“No Man is an Island”

James Dobson passed away on the 21^st of August this year.  When I heard the news it was the first time in years I had heard his name.  The last time I heard his radio program, Focus on the Family, was probably in the 1990s.  Dobson was a prominent evangelical leader, although he was a psychologist by profession rather than a minister.  His father, James Dobson Sr., had been a minister in the Church of the Nazarene, one of the Wesleyan Holiness denominations, as had his grandfather and great-grandfather.  Dobson initially achieved celebrity status among evangelicals for advising parents to avoid the culture of permissiveness encouraged by the majority in his chosen profession and raise up their children with boundaries and discipline.   His first book, Dare to Discipline (1970) which is probably still his best known, was, as is evident from the title, on this subject.  In the decades since, he fought on several other fronts although   generally those which pertained to the type of issues that are categorized as moral and social, in the emerging culture war as it was dubbed in the early 1990s (1) around the time I first heard of him.

 

I first heard of Dobson’s passing, not through the news, but through a social media post by a former classmate with whom I had attended Providence College (formerly Winnipeg Bible College, now Providence University College) in the mid to late 1990s.  This post, and several others from the same former classmate whose name out of charity I shall omit, thoroughly disgusted me.  He did not merely disregard the ancient proverb de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est but went out of his way to do the very opposite of it.  He took hearty delight in Dobson’s death and was positively rejoicing over it. 

 

I was reminded of this by the reaction of several American leftists to the murder of Charlie Kirk yesterday.  Kirk, the 31 year old founder and director of Turning Point, USA, was shot in the neck on stage during a question and answer session at an event at Utah Valley University.  He died from the wound later in the afternoon.  Kirk belonged to the Calvary Chapel Association, a Pentecostal group that separated from the Foursquare Gospel and from which the Vineyard movement would later separate.  Like Dobson, he had been a culture warrior.  Since youth was his target audience he made a lot of use of social media, he had a podcast and as of earlier this year a televised talk show.  He was also the author of a number of books.  He is probably best known, however, for going to university and other campuses and promoting his own views by, among other things, challenging overconfident progressive students to informal debates.

 

I am not going to reproduce the responses of the leftists here.  Chaya Raichik has reposted several on her Libs of Tiktok account on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, the link to which you can find in the footnote. (2)   These are generally social media posts, exalting in Kirk’s assassination in a way similar to how my former classmate rejoiced over Dobson’s death.  In the news media, progressive commentators have made remarks to the effect that Kirk brought it on himself by the views he held and expressed.  Matthew Dowd, for example, said that Kirk’s “hate speech” had brought about “hateful actions” which remark itself brought about Dowd’s termination as a commentator on MSNBC.

 

You would think that liberals and leftists would take a break from accusing others of “hate speech” for basically saying things, usually true, about groups they think should be protected from criticism, when in the act of making remarks that essentially excuse a murder.  You would be wrong. 

 

I am not going to pretend that I was a big fan of Charlie Kirk.  The principle of de mortuis nil nisi does not require that. I agreed with him on most of the issues the liberals and the left hated him over – he was anti-abortion and anti-birth control, pro-gun, anti-CRT and DEI (Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), etc.  He had all the qualities, however, that I had found obnoxious and grating in American Republicans even before the MAGA movement degenerated into a deranged personality cult.

 

One of the more obnoxious of those qualities was the assumption that everyone was either an American Republican or some kind of liberal, leftist or progressive.  Watching the disgusting manner in which people in the latter categories have been celebrating Kirk’s murder makes me all the more glad that this assumption is entirely baseless and false.  As a Canadian who finds the thought of his country become further Americanized utterly repugnant and as a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist and royalist I could never have any sympathy with American Republicanism but I have far less sympathy with the kind of politics that teaches people to be so totally devoid of class as to celebrate the deaths of their political opponents.  Liberalism and leftism are beneath contempt.

 

I direct any liberal or leftist who may have come across this essay to the poem by John Donne from which the title has been borrowed.   The third and final is the operative stanza. Now let us conclude with the traditional Requiem prayer for the late James Dobson and Charlie Kirk.  Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

 

 

 

 (1)   The culture war itself, and the expression “culture war”, had both been around much longer, but it was in the early 1990s that the expression became attached to the thing itself as a kind of semi-official label.

