and its theoretical advocacy in the writings of liberal economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, would both be dubbed capitalism by their critics. Those critics, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Robert Owen and Karl Marx, argued that capitalism led to an increasing and unjust gap between the richest and the poorest. They blamed this on the private ownership of the factories and mines and other means of industrial production and proposed that this be replaced with some form of communal ownership. Their models for communal ownership vastly differed from one another, but the general proposal of replacing private with public ownership in a modern, industrialized, economy was given the name socialism. When overtly allied with the forces of revolutionary destruction that had been attacking the Crowns and Churches of Christendom since the Puritan rebellion of the 1640s, as was the case with Marxism, it was called communism.

Many people have the idea that capitalism and communism are polar opposites and the mortal foes of each other. This was the prevailing view during the Cold War in which both the United States and the Soviet Union pointed to their belief that their own system was the best as a motivating factor in the conflict. The fall of the Soviet Union was seen as the ultimate victory for capitalism. So was the fact that the remaining large communist power, Red China, avoided a similar collapse and even thrived in the post-Cold War era, by incorporating elements of the market economy. Others, however, saw all of this in a different light. If China had incorporated elements of capitalism, most of the proposals Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had made in The Communist Manifesto for moving a capitalist society towards communism had long ago been adopted by the Western powers, including the United States. Dr. Tomislav Sunic summed up the alternative interpretation of the end of the Cold War when he wrote “Some European authors observed that communism died in the East because it had already been implemented in the West.” (Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007, p. 34)

There were those who were prescient enough to see that capitalism and communism were heading towards a convergence rather than a conflict even before the Cold War began. In 1941, for example, James Burnham, who had resigned the previous year from the Trostkyite Socialist Workers Party, published a book entitled The Managerial Revolution, in which he maintained that capitalism was not a sustainable, permanent condition, nor was it likely to be replaced by socialism proper, but that it was undergoing a social revolution that would transform it into a managerial society, that is, a society governed by a new class of technocratic “managers.” Burnham further maintained that the same thing was going on around the world. The socialist countries were moving in the same direction as the capitalist countries. The new managerial class would include both corporate executives and state bureaucrats, with the distinction between the two becoming blurry even in nominally capitalist countries. Their cohesion as a class and their power would both be derived from their possession of the technical knowledge pertinent to the management of large corporate entities. George Orwell, who wrote a well-known critique of Burnham’s theory in 1945, also incorporated large elements of it into his dystopic novel 1984. The totalitarian system in the novel was widely interpreted as a depiction of the kind of society that existed in the Soviet Union at the time Orwell was writing, and to an extent this is true, although that better describes Animal Farm. In 1984 the totalitarian society is located in the then future of what was the capitalist world at the time of Orwell’s writing. It was one of three, more-or-less identical, superstates, governed by totalitarian managers. This was the future Burnham predicted, depicted in its most negative light.

Even before Burnham, however, Hilaire Belloc had predicted the convergence of capitalism and what he called collectivism, which was socialism or communism. Belloc, the son of a French father and an English mother, was a well-known writer of poetry, biography, history and social criticism in the first half of the twentieth century. Today he is most often remembered for his collaboration with G. K. Chesterton. Both men were devout, traditionalist, Roman Catholics, Belloc by upbringing and Chesterton by conversion, and together they promoted an alternative to capitalism that was called distributism. The gist of it was that capital property – the means of production – should be privately owned as in capitalism, but spread out among many private owners rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. Like their social criticism in general, the idea drew heavily from the 1891 papal encyclical Rerum Novarum which spoke out for the rights of the working class, while attacking socialism and defending private property.

The most important book Belloc wrote articulating distributism was The Servile State, which was first published in 1912. In this book, he describes capitalism as an unsustainable system that had overthrown the more stable order of Medieval, feudal, Christendom and which was evolving, not into its collectivist rival, but into “the servile state.” The “servile state” would be a new order that would include aspects of both capitalism and collectivism, although in reality it would essentially be a new form of slavery. It would be a system in which the majority of the population would be proletarian wage slaves, providing the labour for the factories of the capitalists when needed, and maintained by the state when not. The only alternative to this future, Belloc argued, was distributism, because collectivism would merely lead to the same future by an alternate path.

