The Ism That Isn't

The suffix -ism comes to us from the ancient Greek language.   In ancient Greek, if you wanted to form an action noun out of a verb, you would add the suffix –mos to the stem of the aorist tense.   Whenever this was done with verbs that ended in -izo in the lexical form (the form you would use to say that you, the speaker, are doing whatever the verb means as you are speaking), you would get the contracted ending -ismos.   This happened quite frequently, and eventually –ismos became a suffix in its own right, one used to form abstract nouns, that is to say nouns that allow you to talk about ideas as if they were tangible objects.   Drop the gender/number/case marker and you get the English -ism.    An English word that illustrates the original Greek usage well is "criticism".   Criticism, formed from a verb that means to evaluate or judge, can refer either to the act of evaluating or judging, corresponding to the original usage of –mos, or it can refer to the idea of judgement or evaluation, corresponding to the derived usage of –ismos.   In English, however, this suffix has taken on a more specific primary meaning.    It is now used mostly to denote a system of organized thought, a set of doctrines that are believed, or a movement embodying either of these things.

 

This standard English usage is several centuries old.   Much more recently a number of new words with the suffix -ism entered the language.   These do not conform either to the original Greek usage as illustrated by criticism, or the standard English usage of which vegetarianism, Zionism and stoicism might be offered as examples.   These are formed by adding the suffix to a noun denoting a general category rather than a verb and they do not denote a system of specific beliefs or doctrines.   They are closer in usage to words like alcoholism, which was coined in the nineteenth century to depict the state of chronic drunkenness as a pathology, a medical condition.   There is a very significant difference, however.   Alcoholism was coined to remove much of the stigma that went with previous words for the same state by treating it as something from which one suffers, a disease, rather than a moral failing.   The words to which I refer, by contrast, while they too portray certain attitudes and behaviours as pathological, it is for the purpose of adding rather than removing stigma.   The first of these, of which all the others are imitations, is racism.    Since it is this word I wish to concentrate on and I am fairly certain you can figure out what the others are, I shall not provide a comprehensive list.   I will merely note that "anti-Semitism", although it is often used in the same way as these words, actually fits the standard English usage of the suffix since at the time it was coined in the nineteenth century it designated a movement with a definite ideology.

 

Although the term racism first appeared in the interwar period of the last century it was not until after the end of World War II that it really took off.   This was, of course, in part a consequence of the war itself.   The regime we fought and defeated in that war, the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany known as the Third Reich, was dominated by an ideology that incorporated elements of nationalism and socialism, as its official name indicates, but also had racialism as a strong component.   Note that the word racialism, although now used interchangeably with racism by most people, is an older term that in that period did indeed conform to standard English usage with regards to isms.   It referred to a system of doctrine - or rather, a number of similar systems of doctrine - that pertained to what its adherents believed to be the political implications of race, in the anthropological sense of the term.   Race, which comes to English from cognates in Romance languages that refer to lineage and descent, originally was a fairly loose word, which could refer to the concept of lineage in a particular family ("the race of Jones"), to common human descent from Adam and Eve ("the human race"), or even to a line of those in a particular trade or occupation  ("the race of plumbers"), the last of which made much more sense in a day when it was the rule rather than the exception for a son to follow the same line of work as his father.   The science of anthropology, which began as an attempt to apply the methodology of zoology (the branch of biology pertaining to animal life) to human beings, before it was taken over by radical leftists such as Franz Boas, Claude Lévi-Strauss and their followers who stripped it of all real science and turned it into a vehicle for indoctrinating impressionable young people with their poisonous ideas, gave the term a technical meaning of large populations of human beings whose common ancestry was indicated by the sharing of several distinctive morphological characteristics.   Although hardly the first to notice the existence of such groups within humanity (see Race: The Reality of Human Differences, 2004, by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele), they were the first to attach much significance to it, as human group loyalty had always been focused on family, tribe, and nation rather than race in the past.   The original racialists took this a step further by drawing political implications from the anthropologists' findings.  National Socialism, incorporated a particularly unpleasant form of racialism that viewed the races as locked in a Darwinian struggle, in which their own race and nation must dominate if it is to survive at all.    The crimes of the Third Reich  were used in the post-War world to discredit first National Socialism, second racialism in general, and finally even the anthropological study of race which has for the most part had to rebrand itself as the study of "genetic populations" in order to survive.   It was those who insisted that the Third Reich's crimes discredited not just National Socialism, but all racialism and even the anthropological concept of race, the movement of radical egalitarianism known as the Left, which had coined the term racism before the war and effectively put it to the use described in the previous paragraph after the war.   

 

It is very unlikely that the Left would have succeeded in generating an almost universal moral revulsion towards that which their newly coined word denoted if they had attempted to do so under their own banner.   Even having Hitler's terrible example to point to would have been much less effective if they launched their crusade against racism as an openly Leftist cause.   Had they done so, the fact that they were openly sympathetic to or even in ideological agreement with the Soviet Union, the regime that most resembled the Third Reich and which was guilty of similar crimes committed on an even larger scale would have been used to negate the Hitler example.   The Left, therefore, decided to use liberalism as its proxy in selling anti-racism to the public, knowing that once most people had been persuaded by the liberal argument against racism, they would be able to use the word as the weapon they intended it to be even though the meaning they attached to it would be very different from that against which the liberal case would be made.

 

The liberal case against racism gained widespread acceptance because it appealed to basic concepts of fairness that most people shared.   Each person was his own person, liberalism maintained, with his own strengths and weaknesses, accomplishments and failings, merits and demerits, virtues and vices, and ought in fairness to be treated by others on the basis of these rather than on generalizations about those who shared his ethnic ancestry and physical traits such as skin colour.    When liberalism condemned racism, it condemned an attitude and words and deeds expressing that attitude, of which anybody could be guilty, but only by holding that attitude, saying those words, and doing those deeds.   Disliking and mistreating another person because of his skin colour was racism, regardless of who the perpetrator was and who was the victim.   Being a light-skinned, Caucasian of European ancestry did not automatically make you guilty of racism, being what the politically correct now call a "person of colour" did not automatically make you a victim of racism.   When liberalism attacked laws, public policies, and practices as racist it was because they explicitly oppressed people on the basis of race, not because they were part of a civilization that had been created by a people that had been judged to have been racist.  In condemning racism, liberalism set as its ideal a world in which things like skin colour were regarded by everybody as being trivial and everyone of every race treated everyone else of every race, justly, decently, and fairly.

It was through these arguments and ideals that liberalism, hopelessly naïve as it obviously was, won popular support for its anti-racist cause.   Even as it was doing so, however, the Left was preparing to substitute its own, radically different, anti-racism for that of liberalism.     As early as 1932, William Z. Foster, who campaigned that year as the Communist Party USA candidate for American president until a heart attack forced him to withdraw and recuperate in the Soviet Union, outlined a plan to use racial division to further the end of a Communist takeover in the fifth chapter of his Towards Soviet America.     At the same time, Max Horkheimer and his associates of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt were beginning to develop what would become Critical Theory which would replace classical Marxism as the predominant mode of thought in the academic Left.   An associate of Horkheimer's, the music critic, philosopher and sociologist Theodor W. Adorno had led a team of sociological and psychological researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, that put out The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, a book that purported to show that the typical, white, middle and working class, nuclear family of the day, was an environment in which children developed the title personality type, inclining them to become fascists.  This book became far more influential in academic circles than its merits warranted and those influenced would go on to create Critical Race Theory, an offspring of sorts of the original Critical Theory, and currently the theory that underlies the anti-racism of the Left.   Critical Race Theory rejects the colour-blind ideal of liberal anti-racism and, indeed, condemns it as racist.   However, to get to the point where the Left's kind of anti-racism, which was growing more extreme as it evolved, could exude any influence outside of academe, much less the sort of control it commands today, it needed liberalism to sell the public on the liberal version of anti-racism first.