(2)   https://x.com/libsoftiktok

The Conservative Party’s Capitulation in the Culture War

It is almost thirty years since the label “culture war” was first attached to the relentless onslaught of liberalism, the ideology that misleadingly took its name from an adjective used by the Romans to denote generosity and all that is worthy of free people, against the traditions, religion, and ancestral ethnic groups of the Christian civilization that succeeded the Graeco-Roman civilization of antiquity. In Canada, the Liberal Party had turned the Supreme Court into a weapon of offence in this war by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to our Constitution in 1982 and in 1988 that weapon was used to strike down all the laws against abortion in Canada, scoring a major victory for what Pope John Paul II would a few years thereafter call “the culture of death.” At the time, the Progressive Conservative Party was inclined to fight back against liberalism and in 1989 introduced Bill C-43, which would re-criminalize abortion while allowing it in instances where a mother’s life was in danger. The bill passed in the House of Commons, but died on its third reading in the Senate in 1991, when it received a tie-vote. The Tories, lamentably, did not press the issue further and today it would appear that the Conservative Party has raised the white flag in the culture war.

Last month, when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals introduced Bill C-16, Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party, declared that she would not oppose the bill. Several other Conservative MPs followed suit. Bill C-16 is the bill which will make it illegal to discriminate against transgender people, i.e., people who think that they are a sex other than the one they actually are. In practice, what this means is that public facilities designated for the use of one sex, including washrooms, change rooms, and showers, will be required by law to be open to people of the other sex who maintain that they think or feel that they are of the sex for which the facilities have been reserved. It also means that anyone who turns down someone who is in disagreement with their X and/or Y chromosomes as to what sex he/she/it is for a job, passes over for promotion, or fires that person, may face a charge of discrimination in which he will have to bear the impossible onus of somehow proving that he is not guilty of the crimethink of which he accused. If all that were not bad enough the bill will also make “hate speech” against transgender people into an offence punishable with up to two years in prison. Note that the words “hate speech” do not, as sane people might be tempted to think, merely refer to explicit incitement to violence but include the expression of thoughts that contradict what progressives have decided all enlightened people must believe. If ever there was a time for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose something, this is it.

Yet, not only is the Conservative leader supporting this insane new bill but the party, in its national convention held later in the same month, voted by a very large margin to abandon its position that marriage is something that exists “between one man and one woman.” It also voted to change its policy on marijuana and to take the position that the possession of small amounts ought to be decriminalized. The latter is a much lesser matter than the former but we can see the same train of thought at work in both decisions. The Conservatives were trounced majorly by the Liberals in last fall’s election and are now reasoning that this was because the Liberal positions on same-sex “marriage” and marijuana were more popular than theirs and that this means they must change their positions in order to survive as a party. To reason this way seems to be a perennial temptation for Conservatives whenever they lose elections. As long as Conservatives keep succumbing to this temptation, liberalism will keep winning, and will keep moving further and further to the left, dragging the rest of us along with it. The Liberal Party already has a pair of doppelgangers in the NDP and Green Parties and it does not need another one in the Conservatives.

The idea that it was the Conservative Party’s right-wing positions on matters like marriage and election that cost them the last election is absurd when one considers that they had done next to nothing about these issues while they were in office for the last nine years, even in the four years in which they had a majority government. The Civil Marriage Act that created the legal fiction of same-sex “marriage” nation-wide – the courts had already done this at the provincial level through most of the country – was passed during the Liberal premiership of Paul Martin in 2005, the year before the Conservative took power. It was only in that first year that they attempted to re-open the issue, at a time when they had a minority government making it inevitable that the attempt would fail. Nor did they attempt to reintroduce restrictions on abortion – indeed, then Conservative leader Stephen Harper had declared that the abortion debate would not be reopened during his premiership. On the matter of doctor-assisted suicide, Steven Fletcher, at the time a Conservative MP, actually introduced legislation similar to the bill the Liberals are currently ramming through Parliament a year previously.

