Category Archives: Uncategorized

A shocking audio of a Canadian European student called on the carpet for criticizing the anti-White hatred spread in a Canadian Sociology class. Your tax dollars at work — teaching Whites to hate themselves.

Posted on by

A shocking audio of a Canadian European student called on the carpet for criticizing the anti-White hatred spread in a Canadian Sociology class. Your tax dollars at work — teaching Whites to hate themselves.

America’s Founding/Settler People MUST NOW CONSIDER: Whose Democracy?

Posted on by

J
to

America’s Founding/Settler People MUST NOW CONSIDER: Whose Democracy?

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 12, 2021

(Credit Image: © Jack Kurtz/ZUMA Wire)

The Joe Biden/Kamala Harris Administration isn’t just another presidency. Well-meaning conservatives will have to realize that this regime does not represent them. Our nation is inseparable from race and culture, and the government on the Potomac is not our government. We can’t escape “American” politics, but we shouldn’t waste time thinking about Washington, DC. Instead, we must build something new.

The new administration has a foundational myth: that Donald Trump was uniquely dangerous to “Our Democracy,” an aspiring autocrat who tried to steal the election and then incited an “insurrection.” Journalists claim it was all based on a lie.

Countless articles use the same words, an obvious references to the “Big Lie” technique supposedly used by the Nazis. Joe Biden said this explicitly. Many people have claimed that Adolf Hitler and/or Joseph Goebbels said that the bigger the lie and the more you repeat it, the more people will believe it. Both men were talking about what they thought their enemies were doing, not what they would do. To quote the “Big Lie” this way is itself a big lie, and it’s effective. What Republican will explain that the Nazis are being misquoted?

I have no doubt that Mr. Trump sincerely believes the election was stolen, so he was not intentionally lying at all, but the “big lie” and the “insurrection” are now supposed to be reasons to impeach Mr. Trump for the second time.

Jamie Raskin during impeachment

Representative Jamie Raskin during the second impeachment trial of former US President Donald J. Trump. (Credit Image: © Us Senate TV Via CNP / CNP via ZUMA Wire)

President Trump did many good things. He may not get enough credit; he was constantly thwarted and reviled. However, his administration was hardly revolutionary. Aside from tweets and confrontation with the press, President Trump governed like a standard Republican. He never used his power to hurt the media or his political opponents. It was his own supporters who suffered most. His solution to the Big Tech censorship that silenced so much of his base was “just being good.” Now, he doesn’t have a Twitter or Facebook account. Passivity like that hardly sounds “authoritarian” or “fascist.”

At a deeper level, the election was rigged against him. Time has published a triumphant article about how a “well-funded cabal” “fortified democracy” by changing election laws and controlling speech. If the article had been about a Russian or Chinese election, we’d laugh at the idea that a cabal can “fortify democracy.” Whatever the vote totals were, it wasn’t a fair election.

Democrats charge that protesters thought they were “following orders” when they broke into the Capitol. Some of those arrested will make that claim to defend themselves. But what orders? President Trump told demonstrators to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” If this still counts as “inciting” violence, what are we to do about explicit calls by Democrats for radical protests? The Capitol takeover was not an “insurrection.” Was the Q-Anon Shaman supposed to become the new Speaker of the House?

The Shaman of QAnon

Credit Image: © Joel Marklund/Bildbyran via ZUMA Press

The main victims of the riot were Trump supporters. An officer shot Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman. Kevin Greeson, Benjamin Phillips, and Rosanne Boyland died from medical emergencies. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of an unknown cause; he may have had a fatal reaction to bear spray. Thus, there were four dead Trump supporters and one policeman. Officer Sicknick was certainly a victim, but the latest press reports say prosecutors are having a hard time charging anyone with homicide. Two other officers later killed themselves. We don’t really know why.

Ironically, both leftists and Q-Anon protesters believed there was a master plan. There was no plan. President Trump was talking big, but he didn’t intend a putsch. Has he ever followed up on his tough talk? His supporters were a leaderless rabble. Most came for a protest and nothing more. Indeed, video from the day shows some Trump supporters calmly walking through the Capitol, careful to stay within the velvet ropes for tourists. Representatives in Congress are a greater danger to those statues than any “insurrectionists.”