The 1950s and the 1960s were the heyday of liberal anti-racism, for these were the years of the American Civil Rights movement.   Its enemy was Jim Crow, a melodramatic villain who between moustache-twirls and maniacal laughs, ran around the Old South tying black people to the railroad tracks of segregation.    Its leader was the photogenic and charismatic figure whom the Americans honoured yesterday, having decided that he is more worthy of having a civil holiday named after him than their first president.   His words dripped with liberalism in a nauseatingly sappy and saccharine way.  Take for example, these familiar excerpts from his most famous speech, given before the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character...I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama...little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers".   Here you have the liberal anti-racist ideal of colour-blindness put in a nutshell.   

Now, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that the liberalism of the Civil Rights Movement and its leader was an outward guise of moderation concealing something that was much further to the Left, as William F. Buckley and his colleagues correctly pointed out at the time.   There was very little about either man or movement in which the reality matched the image created by the new-at-the-time medium of television news and perpetuated in history classrooms ever since.   I have covered this ground many times before however, and for the purposes of this discussion it is the outward liberalism that is important.

 

 

It was this liberal ideal of colour-blindness, this vision of racial peace and harmony that won widespread popular support for the Civil Rights movement and thus broad acceptance of racism as a term of moral disapprobation.  The people who came to support the Civil Rights cause and to so disapprove of racism, therefore, did so because they understood racism to be anything from a prejudicial attitude to active mistreatment of others to unjust and oppressive laws that sinned against this ideal of colour-blind meritocracy and this vision of racial harmony.    

 

Twenty-five to thirty years ago it became apparent that Leftist professors in academe had an altogether different understanding of the word.   By this time, hip-hop music had become mainstream and its “gangsta” subgenre, featuring lyrics that glorified crime and violence, was rapidly approaching the same status.   Often the lyrics would express a violent hatred that was explicitly racial in nature but directed against whites.   While this matched the meaning that had become attached to the word racism in the liberal Civil Rights era, the Leftist academics of the 1990s denied that it was a form of racism.  It was a legitimate form of expression on the part of the oppressed, they would say.   Racism, they would add, was not just racial prejudice, but racial prejudice backed up by power on the part of the oppressor group.    This was criticized by conservatives such as Dinesh D’Souza (The End of Racism, 1995) as a dishonest change-of-definition tactic, although others, more familiar with the history of what around this time came to be dubbed “Cultural Marxism” were aware that the Left had begun working out this new theory of theirs before the liberal Civil Rights movement.    Back then, apart from conservative criticism this Leftist definition of racism was hardly heard outside of the Ivory Towers.   Its implication, however, that only whites could be racists, was starting to seep out into the wider community.

 

Today, the Left’s definition is the mainstream one, and we are being told that holding to the liberal ideal of colour-blindness is itself a form of racism.   We are being told that it is not enough to be merely “not racist”, as, presumably, a liberal who lived up to his colour-blind ideal would be, but “anti-racist”, that is, actively opposed to “systemic racism”.   “Systemic racism” does not mean, as many if not most of the politicians who have made ritualistic affirmations of its existence over the course of the last year seem to think it means, some lingering remnants of racism in the 1950s-60s liberal meaning of the word, but the idea that all the institutions and values of Western Civilization are intrinsically racist, implicitly if not explicitly, and serve to privilege all whites at the expense of all “people of colour” so that, whether conscious of it or not, all whites and only whites are racists and all “people of colour” are victims of racism.  

 

At the beginning of this essay I pointed out that the word racism does not match either the standard English meaning of the suffix –ism or the ancient Greek usage of the original root of the suffix.   Obviously, if racism now refers to the condition of being light-skinned and of European ancestry, this is all the more true.   Ironically, the Left’s anti-racist movement, which is now actively shoving this absurd definition of racism down everyone’s throats, is an ism in the standard English sense of a system of doctrine.   Equally obvious and ironic, is the fact that the Left’s anti-racism now itself meets the definition of racism as the liberals of the 1950s and 1960s used the term.   It does not want colour-blindness, it wants whites to see themselves as white and therefore guilty of “racism”, and it wants whites to see “people of colour” as “people of colour” and therefore victims of “racism”.   It does not want racial peace and harmony – only the kind of “peace” that consists of submission, submission on the part of all whites to all people of colour.   The ultimate irony in all of this, is that the Left’s anti-racism, is, unlike the “racism” it decries, a racism that is actually an ism.   It is a dark irony, because the last time a racist system of organized doctrine achieved anything close to the power of the Left’s anti-racism today, that system was National Socialism.    The Left’s anti-racism is also eerily similar to National Socialism in its totalitarianism, its desire to suppress all dissent and require all to submit to its every dictate.

 

From the perspective of orthodox Christianity, the basic problem with National Socialism was one of idolatry – it had substituted race and nation for God, thus making idols out of them.   Communism was no solution – it was officially atheistic and guilty of the same kind of atrocities as the Third Reich on a larger scale.   T. S. Eliot, in noting that “it is only in returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality” and that democracy by itself “does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike” made the well-known statement that “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin”.  The wisdom in Eliot’s assessment of the situation has, of course, gone largely unheeded since.

 

Today’s racial nationalisms, whether black or white, repeat National Socialism’s basic error of making idols out of race and nation, to which they add the error of confusing the two categories, a mistake Hitler never made.   The basic mistake of liberalism’s vision is best described as the naïve belief that we can have the “brotherhood of mankind” without first having the “Fatherhood of God”.    The Left’s anti-racism, however, dwarfs all of these other Modern and Postmodern heresies, including them within itself – it has made idols out of every non-white race and nation – while heaping others on top of them.   It is a religion which requires confession of a “sin” – being white – that one can neither help nor turn from, while offering only bondage rather than absolution to those who confess.   In rejection of Him Who offered Himself as the scapegoat to end all scapegoats (see René Girard’s Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, 1978) it has made white people into a scapegoat for “people of colour”, much as Hitler made the Jews into a scapegoat for the Aryans.    It is an evil crying out for condemnation and the test of the faithful in this day is whether they will find the courage to condemn it.

Constitutions and Controversies

I have said it before and will say it again - a republic is not a stable constitution.    To be clear, I am using republic in the sense of a government without a king or queen.   This meaning goes back to ancient Rome.   It goes back to the history of the city, I should add, rather than its Latin language in which "res publica" literally means "the public thing" and could be translated "commonwealth".   This is why there is a need to clarify the meaning of republic, because the Latin word was often used to translate the Greek politeia, which means constitution or commonwealth, even in works by Plato and Aristotle which clearly do not exclude kings from the concept.    A republic in the sense of a kingless government, a government without a crowned head of state, is unstable and the more democratic the republic, the less stable it is.   This is because it is the nature of elected assemblies that their members form factions or parties.   Sometimes these are basically carbon copies of each other, who compete for office, but basically offer the same thing to the electorate under different brand names.   This is usually a sign of stagnation, decadence and corruption.   Conversely, they might offer radically different and fundamentally opposed, ideologically driven agendas.   When this happens the assembly of elected representatives and the electorate itself tend to become polarized and to view the issues that divide them through the Manichean lens of a struggle between Good and Evil.   In this situation filling the office of head of state by popular election is like lighting a match and setting it to a powder keg.

 

This is one reason, although not the only one or even the most important one, even though it might be the most practical, why I am a lifelong Royalist and Monarchist.    The person who occupies the office of head of state is the person who represents the country as a whole.    It is difficult to do this when the office is filled by the partisan politics of popular election.   The more polarized partisan politics become, the greater this difficulty becomes.   When you have arrived at the point where half of the country says “not my president”, regardless of who wins the election, it is now completely impossible for the elected head of state to function as representative of the whole of the country.   A hereditary king or queen is the best head of state, and the only kind who can fully do justice to the role of representative of the whole country, because only a hereditary king or queen is capable of being fully non-partisan and even non-political since he or she owes the office to hereditary right rather than popular election.