Belloc’s book enjoyed a resurgence in popularity among post-World War II conservatives who saw in it a prediction of the welfare state that had been put in place to combat the Depression just prior to the war. This was not a wrong interpretation of the book, since many of the specifics Belloc gave of what he expected the servile state to look like do indeed match up with the programs of the welfare state. It might have been premature to declare the predictions of the book to be fulfilled already back then, however, when we consider what we are facing in 2020. Remember that Belloc saw the “servile state” as the destination of both capitalism and collectivism (socialism/communism) and as a form of societal servitude similar to slavery which sounds very much like what we call “totalitarianism” today.

Earlier this year, almost every government in the world, imposed measures upon their populations which mimicked the conditions that had existed in the Soviet Union when it was at its worst. They shut down the Churches, they closed all businesses that they deemed to be “non-essential”, forbade people to meet in groups larger than ten, five, or even in some jurisdictions, two, and imposed all sorts of other restrictions as well. They justified all of this by saying that it was necessary to fight the spread of a new virus and the harsh respiratory disease that it can produce. This justification was always nonsense. This writer was among those who recognized this right from the beginning. We knew all along that this virus is asymptomatic among a large number of those who contract it, that most of those who do experience symptoms experience mild to moderate flu like symptoms and require no hospitalization, and that the harsh form of pneumonia that it can produce is fatal mostly among people who are both very old and have multiple complicating health problems. What the situation called for, was a special effort to protect those most at risk, not an insanely draconian effort to protect everyone by imposing a universal quarantine. The governments that went to that extreme, did so on the recommendations of the World Health Organization that was itself passing on recommendations coming from the last communist superpower, which is the country where the pandemic originated, Red China. Based on recommendations that came ultimately from Red China, we recreated the totalitarian conditions of the Soviet Union. We began policing people more strictly over absurd statutes about how far apart they must be than over actual, mala in se, crimes. We treated our basic freedoms of assembly, association and religion as if they meant nothing in the face of disease and were merely privileges that belong to the state to bestow and withhold as it sees best.

What did the capitalist corporations do while all this was going on?

They jumped on board the totalitarian train, that’s what they did. Instead of telling the governments to shove their restrictions up their backsides and sending their high-payed corporate lawyers to challenge the constitutionality of these regulations in court, they complied with every rule and restriction, knowing that these would harm small businesses far more than it would them, and became active propagandists for the “new normal.” They encouraged the transition to a cashless market, long the favourite of totalitarians of every stripe. They stuck messages telling us to “stay home” on billboards and in their commercials. Companies whose business pertains to the flow of information, such as corporate media and the big tech companies, suppressed dissent to the lockdown and the spread of information that would support that dissent.
The capitalists supported the imposition of communism!

We are now in the midst of the second wave of communism, this year, and true to form, the second wave is proving to be worse than the first. There was almost universal outrage over what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis. The anti-white, anti-cop, hate group, Black Lives Matter and the blackshirt thugs of Antifa took advantage of that fact to turn the incident into the casus belli for a race war. It began with the usual race riots of the sort that have been going on in the United States since the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A protest in Minneapolis turned into a spree of vandalism, arson, looting, and violence, and the same sort of thing began happening in other cities around the United States, and then spread into Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe.

Then they kicked it up a notch. Politicians, civil servants, police officers, and every white person in sight, were expected to genuflect before the leaders of Black Lives Matter. Everybody in the public spotlight, especially those in offices of civil authority, in was expected to acknowledge that their country was guilty, both in the past and now, of “systemic racism” against blacks. “Systemic racism” is a concept of Critical Race Theory, itself an expression of Cultural Marxism. There was the demand to “defund” or “abolish” the police. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Attacks on the police is an old communist tactic to eliminate law enforcement. The Bolsheviks successfully unleashed widespread attacks on the police leading up to the October Revolution.”


Then came the vandalism of statues and monuments – some of individuals who had owned slaves in the past, others of people who just happened to be prominent white historical figures, and even some ridiculously absurd cases people like Mahatma Gandhi – and the demand that all such monuments be removed and that streets and buildings named after these people be renamed. This attempt at erasing history, brings to mind the French Revolution, which similarly attempted to restart history afresh with “Year One.” The French Revolution, which itself took as its model Cromwell’s earlier rebellion in England, became the model for all subsequent communist revolutions. In Cambodia in 1975, the Khmer Rouge took over and declared it to be “Year Zero.” Read the history of the French Revolution and the Khmer Rouge while you are still able to do so. The former led to the “Reign of Terror” and the latter to the “Killing Fields.” This is not a pattern any sane group wishes to imitate.