Donald Trump had no plan. He was an American version of General Boulanger, someone who had a mass following but lacked the will or vision to accomplish anything. The Capitol Farce is the Reichstag Fire for progressives, an excuse to consolidate power and crush opposition. This includes efforts to expel Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley for supposedly inciting insurrection. The new Administration has also begun a repressive campaign against white advocates.

Among Joe Biden’s first actions were to abolish the 1776 Commission and reimpose critical race theory on the federal government. Progressives are also teaching critical race theory in college and even in elementary school. This causes racial conflict by provoking and rewarding non-white resentment. The state is undermining the nation, whether by intent or ignorance.

Joe Biden executive orders

President Joe Biden signs an executive order. (Credit Image: © Al Drago – Pool Via Cnp/CNP via ZUMA Wire)

The state also can’t defend its own symbols. Progressives wail about the “desecration” of the “temple of democracy,” but the Biden White House is lukewarm on defending the national anthem. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said his team was not going to play the Star Spangled Banner before home games because members of the “community” felt the anthem “did not fully represent them.” He later backpedaled after the NBA said the anthem must be played. The White House waffled.

After saying that President Biden is proud to be American, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said:

[President Biden would] also say that, of course, that part of the pride in our country means recognizing moments where we as a country haven’t lived up to our highest ideals, which is often, and at times, when people are speaking to when they take action at sporting events.

And it means respecting the rights of people, granted to them the Constitution to peacefully protest.

I’m not sure about the President’s support for “peaceful protest;” the Department of Justice arrested “Ricky Vaughn” for posting memes and the FBI raided activists who held pro-Trump rallies.

Ricky Vaughn Election Interference Meme

The meme “Ricky Vaughn” posted that led to his arrest.

It is not yet a crime to belong to a “domestic terrorist group” or to hold certain opinions, but that could change. The federal government would have a hard time punishing white advocates and civic nationalists while ignoring antifa and BLM. Canada doesn’t have this problem. It declared the Proud Boys a “terrorist group.” Canada criminalizes membership and imposes penalties on anyone who does business with the group. The First Amendment theoretically prevents the American government from doing this, but I have faith in the creativity of lawyers and judges to work around that little problem, especially after President Biden replaces one or more Supreme Court justices.

One of President Biden’s other early decisions was to allow American embassies to fly the gay pride flag. Burning the American flag is free speech, but burning the gay flag can be a hate crime. It remains to be seen whether embassies will also display Black Lives Matter banners. The last Super Bowl began with the “Black National Anthem,” so white Americans should get used to blacks’ quasi-sovereign status.

While new symbols go up, others come down. The city of Charlottesville won’t just take down Robert E. Lee, but reportedly wants to ditch Lewis and Clark. San Jose will dump a statue of Thomas Fallon because he raised the American flag over the city. The Father of His Country isn’t safe either, but the country he fathered doesn’t exist anymore. Get ready for Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill instead of Andrew Jackson.

During the Civil War, both sides claimed to be fighting for the Founders’ vision. This new America is explicitly built on repudiation. Thomas Fallon raising the flag is no longer an American triumph, but a shameful affront to Mexicans and American Indians. The Founders enshrined white supremacy. The arrival of Christopher Columbus and whites to the New World isn’t a day of celebration, but a day of mourning. Thanksgiving is no longer about gratitude to God but apologies to American Indians. If there’s anything to be saved from the old America, it’s one silly phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

Many conservatives believe there is a limit to the destruction. There isn’t. America imports people like Ilhan Omar, gives them preferential treatment, and rewards them for hating the country. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Conservatives understand this about economic policy.

Aside from a few tokens hired by the American conservative movement, non-whites have no reason to be patriotic or identify with the historic American nation. Why identify with people who aren’t of your race, especially when you are rewarded by every powerful institution if you claim you’re a victim?

Also, the media should never surprise us. We don’t have a state-run media; we have a media-run state. Media campaigns can determine who and what the state prosecutes. Media also determine who can do business or speak online. Men seek power. Why should we be surprised that journalists use power to shut down others? We should remember what John C. Calhoun taught us: “Power can only be resisted by power.”