 

While our republican friends south of the border have often boasted that their country has the longest history of the peaceful transfer of power  that is clearly not the case,   In 1861, their country literally divided over the previous year’s election of Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the newly formed Republican Party.   The states south of the Mason-Dixon seceded and formed a new federal republic, the Confederate States of America.   The states that remained in the Union then invaded the South and conquered them in what was the bloodiest war in their history, costing more American lives than their other major conflicts combined.   While my country, the Dominion of Canada, was founded in Confederation two years after the end of this war, the monarchy we share with the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms is much older.   The last time the Crown changed heads in a way that could be described as less than fully peaceful was when George I, the first Hanoverian king succeeded Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, in 1714.   The following year, John Erskine, Earl of Mar, led a number of Scottish landlords in an uprising aimed at restoring the throne to Queen Anne’s brother James Francis Edward Stuart who had been excluded from the succession by the Parliamentary requirement that the heir be a Protestant, but the Jacobites did not come anywhere close to achieving their objective.   The last Jacobite rising took place in 1745 and was defeated in the Battle of Culloden in 1746, but since this did not coincide with a succession – it took place about half way through the reign of George II – it does not invalidate my saying that the original Hanoverian succession was the last to be less than fully peaceful.   Even if one wished to argue this point, however, the rising of ’45 predated the American Revolution by three decades and so my point, which is obviously that the Crown has been passed from head to head peacefully for longer than the American republic has been around, is made either way.

 

It is also worth noting that in the same period in which the Crown has been passed down from heir to heir peacefully, Parliamentary elections have been held and governments elected in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, and the other Commonwealth Realms without anything comparable to the results of the 1860 US Presidential Election.   This also can be largely attributed to the stabilizing factor of the monarchy.   Having a unifying monarch at the head of the state reduces the destructive potential of partisan politics in the elected assembly.   Furthermore, in Parliament under a royal monarch the official role of Opposition is assigned to the runner-up in each election, making it much less of a winner-takes-all contest, which also reduces the destructive potential of partisanship.   The official designation of the Opposition party is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, which re-emphasizes the unifying role of the monarch as the personal representative of the whole country, to whom loyalty is owed whether in government or Opposition.   Finally, Parliamentary government tends to be multi-party rather than two-party, and it is difficult for partisanship to develop into a polarized, Manichean, Good versus Evil, when the options are greater in number than two.

 

The current crisis of the American republic is a good illustration of how the combination of an elected head of state and a radically polarized electorate makes for a volatile combination.   It was evident long before November 3^rd that whoever won the 2020 United States Presidential election, approximately half of the country would say “Not my President”.   While those whom Auberon Waugh labelled the chattering classes have been accusing the incumbent of trying to undermine the democratic process, overturn the election results, and impede the peaceful and orderly transition to the next administration by alleging massive voter fraud amounting to an election theft, the reality, of course, is, that if the election was stolen through massive voter fraud, if the media themselves are either knowingly pretending this was not the case or simply turning a blind eye to the evidence because of their obvious and unhinged bias against the incumbent and the courts have been simply dismissing the evidence without really giving it a fair hearing out of cowardice,  corruption, or even a misguided desire to try and prevent the rift in their country from getting worse even if it means sacrificing truth, all of this, and not Donald the Orange’s attempts to expose all these shenanigans, is where the real threat to the American democratic process is to be found.   It is worth pointing out that these same chattering classes who are now claiming that to allege election fraud is to undermine democracy have spent the last four years making claims about Russian collusion in the election that put Trump into office that have a lot less substantiating evidence behind them than the charges concerning the 2020 election.   While they were handed a pile of ammunition to use against Trump on Epiphany by the foolish actions of some of his supporters – a small portion of the much larger number that had shown up to his rally and the majority of whom behaved lawfully and orderly just as he himself told them to – in storming Capitol Hill and forcing the evacuation of Congress, it should not be forgotten that the same pundits who are now making full use of that ammunition are the ones who have been pretending that Black Lives Matter riots are “peaceful protests”.   BLM has been attacking and terrorizing people since Trump was first elected, with these media commentators turning a blind eye to it, or even in some cases encouraging it.    This, of course, does not justify lawless and violent action on the part of the MAGA protestors, although it is worth noting the distinction Ilana Mercer has just made that the difference “between pro-Trump patriots and BLM detritus” is that the latter “trashed, looted and leveled their countrymen’s livelihoods, their businesses” while the former “stormed the seats of corruption.”  

 

What all of this demonstrates is that the polarization of America is again approaching the level of that of 1861 if it has not already arrived there or even surpassed it and that once again controversy over the election of their head of state threatens to tear their republic asunder.   While Trump’s media enemies would love to make him the scapegoat for this polarization, in actuality he is the product of it rather than its cause.   The polarization goes back to the election of Barack Obama, not, as progressives might argue, because white America is so racist it couldn’t stand the thought of a black president – it voted for him, after all – but because Obama, who had a unique opportunity to bury American racial division and promote true unity, chose to squander it, by bringing Critical Race Theory, a neo-Marxist form of racism that promotes racial hatred against white people because they are white by maintaining that all whites are racist and only whites are racist, out of the Ivory Towers of academe and into government policy.  I shall, DV, have more to say about this at a later time, but for now will simply say that the result was the polarization of American into dualing Manicheanisms, that is to say people convinced that they are the Children of Light fighting on the side of Good against the Children of Darkness fighting on the side of Evil, that are of a racial nature, which is an extremely combustible combination.   One of the Manicheanisms, the one which has rallied behind Trump, is approximately half-right.  The Democratic Party has indeed, at some point after 2004, become completely sold to Evil, although this does not make the Republicans the Children of Light.

 

I hope, for the sake of our American neighbours, that they can find their way back from the precipice upon which their republic is now teetering.   For my own country, I will say once again, God Save the Queen!

The White Inferiority Complex

 

For decades, hurling the epithet “racist” was the liberal’s go-to method of acknowledging anyone who disagreed with him from a standpoint somewhere to his right. In this same period this method served its purpose of discouraging disagreement with progressive liberalism well. Those who belonged to the mainstream of whatever was considered to be conservatism at the time, which was generally what had been considered liberalism a decade or so earlier, were, for some reason that has never really been explained, particularly sensitive to this accusation, and every time the liberal used this dreaded word they would rush to be the first to throw whoever was on the receiving end of the accusation under the bus. 

Eventually, however, this word lost most of its bite. It had simply been used too often and against too many people. When everyone is a racist, nobody is a racist, and people stop caring when you call somebody a racist. While it made something of a comeback this year, when used with the modifier “systemic”, for a few years now it has been largely replaced in liberal usage with “white supremacist.”

By trading the worn out “racist” for the fresh “white supremacist”, liberals exchanged an insult that had lost most of its meaning through overuse for one that was more powerful than the original had ever been, but in doing so they made themselves look absurd. For one thing white supremacist has a much narrower range of meaning than racist, with connotations of ideology, zeal, commitment, and activism that the word racist does not. There are very few actual white supremacists left and when liberals try to use this expression in the way they used to use racist they invite ridicule upon themselves. 

There is another aspect to the absurdity of the charge of white supremacism being flung around like so much monkey excrement. It is quite evident to anybody with open eyes that if any sort of bad racial thought presently infests the minds of the white people of Western Civilization it is not a sense of superiority over others, much less a feeling of supremacy over others, but rather a sort of inferiority complex. 

What other explanation can there be for the fact that even though the United States, after its Supreme Court abolished all de jure discrimination against blacks, established de jure discrimination against whites in 1964, and Canada, the United Kingdom, and all other Western countries decided to follow this foolish American precedent, and for over a generation anti-white discrimination has been the only established racism in Western Civilization, nevertheless white people have been willing to affirm the proposition that Western countries are “white supremacist” and that they therefore enjoy “privilege” on the basis of their skin colour? 