Where are the corporate capitalists in this?

Again we find them, and again, especially the corporate media and the big tech companies, siding with the anti-white, race warriors. The corporate media has been telling everybody that the riots are just “peaceful protests” and that Black Lives Matter are just activists. They are also, of course, the ones who deliberately created the entire false narrative about institutional racism in the police force through their dishonest handling of the facts. Big tech has been suppressing dissent to this narrative, even more than it suppressed dissent to the COVID-19 narrative.

Capitalism and communism have converged into one, with the traits of the latter being the dominant ones.

Hilaire Belloc would not have been surprised.

A History Lesson

The white European powers of the colonial era did not invent slavery. They did not even invent black slavery. Until quite recently in human history slavery existed on every continent on earth, except Antarctica. Indians enslaved other Indians in the Americas before the arrival of the white man. African tribes were enslaving their captives of war – other Africans – and selling them to the Arabs and the Chinese as far back as the Tang dynasty, which was long before the Portuguese became the first Europeans to get involved in the African slave trade. Asians had been enslaved by other Asians throughout history, and Europeans by other Europeans at various points in their history.

It was Europe’s getting involved in the African slave trade that led ultimately to that system’s demise. When the European powers began purchasing slaves from African slave traders, the age of exploration was beginning, and along with it the settling of colonies in the New World. Slavery flourished for a period that, from a historical point of view, was quite brief, before reformers, some motivated by Christianity, others by the emerging liberalism of the Modern Age, demanded its abolition. Early in the nineteenth century, the United Kingdom took up that cause. She abolished the slave trade throughout her empire in 1807, and slavery itself in 1833. In Canada, we were a bit ahead of the rest of the Empire in this. Upper Canada – now called Ontario – banned the importation of slaves, and began the gradual emancipation of the few that were here, in 1793.

These Acts did not abolish slavery in the United States for the obvious reason that the Americans had seceded from the British Empire in their Revolution in the 1770s. Nevertheless, they led to the abolitionist movement gaining strength in the United States since the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, which abolition the Empire was backing up with naval force, cut the American slave trade off from its supply.

In the 1860s the Americans went to war with each other. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in the fall of 1860 without any electoral seats from the states south of the Mason-Dixon Line. In ten of those states he had received no votes whatsoever, and he won only two out of almost a thousand counties. The United States was divided and polarized, and this would not be the last time, but here the divide coincided with a regional division on the map. Slavery was only one of the issues that divided the North and the South, nor was it the main issue. The conflict was primarily one between a modernizing, increasingly urban, society, with a secularized Puritan culture, intend on building an economy based on industrial manufacture on the one hand and a more traditional, rural society that was more conservative in its religion and wished to retain an agricultural way of life on the other. When Lincoln was elected without any support from the latter, the Southern states opted to secede and form the Confederate States of America. They believed they were within their constitutional rights to do so and while this was a hot topic at the time, this was certainly in keeping with the Jeffersonian or anti-federalist interpretation of the American constitution.

Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but this was not what motivated his actions. In his first Inaugural Address, he promised to drop the issue if the Southern states would return. To keep the South in the United States he ordered an invasion of the South, leading to a war that cost more American lives that the Spanish-American War, the two World Wars, and the Korean War combined. The campaign was fought according to the pattern that is now called “total war”, laying waste to the Southern countryside. Waging such a war against people who by your own theory are still your brethren and countrymen was and is considered atrocious and required an iron-clad moral justification. Modernizing the economy simply would not cut it. It is for this reason that the Northern interpretation of these events has always placed the stress on the abolition of slavery, often to the exclusion of all other causes of the war.

It should be noted that another man at the time who condemned slavery as a “moral and political evil” was Robert E. Lee, the brilliant general to whom Lincoln had first offered the command of the Union forces. He turned it down and resigned his commission rather than draw his sword against his native state of Virginia. Lee, even though he thought secession was a foolish idea, offered his services to Virginia and was given charge over the Army of Northern Virginia. By the end of the war he had gone from being the de facto to being the official, supreme commander of the Southern forces.