For the last half century, the conservative movement has often taught its followers to avoid power. The result was that the Left captured the universities, the media, and the bureaucracy. Progressives even control Big Business. Now, every major institution in America opposes white interests. Therefore, what interest do we have in upholding such a society? It’s absurd to be conservative when there’s little worth conserving.

In an editorial two weeks ago, National Review said that the Capitol should not be a militarized zone but rather symbol of “a free people’s self-representation.” I disagree. The Capitol should remain as it is: the “Green Zone” of an occupying regime as foreign and hostile as anything in Iraq or Afghanistan. It should look the part. MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace implied that the government should consider military strikes against those who “incite terrorism,” meaning the Capitol protests. We aren’t a free people and should stop pretending we are. Conservatives need to grow up or admit they’re just collaborators and phony opposition.

National Guard in Washington DC

(Credit Image: © Europa Press/Contacto via ZUMA Press)

Where does that leave us? Whites are stateless, leaderless, and without representation in “our” government. There is not one figure who defends whites as whites. Every other group has leaders who explicitly defend interests. Like white South Africans in the 1980s and 1990s, we are trapped in an impossible dilemma. Are we part of a larger “American” country that is now at war with its own white past, or are we something different?

I’d say we are something different – but what? Southern nationalism is a dead end as states like Georgia turn brown. Claiming we are the “true” America makes it hard to forge a separate identity. What’s more, our struggle is worldwide. White Americans face the same opponents and the same challenges as white Canadians, French, Germans, British, Irish, and other members of the European brotherhood. I have far more in common with them than I do with someone like Rashida Tlaib. I don’t care what’s on our passports.

I don’t have the final answer or the ultimate path forward. Something will emerge depending on circumstances and the new challenges that will emerge. However, I do know we need at least to ask the right question before we get the right answer. “How do we save America?” is no longer the right question. “America” itself has become an almost meaningless word. “How do we save our people?” is where we need to start. A Western civilization-state is where we need to end.

What we do in between will be the story of the next few years, perhaps the next few decades. They may prove to be the most important in the entire history of our race. There can be no more illusions. The hour of decision is here. Western Civilization – white Civilization – yes or no? We must make our choice.

Celebrate Little Known but Incredibly Creative White Inventors — Our European Heritage

Posted on by

Celebrate Little Known but Incredibly Creative White Inventors — Our European Heritage

If you’re bored with the media & government hoopla for Black History Month, with various whoring virtue signalling banks & businesses on board, and many invented Black heroes and exaggerated “achievements|”, here’s some virtually unknown White inventors who accomplished amazing things. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/02/14/a-few-great-often-forgotten-white-moments/?subscribe=many_pending_subs#blog_subscription-3

A Few Great, Often Forgotten White Moments

February 14, 2021/19 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Taylor McClain

Since this is Black History month (how can we forget?), it is important (since there is no White History month) to pay tribute to the humble contributions that White folks have made to our culture and to Western Civilization.

I don’t want to risk bragging by enumerating the obvious and blaring it out like some digital-lit billboard on the Interstate, but there are a whole lot of accomplishments that any White person over the age of (hmm) thirty is faintly familiar with. Such as the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the wisdom of  ancient Greece, Christian morality, the Enlightenment, the King James Bible, the common law, property rights, religious tolerance, habeas corpus, universal suffrage, equality under the law, the Golden Rule, free-market economics, the abolition of slavery, respect for women. . . okay, you get the picture.

And the names, my gosh, where do I begin? Let us take note of Joan of Arc, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Leonardo Da Vinci, the mathematician Hypatia (d. 420AD), Michelangelo, Vermeer, Shakespeare, Florence Nightingale, Goethe, Moliere, Jane Austen, Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren, Charles Darwin, Watson & Crick, Olinto De Pretto, Samuel Johnson, Emmeline Pankhurst. . . the list is virtually endless.

My goal is to entertain as well as enlighten the reader with a few not-as-well known, or so-well-known but taken-for-granted inventions, happenings, and ideas, and a modicum of names of White people who deserve to be listed in the pantheon of The Great Whites. Let us begin.