How else do we explain all the white people who are enthusiastic supporters of Black Lives Matter? BLM, despite the organization’s innocuous if also truistic and banal name, is not about a positive agenda of promoting the security and well-being of black people. Abortion rates have been disproportionately high among black people for decades, but BLM couldn’t care less about all the black lives lost to abortion. They are, in fact, allied to the pro-abortion, feminist cause. Nor does BLM care about all the black lives taken by black perpetrators of violent crime. Blacks are overrepresented among both the perpetrators and the victims of violent crime in general, which has been the case for as long as statistics have been kept about this sort of thing and shows no sign of ceasing to be the case any time soon, and this overrepresentation is even larger for homicide. The inevitable and natural corollary of this is that blacks are also overrepresented among crime suspects, arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. The black lives lost to black crime are not black lives that matter to BLM. BLM cares only about blaming the overrepresentation of blacks among suspects, arrests, etc., on the racism of white police. For this is what BLM is truly about – spreading hatred of police officers, Western Civilization in general but with a focus on the United States, and especially of white people. 

It makes about as much sense, therefore, for white people to support BLM as it would for black people to go around wearing white robes with pointy hoods. Yet this year, in which BLM has, ahem, removed its mask and revealed its true colours like never before, it would have been difficult not to notice the prominent participation of whites in the record-breaking wave of race riots and the “Year Zero” Cultural Maoist assault on historical monuments and statues. That is even without taking into account the lionizers of BLM and its cause among white newspaper and television commentators, white university professors, white clergymen, white corporate executives, white celebrities, and white politicians. 

There is a name for this sort of inferiority complex. It is called liberalism. While there are many different liberalisms with many different meanings, the one that I have in mind here is that of the liberal whom Robert Frost defined as “a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” Although I must say that when the poet penned that worthy diagnosis it probably never occurred to him that the disease would progress to the point where those infected actively take up arms against their own side. 

This, however, is the stage of the condition in which we find ourselves today and it may very well prove to be the terminal stage. 

Today, whether they seriously believe it to be true or not, a sizeable portion of whites are willing to affirm that racism is a moral offence for which light-skinned people of European ancestry bear a unique guilt, that they are guilty of it even if they are not conscious of having thought a racist thought, said a racist word, or committed a racist act, that this unconscious racism supposedly built into the very fabric of society is worse than the overt racial hatred that is often directed against whites by blacks and others with an anti-white axe to grind, and that it is their moral duty, therefore, to express contrition or shame whenever any non-white person chooses to take offence at something they have said or done or merely the fact that they are living and breathing, and to ignore or excuse explicit expressions of racial animus directed against them, even when these are violent in tone. 

Western liberalism has clearly undergone a mutation from when its humanitarian and universalist ideals merely generated a blindness to the legitimate particular interests of Western nations and peoples. It now actively opposes those interests. 

Think about the implications of the ubiquitous calls to end “systemic racism.” Many, perhaps most, white people have been jumping on board this bandwagon. Perhaps they do not understand that “systemic racism” is a technical term, from neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory, and that it designates this idea of an embedded racism which all white people and only white people are guilty of whether they are conscious of racist thought and actions or not. Perhaps they think it means institutional policies and practices that explicitly discriminate on racial grounds. If the latter is what they think, however, then they are mistaken if they think that racism of this sort, other than the kind that is directed against them, exists in Western countries today. This crusade against “systemic racism” in the Critical Race Theory sense of the term can only have the result, if successful, of making the explicit discrimination against white people that has been institutionalized in all Western countries since the ‘60’s and ‘70s of the last century, worse. 

There is a far worse manifestation of this mutant strain of the liberalism virus. Taken together, a number of liberal policies that have been in place in most if not all Western countries for over four decades, constitute an existential threat to white people. One of these policies is the use of large scale immigration from non-Western countries to offset the declining fertility that has been produced by, among other factors, the anti-natalism of social liberalism’s pro-contraception, pro-abortion, views. The result of this policy having been in place for decades has been the massive demographic transformation of Western societies to the point where in several countries that in living memory were almost entirely white, whites are on the verge of dropping to minority status. When you add to this the introduction in the same time frame of the aforementioned anti-white institutional discrimination, and the vilification of whites in the news media, popular education, and the revisionist educational curriculum, what you end up with is a recipe for a sort of self-inflicted genocide. Indeed, for decades now, Critical Race Theorists such as the late Noel Ignatiev have couched their anti-white ideas in explicitly genocidal language such as “the abolition of the white race”. When called out over this they have defended their rhetoric by saying that the “white race” they are talking about is a social construct, but their arguments have a rather hollow ring to them when we consider that these people would be the first to cry genocide if the same language were used about any other race and that the activist movement that has been built upon the foundation of their theory has translated such rhetoric into even cruder terms and actions that are not so easily explained away. These same people insist that “it is okay to be white” is a dangerous and offensive racist slogan. 

Yet despite all of this, liberalism has been largely successful at convincing a large segment of the white population to regard anyone who dares to speak out against this suicidal combination of policies as being a bigger and more real threat than that combination itself. Indeed, there are several liberal organizations in North America that do nothing else except identify those who speak out against white liberalism’s racial suicide pact and wage a campaign of character assassination against them. 

Liberalism is usually wrong about everything and it is certainly wrong about this. The West does not have a “white supremacist” problem in this day and age. What it is suffering from is rather that many, perhaps most, white people have become infected with a sick-minded racial inferiority complex in which they regard their skin colour as a badge of racial guilt which can only be atoned for through racial suicide. You will be waiting a long time, however, for liberals to acknowledge this. That would mean admitting that liberalism is the problem. Liberals would sooner demonize all those who share their own skin colour than admit that liberalism could be wrong.

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.

Systemic Racism

Is there any racial group in the Dominion of Canada or the United States of America today, about whom you can safely tell insulting jokes in public?

The answer, of course, is yes.

Is it blacks in the United States?

Is it Indians in Canada?

Obviously not. Anyone who were to try it would face severe consequences. He would be publicly denounced and shamed, probably lose his job and career, and maybe even his wife and kids and friends.

If, however, he were to tell such a joke about white people he would almost certainly get away with it.

Go back to the original question and substitute "use derogatory racial slurs" for "tell insulting jokes".

The answer is no different.

Is there any racial group in North America that you can with impunity threaten with violence?

The answer is still white people, although the certainty of your getting away with it has decreased, unless, of course, you are a superstar rapper or a university professor.

If you were to apply for an advertised position only to be told "we cannot consider you, because we need to diversify our staff or labour force", what race would you be?

No, you would not be a black, Indian, or Asian. Any company that would tell a black, Indian, or Asian applicant that their race disqualifies them from consideration, which is what “we cannot consider you because we need to diversify” translates into, would immediately be faced with the threat of crippling anti-discrimination litigation under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the US Civil Rights Act. They would most likely face public humiliation as well.

If you are white, however, they can turn you away on the above-stated grounds with no fear of recrimination.

Is there any racial group in North America or Western Civilization as a whole that is constantly made to be the scapegoat of all social evils in the way Hitler made the Jews into a scapegoat almost a century ago?

Yes, of course there is.

Is it still the Jews?

No, it most certainly is not. People today are generally afraid even to criticize the Jews, much less blame them for all the evils of the world, lest they be accused of anti-Semitism. Unless, of course, they belong to the Islamic faith, in which case they seem to have been granted a special dispensation by the gods of diversity.

Do I really need to point out that once again whites are the group in question?

The fatality rate among healthy black American men is abominably high. The reason is the violent crime and the "gangsta" culture that is destroying their own neighborhoods and communities from the inside out. The blame for it, however, is placed on white racism, especially that which is purportedly prevalent among the American police.

In Canada, a large number of Indian women are either found dead or disappear without a trace and are presumed dead, every year. An inquiry into this was demanded, then commissioned, and, last year, it released its report. The report could not hide the fact that in the vast majority of cases the murderer was also an Indian, usually a family member or someone from within the victim’s own community. Nevertheless, it still, in a classic example of putting two and two together and coming up with something other than four, placed the blame on white racism and called it a "genocide."

The social sciences departments of most universities hardly do anything else but brainwash their students with the “evil white racist” conspiracy theory of history. This is because these departments are composed of nothing but pseudo-disciplines, invented by Marxists, for the very purpose of promoting Marxism’s radically destructive revolutionary agenda.