The reason this ought to be noted is because events like those of the 1860s could very well have increased, rather than decreased, the animosity between the two regions of the United States, and to prevent this from happening the Americans eventually settled on a compromise. Just as Homer eulogized Hector as well as Achilles in The Iliad, so the heroes on both sides would be honoured. This helped cement their country back together, and the United States gained from it for by all accounts the most honourable leaders in the conflict were men like the aforementioned General Lee and his associate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. The agreement to honour both sides was an honest effort to heal a wound, repair a division, and unite a country, and for a century it was successful.

The exact opposite is true of what the Black Lives Matter movement is currently doing.

While Black Lives Matter and Antifa, if it is indeed right to think of the two as separate entities, claim to hate racism, it is really white people they hate. If they really hated racism, their goal would be for blacks and whites to get along, for there to be racial peace and harmony. Instead, they have been fomenting racial strife and division. Or they would be, if whites still had self-respect, or at the very least the instinct for self-preservation, enough to stand up for themselves. Since that does not appear to be the case, what we are seeing instead is a form of one-sided violence, a bullying or beating-up on whites.

The “anti-racist” left has for some time now been trying to undo the aforementioned post-bellum healing of the American nation by demanding the removal of Confederate flags, statues of Lee, Jackson, and other Southern military heroes, and that streets, buildings and cities named after these men be renamed. Three years ago, they turned up to counter-protest what would, unlike the Black Lives Matter riots that are mislabeled such by the mainstream media, otherwise have truly been a “peaceful protest” against the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, and turned it into a violent brouhaha that led to the deaths of three people, the blame for which, predictably, was placed entirely on those who objected to the removal of the statue, although it was the other side that started the violence. They are now capitalizing on the outrage over George Floyd’s death to demand and obtain the removal of these Confederate monuments.

They are not stopping with the Confederate monuments, however, as those of us who have all along opposed the attack on those monuments knew they would not. Patrick Buchanan asks in his latest column whether George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and basically everybody who built the United States, will be next. It is a rhetorical question, I am sure. He knows the answer as well as I do.

In London, the statue of Sir Winston Churchill has been defaced, and the British government has ordered it boarded up to protect it against further vandalism. This was, of course, the same Sir Winston Churchill who led the free world in the war against the German dictator whose name has become virtually synonymous with white racism. In Leeds, a statue of Queen Victoria has been similarly defaced. Queen Victoria reigned over a British Empire in which slavery had been abolished. The bill accomplishing that had been signed into law by her father William IV, four years prior to her accession. Her government took great lengths to make sure that bill was enforced.

Here in the Dominion of Canada, Black Lives Matter has been demanding the removal of the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Montreal. Their charge against the leading Father of Confederation and our country’s first Prime Minister is that he started the Indian Residential Schools. The rebuttal to this, not that facts matter to these pathetic know-nothings, is that the Churches had started the residential schools on their own prior to Confederation, Sir John A. MacDonald began funding the schools to fulfil the Dominion’s obligation under the treaties to provide the Indians with education, that the abuses which have given these schools a bad name come from the anecdotal evidence collected by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which pertains to a period long after Sir John A. Macdonald’s premiership, and that these schools, whose language immersion policies were by no means uniform, no more practiced “cultural genocide” than French immersion schools do today.

It is absurd to judge the leaders of a hundred or more years ago, by standards which we have invented in our own day, as if we, who are living in what is probably the greatest age of moral depravity since the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah, have any right to establish such standards. This is especially true, when the standards pertain to racism, and we are hypocritically demanding from the white leaders of the past, a perfect adherence to standards which the non-whites of the present day are never expected to keep.

The demands and actions of the Black Lives Matter mob are leading us down a path to greater racial violence, not to racial peace and harmony. But then, mobs always lead to violence rather than peace and harmony. Either the promoters of this nonsense know that and it is their intention, or they have never learned from the history they seek to erase.

Do Black Lives Really Matter to Black Lives Matter?

Does the Black Lives Matter movement really believe what is asserted in its own name?