Arthur Scherbius

Arthur Scherbius was a German electrical engineer who patented an invention for a mechanical cipher machine, later called the EnigmaC:\Users\kmacd\Desktop machine. He was born in Frankfurt, Germany and studied electricity at the Technical College in Munich, and then went on to study at the Technical College in Hanover, finishing in March 1903. The next year, he completed a dissertation titled, “Proposal for the Construction of an Indirect Water Turbine Governor” and was awarded a Doctorate in engineering.

He subsequently worked for a number of electrical firms in Germany and Switzerland. In 1918, he founded the firm of Scherbius & Ritter. He made a number of inventions, for example, asynchronous motors, electric pillows and ceramic heating parts; his research contributions led to his name being associated with the Scherbius principle for asynchrous motors. He applied for a patent in February 1918 for a cipher machine based on rotating wired wheels, what is now known as a rotor machine. (Thomas Jefferson invented a cipher wheel also.) His company also purchased the rights to another patent for a rotor machine from Hugo Koch—patented in 1919.

His firm’s cipher machine, marketed under the name “Enigma,” was initially pitched to the commercial market. There were several commercial models, and one of them was adopted by the German Navy (in a modified version) in 1926. The German Army adopted the same machine (also in a modified version somewhat different from the Navy’s) a few years later.

Just like all the other rotor machines, this apparatus had both electrical and mechanical systems. The mechanical part of the system consisted of rotors which were arranged along its spindle, a keyboard, and a stepping component which turned one of the rotors when a key was pressed and a sequence of lamps for all the letters.

The machine was used to encrypt any plaintext message and for every letter typed by the operator the lamp showed a different letter as per the pseudo-random substitution. The letters displayed by the lights were recorded as the enciphered substitute. When the key is pressed, it moves one of the rotors, so that the next key uses a different electric pathway, therefore, producing a different substitute alphabet for all the letters. The cyphertext is then transmitted to another operator who deciphers the message. As long as the settings of the deciphering equipment resembled that of the enciphering machine, the message could be deciphered.

Scherbius’ Enigma provided the German Army with the strongest cryptographic cipher in the world at the time, until the code was broken by Polish mathematicians in the 1930s, as discussed in the following section.

Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Rozycki

While Alan Turing gets all the credit for breaking the code of the Enigma machine, probably due to his cult-like celebration for being a brilliant homosexual and due to the hit movie The Imitation Game, it was actually three Poles who cracked the code. Their story is virtually non-existent to the public.

The earlier Enigma machines were adopted by the government and military services of numerous nations like Germany who used it to send and receive messages before and during the Second World War. The British and their allies understood the problem posed by this equipment in 1931 when a German spy known as Hans Thilo allowed his French spymaster to take a photograph of a stolen operating manual for the Enigma machine. The manual included all the keys and plugboard settings which the Germans used in September and October 1932.

The British and their allies could not decipher the message; therefore, they handed them over to a Polish mathematician named Marian Rejewski. Rejewski together with Henryk Zygalski and Jerzy Rozycki managed to build an Enigma double. They developed numerous techniques for defeating the plugboard and get all the components of the keys, thus making it possible for them to read all the German enciphered messages from 1933 to 1939. With the 1939 German invasion imminent, the Polish government decided to share their secrets with the British.

Less than six weeks before World War II began, on September 3, 1939, Lieutenant Gwido Langer, head of the Polish Central Staff’s cipher bureau invited British and French intelligence chiefs to a meeting at his secret cryptology centre at Pyry in the Kabaty woods near Warsaw.

There he revealed to them that his team, Rejewski, Zygalski, and Rozycki, had cracked the Enigma code seven years before and had been reading German messages ever since. This was five years before Alan Turing had even started studying cryptology – he was still working on a degree in mathematical logic at Princeton University in the United States.

The GC&CS (Government Code and Cipher School) in Buckinghamshire became the Allies’ center for dealing with the war-induced changes in the enciphered messages.

Since the Germans were convinced that their technology could not be deciphered, they continued using the machine for different types of communications with their secret services, in the sky, and on the battlefield. The decoded messages were given to a few commanders who used it cautiously making sure that the Germans did not find out that their cipher was broken.

Alan Turing, gay icon, will be the face on Britain’s next £50 note, which we’ll see in 2021 and is acknowledged as the father of computers. Turing’s legacy is carried on by the annual Turing Award that is the highest recognition in computer science since 1966.