Most races in North America have advocacy organizations which promote their civil rights and liberties, and speak to the public and lobby the government on behalf of their interests. These organizations are generally considered to be respectable and even venerable. There is one race in North America, however, which is not allowed to have such advocates. Any organization that attempts to speak or lobby on this race’s behalf, will immediately find itself denounced by politicians and bureaucrats, university professors, clergymen, the news and entertainment industry, and all the “respectable” racial advocacy groups, as a hate group. All attempts to speak positively on behalf of this race, are heard by countless people, including many members of the race in question themselves, as negative attacks on other people.

Any guesses as to which race this is?

For decades, the politicians and civil servants in both Canada and the United States, have been actively working to decrease one particular race’s demographic and political strength and influence in both countries, as academic and media progressives have cheered this race’s decline and perhaps eventual demise. This attitude, directed towards any other group, would be regarded as genocidal race hatred.

That’s right, it is the same race yet again.

We have all heard the expression “systemic racism” over and over again since the death of George Floyd. What progressives mean by “systemic” or “institutional” racism is their accusation that white racism is something embedded into the very fabric of Western societies and their institutions and which cannot be eliminated simply by abolishing slavery, ending segregation, or any other historical objective that can be achieved by an act of legislation or a judicial ruling. All sane people recognize that you cannot reason with people who think this way because they are absolutely bonkers.

If we cannot reason with them, for the sake of those they have not yet brainwashed, we ought to be able to answer them. The answer is simply this: the only systemic racism in Western civilization in 2020, is the racism against white people detailed above.

The Irrationality of Anti-Racism

It is amusingly ironic that in the taxonomy of modern thought, racism is considered to be a species belonging to the genus prejudice. The word prejudice refers to certain types of non-rational beliefs or ideas. Note that I said non rational not irrational. Something can be non-rational without being irrational. Something that is irrational is contrary to logic or reason. Something that is non rational is not derived from logic or reason but is not necessarily contrary to logic or reason. Prejudice, a word formed from components that mean “before” and “judgement”, denotes beliefs or ideas that have been formed before the process of making a reason based judgement. It has both a positive and a negative sense, although the former is all but forgotten in our day and age. Prejudice in the positive sense refers to the ideas that have been passed on to us through tradition that enable us to make decisions in the absence of the information necessary to form a fully rational judgment. Edmund Burke praised prejudice in this sense of the word at great length in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). In the other sense of the term, prejudice is a negative opinion formed against a person or group without sufficient evidence to support it. Both forms of prejudice are non-rational, neither is necessarily irrational, but the latter kind of prejudice is frowned upon because it involves unjustified injury to the reputation of a person or group. Racism is considered to fall under the category of the second kind of prejudice. This brings us back to our initial statement. The irony is due to the fact that anti-racism, in the sense of the set of beliefs that expresses itself in organized activism against racism, is not just non-rational but thoroughly irrational.

As evidence of this claim, I offer the anti-racist response to the words "All lives matter".

This expression is obviously itself a response to "Black lives matter", a phrase which began as a Twitter hashtag seven years ago when George Zuckerman was acquitted for the shooting of Trayvon Martin and which became the name of an organized activist movement. For the sake of distinguishing between the phrase qua phrase and the movement it has been attached to, quotation marks will be used when the phrase is intended and the capitalization of the initial letter of each word will indicate that the movement is intended. Note carefully the nature of the response. “All lives matter” does not contradict what is stated by “Black lives matter.” Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, it clearly affirms it. Black lives are part of the extension of all lives, therefore if all lives matter, black lives matter. Furthermore, “All lives matter” is more inclusive than “Black lives matter.” In anti-racist theory and rhetoric “inclusivity” is ordinarily considered to be good, desirable and ideal, while its opposite “exclusivity” is treated as being bad and undesirable. Indeed, one of the principle objections to racism is that it excludes people. A stereotypically racist club, for example, is one that excludes people from membership on the basis of their skin colour.

Anti-racists, however, regard “All lives matter” as being a racist slogan, take offense whenever they hear it, and demand that people stop using it.

Let us look at a couple of examples from this past week alone.

Grant Napear, long-time play-by-play television announcer for the Sacramento Kings basketball team, as well as the host of a show on Sacramento’s KHTK Sports 1140 radio station, was fired from the latter and made to resign from the former, because of a tweet including the slogan “All lives matter.”

Here in Manitoba, our provincial premier Brian Pallister, speaking on Tuesday about the anti-racism protest that was scheduled to take place on Friday and in support of that protest said “Black lives matter, All lives matter, of course” and was immediately attacked for doing so. Someone named Elsa Kaka, who apparently hosts a podcast entitled “The Ordinary Black Girl Podcast” gave an interview to the press in which she said “'All lives matter' is a deeply offensive and problematic phrase that has been used to derail and disregard the Black Lives Matter movement.” Pallister, much to my disgust, apologized on Wednesday.

How could "All lives matter" possibly be "deeply offensive and problematic" to anyone except those who hold and cherish the belief that some lives don't matter?

The rational answer is that it cannot. The late Sir Roger Scruton frequently talked about the distinction between "giving offence" and "taking offence" and here we have a textbook example. The phrase "All lives matter" does not give offence in what it affirms, those who object to it are taking offence.

The offence they take from the slogan has nothing to do with the meaning of the words themselves. Indeed, any attempt to find fault with the assertion made by those words would immediately render them susceptible to the charge that they think some lives don't matter. Their justification for taking offence, when they deign to give such a justification rather than simply assuming that their taking offence is itself its own sufficient justification, is to either rely upon the ad hominem argument that the slogan is racist because those who say it are racist, object to the intention of the words, i.e., to counter the "Black lives matter" slogan and criticize the Black Lives Matter movement, or argue that "All lives matter" detracts from their own message which is that the institutions and structure of American, and by extension all Western, societies are embedded with a racism that treats black lives as if they don't matter.

The first of these arguments merits no response.

The problem with the objection to the intent of the words is that it requires the assumption that the Black Lives Matter movement is or ought to be beyond criticism. This assumption is both false and dangerous. No movement, let alone one the "peaceful demonstrations" of which have a tendency to become violent or degenerate into riots, ought to be beyond criticism.

The final argument rests upon a belief that is widely held even though it is demonstrably wrong.

Let us consider the specific type of alleged institutional racism which has been the primary focus of the Black Lives Matter movement. Police in the United States, especially white police, are accused of being racist towards blacks and expressing that racism by making blacks more than anyone else the objects of the violent abuse of their authority.

The facts simply do not bear this out. In 2017 American police killed 457 whites and 223 blacks, in 2018 they killed 399 whites and 209 blacks, in 2019 they killed 370 whites and 235 blacks, and in this year so far they have killed 172 whites and 88 blacks. Now, the fact that the total number of whites killed each year exceeds the total number of blacks is not sufficient to disprove the allegation. It is to be expected because there are more whites than blacks in the United States. In 2017, for example, there were 247.62 million whites in the United States and 43.5 million blacks. Now here is where the argument for police racism comes in. There were 5.69 times the number of whites than blacks in the United States in 2017. By contrast the number of whites killed by police was only twice as high. This, the anti-racists maintain, proves that police are racist. If they weren't, the number of whites killed by the police would be around 5-6 times higher than blacks so killed. However, there is another figure which must be taken into consideration. In the same year out of reported non-fatal violent crimes, 2, 230, 910 involved white perpetrators and 1, 112, 610 involved black perpetrators according to the American Bureau of Justice Statistic’s National Crime Victimization Survey. In other words, the number of whites who committed non-fatal violent crimes was only twice the number of blacks, the exact same ratio as is found among white and black victims of police killings, and equally disproportionate to the relative size of the two racial populations. Since the vast majority of cases where police kill a suspect involve violent crimes - the recent example of George Floyd being an obvious exception as it involved passing a bad bill - it is far more rational, if far less politically correct, to attribute the disproportion in the percentage of blacks among victims of police violence to their identical overrepresentation among violent crime offenders than to racial prejudice on the part of the police. Since this holds true for pretty much any year for which these statistics are available, and studies have repeatedly shown that policemen of every race are far more likely to shoot a member of their own race than of the other, just as criminals of all races are far more likely to choose victims of their own race than of another, this conclusion is quite definite. Arguments which take the form of "but look at what happened to fill-in-the-blank" are not valid as a rebuttal. Ironically, they involve an extrapolation from the specific to the general that is very similar to the sort that anti-racists would immediately recognize as invalid in the case of racial stereotypes.