That this is highly questionable has been pointed out on the grounds that if the movement really believed that black lives matter, it would not be wasting all of its time protesting the miniscule fraction of black deaths that are caused each year by white policemen and instead would be protesting the intraracial violent crime in the black community that is responsible for a much larger percentage of black deaths and would undoubtedly be responsible for many more were it not for the very police they hate so much.

Today, I would like to approach this question from a different angle – that of the Black Lives Matter movement’s position on abortion.

Although it is a single issue movement dedicated to fighting what it perceives as - or, more accurately, labels as systemic or institutional racism against blacks, particularly on the part of the police, it does seem to have a position on abortion. It is in favour of it. To be more precise, it supports and demands what it calls “reproductive justice.” This, of course, is just an absurd euphemism for abortion. It in turn is supported by pro-abortion groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Anyone familiar with the founder of the latter group, Margaret Sanger, her views on eugenics, and who all she worked with to promote those views, will find this deliciously ironic.

Black Lives Matter is not the first anti-racist group to support abortion. Years ago I noticed that Anti-Racist Action, a gang of punks similar to the skinheads but with an anarcho-Marxist ideology and Communist backers that was a forerunner to what is now called Antifa, gave support for abortion rights a prominent mention in its manifesto, which was not a long document.

That single-cause leftist groups would support other leftist causes than their own is not particularly surprising. Indeed, the concept of “intersectionality”, that was originally thought up by the non-white wing of third-wave feminism but which has since become the dominant interpretive grid in progressive theory in general, would be reason to expect that such would be the case. The gist of the concept is that someone who on the ever growing list of “victim of discrimination” categories can check off more than one box, might be the victim of discrimination not on the basis of any of these alone, but several or all of them in combination. While it is clearly a crackpot notion thought up to justify the ongoing existence and mission creep of the anti-discrimination industry long after any complaints that rational people might have thought had merit had been redressed, it has proven very useful to the left in the coordination of causes that taken on their own might be considered incompatible with one another.

What we are seeing here is an example of this. Ever since its second-wave – the wave that began in the 1950s and 1960s with the publication of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and the founding of NOW and NARAL – feminism has held it to be one of its fundamental tenets that not to give women the special right to murder their children while the latter are still unborn is to discriminate against women. The anti-racist movement of today, of which Black Lives Matter is a part, is the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Its raison d'être is to fight what it considers to be discrimination in favour of whites and against non-whites, even though it has been the case for decades that the only real institutional racial discrimination in Western countries now runs in the opposite direction. Both movements are crazy in their own right, and since both define themselves in opposition to something they irrationally and falsely perceive to be discrimination, intersectionality brings them together.

There is a major contradiction in the linking of these causes, however. I am not referring, although it is interesting to point it out, to how the more radical wing of second-wave feminism grew out of what was essentially the women’s auxiliary of the Civil Rights Movement when it objected to being treated as the kitchen staff by the male leadership of the latter movement (see Susan Brownmiller’s history In Our Time) or to how the same elements of American black culture that frequently use aggressive and hateful anti-white language also express themselves in violent misogynistic language. I am referring to the fact that blacks have the highest abortion rate in the United States.

William Robert Johnston has compiled all the available statistics on abortion by race in the United States from the years 1965 to 2017. His first two graphs and the accompanying table show the number of live births per year for each race and the number of abortions per year for each race. The third graph shows the abortion percentage. This is the number of abortions considered as a percentage of the live births and abortions taken together. From the mid-1970s until late in the first decade of this millennium, this percentage was between 40 and 45. For the same period the percentage for all races taken together was between 20 and 30. For whites in this period it was between 15 and about 27.5. The next graph shows the white percentage of total abortions declining from 1965 to 2015 and the black percentage of total abortions rising in the same period. Interestingly, the graph after that shows the white percentage of total live births undergoing a similar decline, whereas the black percentage of total live births remains pretty constant.

The point, if it is not by now obvious, is that unborn black lives are far more likely to be aborted than the unborn lives of other races.

If Black Lives Matter really thinks that black lives matter why, then, does it support abortion?

The fact that it does support abortion demonstrates that black lives obviously matter more to all those anti-abortion, right-wingers, whom they routinely accuse of “white supremacism” than they do to Black Lives Matter. Come to think of it, we right-wingers are also the ones who support the police against the black criminals who prey on other blacks rather than the other way around.

It seems to me like some people are marching under a banner that ill suits them.

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.