The three young Polish mathematicians who were the first to crack the new German military Enigma code got their faces on a Polish postage stamp in 1983.

Claude Shannon

Have you heard the term “Information Theory?” No? Then perhaps you’ve been watching too many faux movies, like Red Tails (on the Tuskegee Airmen), or reading factvels (novels passing themselves off as non-fiction) like Hidden Figures (on African-American women involved in NASA).

Claude Elwood Shannon wrote the most important master’s thesis in history in which he, at twenty-one years old, applied Boolean algebra to switching circuitry titled “A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits.” In this paper Shannon invented new mathematics to describe the laws of communication. It was a transformative work, turning circuit design from an art into a science, and is now considered to have been the starting point of digital circuit design.

In a 1939 letter to his mentor at Bell Laboratories, Vannevar Bush, Shannon outlined some of his initial ideas on “fundamental properties of general systems for the transmission of intelligence.” After working on the problem for a decade, Shannon finally published his masterpiece in 1948: “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.”  He introduced new ideas, like the entropy rate of a probabilistic model, which have been applied in far-ranging branches of mathematics such as ergodic theory, the study of long-term behavior of dynamical systems. Shannon’s theories have now become the standard framework underlying all modern-day communication systems: optical, underwater, even interplanetary.

His theories laid the groundwork for the electronic communications networks that now lace the earth. As noted by Ioan James, Shannon biographer for the Royal Society, “So wide were its repercussions that the theory was described as one of humanity’s proudest and rarest creations, a general scientific theory that could profoundly and rapidly alter humanity’s view of the world.”

While Shannon worked in a field for which no Nobel prize is offered, his work was richly rewarded by honors including the National Medal of Science (1966) and honorary degrees from Yale (1954), Michigan (1961), Princeton (1962), Edinburgh (1964), Pittsburgh (1964), Northwestern (1970), Oxford (1978), East Anglia (1982), Carnegie-Mellon (1984), Tufts (1987), and the University of Pennsylvania (1991). He was also the first recipient of the Harvey Prize (1972), the Kyoto Prize (1985), and the Shannon Award (1973). The last of these awards, named in his honor, is given by the Information Theory Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and remains the highest possible honor in the community of researchers dedicated to the field that he invented.

But Shannon was also a fun-loving joker; he invented something called the “Ultimate Machine,” a machine—a box really—containing a replica of a human hand whose sole purpose was to turn off a switch that had been turned on by its user. Shannon approached research with a sense of curiosity, humor, and fun. An accomplished unicyclist, he was famous for cycling the halls of Bell Labs at night, juggling as he went. His later work on chess-playing machines and an electronic mouse that could run a maze helped create the field of artificial intelligence, the effort to make machines that think. Yeah, we call them computers.

As Stanford University Professor David Tse says, Shannon “invented the future.”

You can watch a recent documentary on Shannon’s life at Amazon Prime.

Oscar H. Banker

If you had never heard of Claude Shannon, then I can guarantee that you’ve never heard this man’s name. You should know it. . . you probably drove or were driven somewhere recently using two of his historic inventions — the automatic transmission and power steering.

Oscar H. Banker (b. Asatour Sarafian, May 31, 1895) was an Armenian-American inventor who patented a number of works, including an automatic transmission and power steering for automobiles. He is considered the “father of the automatic transmission.”

General Motors incorporated the semi-automatic transmission system into some of its vehicles in 1934, oddly enough the same year that Banker filed for a patent on the automatic transmission. The GM design had many flaws, leading Banker to propose his system to the company, asserting that it would be safer and more durable. After battling for eight years, Banker’s design was adopted and GM finally offered the American driver automatic transmissions using Banker’s design in 1940 in Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs, the first mass-produced automatic transmission vehicles. It was a marvel of engineering complexity that simplified driving so much that today, 97 per cent of all cars have just two pedals.

1940 Oldsmobile

In Banker’s memoirs titled Dreams and Wars of an American Inventor: An Immigrant’s Romance published in 1983 he writes: “America is yet the greatest country existing for opportunity, for achievement and if a person can endure the hardships, ridicule, rebuffs, whatever and keep on going! That is what counts. And absolutely nothing else.”