Clearly, the anti-racist condemnation of "All lives matter" is utterly irrational. This is only to be expected. After all, we are talking about a belief system/movement that fifty-six years after an American Congress that was by a vast majority white passed a bill protecting blacks against the private discrimination of employers, landlords, etc., sixty-three years after a white American president used military force to racially integrate a high school in Arkansas, forcing it to comply with the ruling of an all-white Supreme Court three years earlier that all segregation laws were unconstitutional, and one-hundred fifty-five years after an all-white American Congress abolished black slavery, maintains that institutional white racism is the biggest problem in the United States. Furthermore, it is a belief system the representatives of which frequently claim that all whites are racist and only whites are racist, which very much suggests that it is itself an example of the very thing it ostensibly opposes. The assertion that there is an evil demanding extirpation, of which all whites and only whites are guilty, cannot be anything other than racism against white people - frequently on the part of white people. It is thoroughly and utterly irrational

The Greeks and Jews Have Words For It

Suppose you were running for public office. Let us say that you wanted to be the mayor of your local city. You decide that you want to be remembered as the mayor who made the streets safe for everyone and so you build a reputation for yourself as a crusader against speeding. Lowering speed limits, especially in residential areas and school zones, is a major plank in your campaign platform. You are elected, and throughout your first term, whenever something you have done comes under negative scrutiny, your response is to lecture people about the need for safe streets.

Your term ends and you decide to run for re-election. You saw your popularity sag towards the end of your first term. The campaign is underway when all of a sudden disaster strikes. Somebody has uncovered a video from years back that shows you taking part in a drag race – not RuPaul’s kind but the sort that involves motor vehicles – right in front of the city’s largest kindergarten. The video shows you winning the race, and certainly not abiding by the speed limit.

You decide that the best way to minimize the damage is by immediately acknowledging the race and apologizing for your past behaviour. Shortly after, however, yet another video surfaces in which you can be seen recklessly speeding and swerving in front of the nursery school. Then another video is revealed showing you weaving through the playground in your sports car, barely missing the swing set and careening away from the slide before crashing into the tetherball.

You slink back home to hide, convinced that all is over. Then, to everyone’s amazement and not least your own, your chief opponent proves incapable of capitalizing on the implosion of your self-built reputation, and you manage to scrape through and get re-elected.

All of your enemies are bitterly disappointed but they console themselves by saying “Well, at least we won’t have to listen to another of his lectures on speeding again.” Less than a year later they discover just how wrong they are.

In the next town over, a motorist is caught on video speeding around a corner, where he runs into a cyclist sending him flying off of his bike and into the wall of a nearby building. Had he been a pedestrian, it is likely that nobody would have made a very big deal out of it. It was a cyclist, however, and all the various bicycle clubs that make up the powerful bicycle lobby are hopping mad. This is not some lousy pedestrian the motorist has killed, it is one of their own, and they are not going to take it. They organize a bike protest outside city hall which ends with them burning the place to the ground. (1)

While many – probably most – in your position would consider it wiser to keep their mouths shut in this situation, you take it as an opportunity to give another lecture about how unacceptable the status quo of cyclists being run down by motorists is, how all residents of your city have a role to play in confronting systemic speeding and how speeding isn’t just a problem in the next city over, and that there is a lot of work left to be done to eliminate speeding. You don’t say a word about your own past history as a speed demon. When asked about it specifically, you give an evasive answer.

What would be the most appropriate word to describe this attitude of yours?

You have probably recognized by now the real life scenario to which the hypothetical one described above is alluding. If not, I will spell it out for you. Captain Airhead, who is sometimes derogatorily referred to as Justin Trudeau, and who was first elected Prime Minister of Canada in 2015, throughout his rise to power and the first term of his premiership, seldom did anything else but virtue signal to the world about how “woke” he was. He presented himself as the indefatigable foe of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and every other phobia and ism to ever spring out of the ungodly union of Marx and Freud, but above all, racism. When the next Dominion election came around in 2019 his reputation had already been damaged by repeated examples of his own goofy, idiotic, and embarrassing antics, followed by a much more serious corruption scandal. Then, when the election campaign was underway, three photographs and a video were revealed showing him in skin-darkening makeup. In the video he is wearing full body blackface – legs and arms as well – with a padded crotch, acting like an ape. In other words, behaving in a way that people who hold to his own purported worldview would regard as horribly racist. Astonishingly, in spite of all of this, the Liberals won re-election albeit with a reduction to a minority government. One June 1st, in his daily video selfie, he talked about the riots erupting south of the border - he called them "peaceful protests" - expressing his solidarity with them, accusing our country - not himself - of being racist against blacks, and vowing to extirpate racism and discrimination.

Ideological progressives have, amusingly, been calling him out on this ever since. They accused him of making empty promises and uttering meaningless platitudes, and demanded that he come through with some real action. Given everything that was revealed about him less than a year ago, he was practically inviting this response. It is like he has never heard the old apopthegm "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Personally, I hope that his progressive detractors are right and that all of his talk was just empty promises and meaningless platitudes. In my lifetime, I have seen the basic freedom to think and speak your mind, which in a Commonwealth realm ought to be held sacred, shamelessly, needlessly and severely curtailed in Canada and something that resembles the thought control methods of the Soviet Union - brain washing, special police and tribunals, etc. - established, all in the name of fighting discrimination and racism. All of this is, in my opinion, a much greater evil than the one it is intended to combat. We need less of this sort of action, not more.

My point, however, is that it takes a very particular kind of gall for someone in the Prime Minister's position to accuse other Canadians and, indeed, the country herself, of racism. Even last year, when he was apologizing for all of his transracial cosplay - racist by his standards not mine - he kept trying to twist it into a teaching moment for all of us.

We don't really have a word in English that is adequate to label this sort of gall. Arrogance is the closest thing we have. It is tempting, since the Prime Minister’s speech was made on the first day of "Pride month", to use the traditional English name for the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, but this word has become so weak that it can no longer really do justice to what we are talking about. Even the Latin Superbia won’t do since it is too easily confused with the cognate English adjective that is a term of praise denoting superlative quality or excellence. So we shall have to turn to the ancient Greeks and the Jews, who each have a word that describes Captain Airhead's attitude perfectly.

The Greek word is ὕβρις which can be transliterated into English as either “hybris” or the more common “hubris”. (2) This word in its everyday usage could mean “outrage” or even “violence.” In its technical meaning, which is the relevant meaning here, it denotes a kind of insolent, overweening, pride that invites divine judgement and leads one foolishly and blindly to his own self-destruction.

The other word is chutzpah. This word, the first syllable of which is pronounced like you are trying to get rid of something stuck in your throat, is Yiddish, belonging to the tongue of the Ashkenazi Jews which combines elements of Hebrew and German. In this case the word is derived from a Hebrew word that means “impudence.” It denotes a defiant, cheeky and insolent audacity that knows no shame whatsoever. It can express either disapproval or admiration – or, probably more accurately, both at the same time. Leo Rosten defined, or rather described, it as “that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.” (3)

While these words are not exact synonyms of each other, they both fit the attitude of the Prime Minister to a tee, and much better than the closest English equivalents.