In other words, the Conservative Party had already basically surrendered in the culture war by the beginning of the Harper premiership. This surrender was even more complete when it comes to immigration and the issues surrounding it than with regards to abortion, same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia and the other issues that are conventionally categorized as “social.” In the late 1960s, during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals launched an aggressive assault against white Anglophone Canadians. Their weapons were mass immigration, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the public schools and the national news media. Under the pretence of making Canada’s immigration laws fair and race-neutral, which the Conservatives had already done during the premiership of John Diefenbaker in 1962 having a negligible effect on the composition of immigration, the Liberals changed that composition from being almost ninety per cent traditional European at the beginning of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership to being seventy per cent Third World by its end. In the Canadian Human Rights Act they made it a civilly liable offence to discriminate on the basis of race. On paper, this looks like it applies to everyone – whites cannot discriminate against blacks, blacks cannot discriminate against whites – but in practice it was only enforced against whites, and only intended to be enforced against whites. This anti-white bias is what the Liberals really mean whenever they say “protecting vulnerable minorities”. They turned the public schools into indoctrination camps to program people into thinking that racism, bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and xenophobia – on the part of white people, that is - were all greater sins than Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony and Lust. The news media branded anyone who dared to publicly disagree with the Liberals on any of this as a Hitlerite even if, like the late Doug Collins, he was a man who actually fought against Hitler during the war. No subsequent government has dared to do anything about any of this, certainly not the thoroughly cucked Conservatives under Stephen Harper’s leadership.

While liberals claim open-mindedness and tolerance as their virtues, on all of these matters they have insisted every time they have scored a victory in the culture war that all discussion of the issue ought to be closed, and that people who disagree with them publically ought to be punished. Since Canadian liberalism has made it absolutely clear that it will accept no victory short of a Carthaginian peace in this culture war, the Conservatives, in the face of such an attitude, ought never to have ever contemplated surrender.

Having said that, I could have told you thirteen years ago that something like this would happen.

That was the year that the present Conservative Party was formed when the merger between the old Conservative Party and the right-populist Reform Party was completed. Theoretically this could have produced a superior party that would combine the best of both. From the original Conservative Party, formed in the year of Confederation and which under the leadership of Sir John A. MacDonald, Father of Confederation and the first Prime Minister of Canada, governed the country for nineteen of its first twenty-four years, it could have taken its royalism, patriotism, Anglophilia, and economic nationalism. To this it could have added the small town, rural common sense of the Reform Party, founded as a Western protest party in 1988, as well as its opposition to such things as bureaucratic overregulation, progressive social engineering, and socialist wealth redistribution. The social and cultural conservative defence of the Christian religion, its ethical teachings and its traditional and historical role in Canada, an element the two parties had in common, could have served as the glue to make such a union work.

I could not see this happening, however. The old Conservative Party was hardly recognizable as the party of Sir John A. MacDonald any more. Having foolishly added the adjective Progressive to its name in 1942, thus creating a self-contradicting title and a confused identity to go along with it, the party ousted in 1966, John Diefenbaker, a leader who was patriotically fighting for Canada’s traditional symbols such as the old flag against Liberals determined to replace them, and, back in power in the 1980s, abandoned its traditional anti-contintentalist economic nationalism and negotiated a free trade deal with the United States. After its one failed attempt to recriminalize abortion it gave up and it made the immigration problem, started by the Liberals, even worse by jacking the yearly target of immigrants to be accepted up through the roof. As for the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as it was then called after an initial, incomplete, attempt at merging with the Conservatives, its capitalism was always more important to it than its social conservatism. By 2003 – indeed, long before then – capitalism had evolved from a relatively benign, small town, competitive market into a globalist economy controlled by multinational megacorporations who, as an examination of the list of those who have intervened legally against state governments south of the border that have sought to protect traditional marriage or even the freedom of conscience of traditional religious believers, will reveal, have joined forces with liberalism in the culture war. I predicted that the new party would join the worst elements of the two parties rather than the best, and that social conservatism would be the first thing on the chopping block. I decided it would not be worthwhile joining.

Unfortunately, since all the other parties in the House of Commons are completely and extremely liberal, the betrayal of the Conservatives leaves those of us who love this country and would like to pull it out of the abyss of cultural and moral insanity into which it has sunk without a voice in the federal legislative assembly.