(1) Anticipating that cyclists may take offense at how they are depicted in this paragraph and object, I here and now unapologetically associate myself with the remarks and prejudices of the late Samuel Marchbanks: “Had to do some motoring today. I have two characters, my Pedestrian Character, in which I am all for the Common Man, the freedom of the roads, and the dignity of Shank’s Mare; and also my Motorist Character, in which I am contemptuous of the rights of walkers, violent in my passion for speed, and arrogant in my desire to kill anybody who gets in my way…I have never ridden a bicycle, I am the enemy of cyclists in both characters. If I am walking, they sneak up behind me and slice the calves off my legs with their wheels; if I am driving, they wobble all over the road, never signal, and seem to be deaf, blind and utterly idiotic. In spite of their stupidity, cyclists rarely get themselves killed; the roads are slippery with defunct cats, squashed skunks and groundhogs, and hens who have been gathered to Abraham’s bosom, but I have never seen a mass of steel, leather windbreaker and hamburger which was identifiable as the cadaver of a cyclist.” - This is from the last Thursday entry, in the Winter section of The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, which was first published in 1947. In 1985, it and the Table Talk of Samuel Marchbanks (1949) and Marchbanks' Garland which is an abridgment of Samuel Marchbanks’ Almanack (1967), were edited into an omnibus entitled The Papers of Samuel Marchbanks and it is in the 1987, Totem Press paperback edition of this, that I found the quoted words on pages 52-53. Samuel Marchbanks was the pen-name used by Robertson Davies when he was editor of the Peterborough Examiner.
(2) The Greek letter upsilon looks like our Y in its capital form and like our u in its minuscule form. It was pronounced by a sound we don’t have in English, that which is represented in German by a u with a diacritical umlaut on top. The standard way of transliterating the German letter in English is with the diphthong ue, but this is seldom if ever used for the Greek letter.
(3) Leo Rosten, The Joys of Yiddish, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1968, p. 93.

True Allegiance and The Liberal Party’s Politics of Fear

The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, the last true Conservative and the last patriot of the true Canada, to serve as Her Majesty’s First Minister in this Dominion, in a speech given early in the premiership of the first Trudeau, remarked how he could remember a time when one could disagree with the Prime Minister without being considered a bigot. The implication, of course, was that this was no longer the case. The speech is included in the collection published by Macmillan of Canada in 1972 under the title Those Things We Treasure. This book, along with John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown, should be required reading for every Canadian. The latter is a philosophical defence of the Westminster system of parliamentary monarchy against the rival republicanisms of the United States and the Soviet Union, and a warning to Canadians about how our system had been compromised and undermined in the Mackenzie King years. Diefenbaker’s book was a timely protest against how the actions of Pierre Trudeau were further undermining that system as well and also the traditional freedoms of Canadians and the culture of political civility associated with it.

At the time the Chief made the remark alluded to above the progressive tactic of smearing opponents on the right with the label “racist” was fairly new. It would soon become the standard progressive response to any criticism from the right and has been so beaten to death over the decades that in the last few years, progressives, finding that people have become desensitized to the word “racist”, have been turning to stronger terms like “white supremacist.” Milo Yiannopoulos in a recent interview with David Horowitz remarked:


When somebody calls you a racist, this is far worse than somebody who casually drops the N word, cause when you call somebody that name, the only person who looks bad is you. Whereas, when you call somebody a racist, you are creating a set of obligations for them to defend themselves, which will, whatever they do, indelibly associate their name with that crime. Way worse.


This is very true and it is worse yet to call somebody a “white supremacist” for this expression suggests an organized, ideological, form of racism and not merely prejudiced thoughts and attitudes.

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader, swamped by the mire of the SNC-Lavalin Scandal and sinking in the polls with the next Dominion election only months away, has fallen back in desperation on this updated version of their old tactics. They have been issuing demands that Andrew Scheer denounce “white supremacy” and “white nationalism.” They have continued to make these demands even after Scheer had complied with them. Scheer, in my opinion, ought not to have complied. The implication of such demands is that Scheer is under a presumption of guilt of sympathizing or collaborating with neo-Nazism until he proves otherwise by making a sufficient denunciation, and that those who make these demands have the right to decide when the denunciation is sufficient. Arrogant, bullying, demands of this sort ought neither to be acknowledged nor complied with. Especially when coming from someone against whom charges of ties to extremists of a different sort, Sikh separatists, are far more sustainable, having generated an international incident two years ago and just now resurfaced with the Liberal government’s redaction of last year’s terrorism report.

The other implication of these demands is that white supremacism is a significant problem in Canada and a realistic threat to our civilization. This is total bunk, a fact which nobody knows better than the Liberals themselves. It was a Liberal government in 1977, the government led by the father of the present Prime Minister, that passed the Canadian Human Rights Act after selling the Act to the public, with the assistance of the media, by generating a fear that Nazism was on the verge of being reborn here on Canadian soil. This had been facilitated by the formation of the Canadian Nazi Party which contained, maybe, one actual disciple of Adolf Hitler. It otherwise consisted of agents provocateurs supplied by the government and by private activist organizations that had an interest in seeing this legislation passed. There was not the slightest possibility of this group, or any white supremacist group, establishing a Fourth Reich in Canada but the manufactured, bogus, threat of such was used by the Liberals and their allies, to pass a bill which, despite its title, did nothing to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people under the jurisdiction of Canadian law from the threat of abusive state power, but instead authorized state meddling in all sorts of private interactions and imported, from the Soviet system, thought police and tribunals which, since the media, except for a brief time about a decade ago when it felt its own liberty threatened, has largely refrained from criticizing or even reporting their doings, have been effectually allowed to function as secret police and tribunals. It was this system set up by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and not the phony “Nazi menace” invented to dupe the public into supporting it, which was and is the real threat to our freedom and order, civilization and way of life.

The Liberals also know as well as anyone else that the Conservative Party is not a front for white supremacists and that Andrew Scheer is not a crypto-neo-Nazi. If anything they are pathetically progressive and liberal on all issues pertaining to race and ethnicity, not only when compared to the Conservatives of a century ago, but to the Liberals and socialists of that era as well. The noise to the contrary, that the Grits are currently generating, is, of course, intended as a distraction from the scandal that has been engulfing them, but it is also an example of the very “politics of fear and division” which they accused the previous Conservative government of in the last Dominion election.

Let me speak now for a moment to anyone who might sincerely believe that we have a serious problem with white supremacism in this country. I have two things that I would say to such a person.

First, if ideological racism and racial nationalism are serious problems in the world today, then it is all ideological racism and all racial nationalisms which are the problems and not just white supremacism. As Stephen Roney recently put it:

To denounce “white supremacy” as a stand-alone item is to imply that other forms of racial supremacy are fine: black supremacy, Asian supremacy, Muslim supremacy, aboriginal supremacy. The problem is not with supremacy, then; it is with whites. That is extreme racism. And should be called out as such.


Indeed, and to further demonstrate the point that this paranoid obsession with one particular form of racial supremacy amounts to extreme racism in itself, I will draw your attention to the hysteria that was generated on campuses across North America late last year, including the campus of the University of Manitoba here in Winnipeg, by the appearance of posters containing one simple phrase “It’s OK to be white.” The posters were widely condemned as conveying a “white supremacist” message, but if this slogan is “white supremacist”, then to not be a “white supremacist” one must hold that “It’s NOT OK to be white.” Taking that position amounts to racial hatred against white people.

Since the first Trudeau premiership the Liberal Party has conducted an aggressive campaign to drum racism out of Canada, a campaign that has been enthusiastically supported by the media, the academic establishment, the other progressive parties, and yes, even the Conservative Party in both its old and new incarnations, but this campaign, which has only ever seriously targeted white racism has in reality promoted anti-white racism. They have managed to get away with this for so long because anyone who has dared to point it out and speak out against it has been smeared with a lot of nasty labels, such as “white supremacist.” This is the very essence of the “politics of fear and division”, Liberal Party style, and it is about time that Canadians stop giving in to these bullying tactics and send the Grits and other progressives the clear message, that as long as they insist on a non-tolerance policy towards racial prejudice on the part of whites their own promotion of anti-white bigotry will receive the exact same treatment. Or, alternately, we could follow David Warren’s more amusing suggestion:


We need a National Bigotry Day, in which for twenty-four hours we can all find relief from the Political Correctors. And laugh at each other, scoff taunt and mock, because (have you noticed?) all of us deserve it.


The second thing I would say is that if ideological racism and racial nationalism are serious problems in the world today, then the solutions, if there are any, are not be sought in modern and progressive thought. Nationalism – all nationalism, not merely the racial kind – and ideological racism are themselves the products of the Modern Age’s departure from royal monarchism in the political sphere and from orthodox, catholic, Christianity in the spiritual and religious sphere. When in the twentieth century progressives came to reject these offspring of the Modern Age, racism and nationalism, at least for white, Western people, and to regard them as problems, the solution they devised was one-world, globalism, the ideal of a world without borders, in which capitalism and socialism converge, and the flow of goods and people is completely unimpeded. This “solution” proved to be worse than the problem, and in rejection of it populist, nationalist, movements have been springing up all across the Western world to defy the globalist consensus between mainstream liberal and conservative parties. These, it must be added, are no more solutions to the problem of globalism, than globalism was a solution to the problems of racism and nationalism. Neither is the solution to the other because the real problem is the modern thinking that lies beneath both and to address this problem we need truly reactionary thinking that looks back to the older tradition, to royal monarchy and orthodox Christianity.

In a royal monarchy, sovereign authority is vested in a person, and is hereditary, passed down from ancestors to descendants. This is the very embodiment of the accumulated wisdom of the ancients that men in modern times have foolishly thrown away. Whereas Lockean liberalism declared voluntary individual contract to be the basis of society, the ancients knew that families were the building blocks of communities and societies, and that the sovereign authority in a state could not rest upon a contractual foundation, but was an extension of the natural authority of father and mother in the home, through the patriarchs and matriarchs of the extended kin group, to the kings and queens of the realm. The reigning monarch, by holding the sovereign authority in trust, is a symbol of stability and continuity, which are essential to order, which in turn is essential to true freedom, and is an example to the generation living in the present day, of the debt owed to generations past, to conserve what they have left, for generations yet to come. The hereditary nature of the office, derided as archaic and unfair by its democratic and republican foes, is what allows the monarch to be a unifying symbol in a way no elected politician ever could. Furthermore, the monarch as that symbol of unity, gives government a personal face. These last two aspects of the office make it the essential and necessary counter to two of the most obnoxious characteristics of the modern state, the endless factionalism promoted both by government by elected assembly and by meritocratic individualism, and the faceless inhumanity of bureaucracy.

As the symbol of unity and the personal face of the state, the royal monarch is the object of the natural allegiance of her subjects and the sworn allegiance of state ministers and immigrants. When a country is united by its loyal allegiance to the person of the royal monarch, that place as the object of loyalty, cannot be filled by abstract ideas. Filling that place with abstract ideas, is precisely what the liberals of the Modern Age, in rebellion against their kings, set out to do. The most popular such idea was that of “the people.” The liberals had either rejected or forgotten the wisdom of Plato and Aristotle, who taught that democracy was the parent of tyranny which was the opposite of true kingship, and the doctrine of “popular sovereignty” begat tyranny on a scale the world had never before seen in the England of the Cromwellian Protectorate, the France of the Reign of Terror, and the Soviet Union and all subsequent People’s Republics. Nationalism, which began in the eighteenth century and spread throughout the Western world in the nineteenth, was originally a form of this left-wing, rebellion against royal monarchy which defined “the people” for whom the revolutionaries claimed to speak as “the nation”, i.e., a people united by blood, language, history, and culture. (1) The Third Reich, which would never have had the opportunity to rise had the Hohenzollern and Hapsburg thrones not been emptied, defined “the people” in more explicitly racial terms, but otherwise was not significantly different from these other regimes. It would make far more sense to look to what these regimes had in common as an explanation of their common industrial scale brutality than to single out what set the Third Reich apart as the sole reason for its specific atrocities.

Before the Modern Age, what we now call Western Civilization was called Christendom, and in Christian civilization it was acknowledged that there is an allegiance which men owe that is higher even than that which they owe to their king or queen, and that is the allegiance owed to God, the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of all that is. Orthodox Christianity has called itself “catholic” since the earliest centuries. The ancient baptismal Creed confesses faith in “the holy catholic church” and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in “one holy, catholic, and Apostolic church.” The third of the three ancient Creeds begins by saying “Whosoever would be saved needeth before all things to hold fast the catholic faith.” The word “catholic” means “universal”, making it both ironic and inappropriate, that it is used today as a denominational label, but that is the subject matter for another essay. The early church chose this word to designate both itself and its faith both because it was an appropriate designation for the entire church worldwide as distinguished from the church in a particular location and because of the universal nature of the church and her mission.

Jesus, before His Ascension, commissioned His Apostles with the words “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28: ), and “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), and told them that “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). When the promise of the coming of the Holy Ghost was fulfilled, as recorded by St. Luke in the next chapter of Acts, the Apostles preached the Gospel to the multitude of Jews who had come from all over the known world to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost – the Old Covenant Feast commemorating the giving of the Law not the Christian Feast of the same name commemorating the coming of the Holy Ghost – and each heard in his own tongue. (2) Eight chapters later, St. Peter was sent to proclaim the Gospel to the first Gentile convert, Cornelius and five chapters after that there were so many Gentile converts that the Apostolic Council met in Jerusalem to address the question of whether they would be required to be circumcised and to follow the diet and rituals of the Mosaic Law. It was ruled that these, which had been given in the Old Covenant to keep national Israel distinct and separate from her idolatrous neighbours, were not to hinder the unity of the new transnational spiritual commonwealth that was the church under the New Covenant. This was a point that St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, would emphasize throughout his epistles. St. John, in his apocalyptic vision, heard the twenty-four elders, representing the church in heaven, singing the new song “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5:9-10) All people, orthodox Christianity teaches, are brothers because of our common descent from Adam, and out of this natural brotherhood, which since the Fall has carried the curse of Original Sin, all people are called by the Gospel, to believe and be baptized into the new spiritual brotherhood established by the Second Adam, Christ.

In royal monarchy, our sovereign is the personal object of our civil allegiance. In orthodox Christianity, Christ as the head of the “one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic church” which transcends all boundaries of tribe, race, and nation, is the personal object of our spiritual allegiance. When our civil and spiritual allegiance both belong to the right personal object, they cannot be claimed by the false substitute of the Modern Age, the people, in any of its various guises – race, nation, working class, the whole of humanity, etc. Only thus can we avoid the pitfalls of nationalism and racism, without falling into the opposite pits of one-world, globalism and the virulent anti-white racism that wears the mask of anti-racism.

Canada, although a century younger than the United States and thus founded well in to the Modern Age, because she was built upon the foundation of Loyalism rather than nationalism, was established as a parliamentary monarchy and as an explicitly Christian rather than a secular country. We retain our royal monarchy and our Christianity to this day, if only in the most outward, nominal, and ceremonial ways, despite the Liberal Party’s having done their worst to eliminate these things, and these outward trappings of Christian civilization are the signposts pointing the way back to our true civil and spiritual allegiance, should we ever find the courage and the character to take it.

(1) The American and French Revolutions were arguably the first nationalist movements. The word “nationalism” only goes back to the nineteenth century, but the phenomenon it designates goes back to the previous century. The American Revolutionaries called themselves “patriots,” using “patriotism” with all the connotations of nationalism, but patriotism is a much older concept which simply means “love of country.” Dr. Johnson argued, in both The Patriot (1774) and in conversation recorded by Boswell, that the patriotism espoused by the American rebels was false and hypocritical. Had the word been around to be used at the time he might have said that it was nationalism rather than patriotism.

(2) It has been observed that the miracle of the first Whitsunday was a reversal of the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, the event through which God divided the human race into different tribes and nations. This does not make the agenda of one-world, borderless, globalism somehow “Christian.” Christ told Pilate that His kingdom was “not of this world”, meaning, not that it was located on Mars or some other planet, but that it was an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and civil commonwealth and that is not in political competition with any of the latter. It is only in that spiritual kingdom, the Church, that the effect of Babel is reversed. Progressive, one-world, borderless, globalism is a manifestation of the same human arrogance that brought about the divine judgement at Babel in the first place.