The Drinking Bird

It would seem that brilliant people have a penchant for designing useless toys if you follow the examples of Claude Shannon and Miles Sullivan both of whom worked for Bell Labs in the 1940s. Sullivan filed for a patent on his toy in 1946.

The drinking bird is an iconic desk toy, but can you explain how it works? The principle is unintuitive at first glance, but beautifully simple in hindsight, like only the most brilliant inventions are.

At its core, the drinking bird is a heat engine, not unlike a steam turbine or diesel engine. When the bird’s head dips in the water, it gets wet. When the water evaporates, the bird’s head cools. This temperature change in-turn changes the internal pressure of the bird’s vacuum sealed body, and the movement of the gases and liquids inside propel the bird’s motion.

The bird’s underlying principle is unintuitive at first glance, beautifully simple and a mesmerizing feat of engineering. The drinking bird illustrates many principles in chemistry and physics: boiling and condensation; combined gas law; torque; the center of mass; capillary action (wicking of water into the felt); wet-bulb temperature (temperature difference between head and body bulbs depends on the relative humidity of the air); the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution; heat of vaporization/heat of condensation; and the functioning of a heat engine.

It’s best just to watch it in action and listen to the engineer guy explain it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=UCKC-QVcVn0%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26rel%3D0

The Columbian Exposition of 1893

The World’s Columbian Exposition celebrated the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America. (Or as Wikipedia says, Columbus’s arrival in the new world.)

There hasn’t been a World’s Fair in North America since 1986 in Vancouver, B.C., and the last one in the US was in New Orleans in 1984. During the Fairs’ heydays, wealthy and middleclass families would make pilgrimages across the seas to meccas of modernization to see the wonders firsthand.

Rather than trumpeting how great each nation was or could be, the Fairs became pitiful reminders of how desperate we had become. World’s Fairs don’t even try to capture the imagination like they used to. The 1939 World’s Fair’s Dawn of a New Day slogan exuded aspirational wonder as nations shamelessly hawked their latest kitchen appliances or technological innovation.

The 1964 Fair held in New York focused on Peace Through Understanding—how many foreign wars has the US engaged in since then? The last Fair in 2015 in Milan, Italy had as its theme — Feeding the planet, energy for life — it focused on ending hunger and developing food sustainability for impoverished nations. . . what a downer!

Dubai, a sheikhdom in the United Arab Emirates, bet billions of dollars on an Expo to rejuvenate its struggling economy. That Expo is now postponed to Oct. 1, 2021, due to the coronavirus pandemic.

But the Columbian Expo held in Chicago was probably the pinnacle of global mankind’s demonstration of striving for excellence.

Fredrick Law Olmsted, possibly the world’s foremost landscape architect, laid out the plan to build on a swamp requiring wood pilings driven into the ground to support the buildings. He also created a system of lagoons and lakes in which full size replicas of Columbus’ ships, the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria floated. 40,000 skilled and unskilled laborers (making ten cents a day) constructed the fair’s buildings.

There were over 65,000 exhibits at the fair covering 630 acres. The Chicago skyline was dominated by a 250-foot-high Ferris wheel, designed for the fair by inventor George Ferris. It was 100 feet taller than today’s Ferris wheel at Chicago’s Navy Pier and had 36 cars capable of holding 60 people each. Fully loaded, it could carry 2,160 people and took a full twenty minutes to make one rotation. The commission responsible for the Fair believed it couldn’t be done. But Ferris, embodying the spirit of American ingenuity and doggedness, built it anyway.

The color of the material generally used to cover the buildings’ façades, white staff, which was a type of plaster of Paris, gave the fairgrounds its nickname—the White City. Its scale and grandeur far exceeded all prior world’s fairs including the one held in Paris in 1889 symbolized by the Eiffel Tower. The Columbian Expo became a symbol of emerging American Exceptionalism.

The main entryway was a peristyle of forty-eight massive fluted columns on either side of an arch in the style of the Arc de Triompe.

Every US state built an exhibition house or building to show its products. California had, among other things, a full-size medieval knight on a horse made of prunes. Missouri showcased a replica of the Statue of Liberty made of sugar. Philadelphia sent the Liberty Bell to grace Pennsylvania’s building.

This was the first Fair to solicit exhibits from foreign countries and forty-six heeded the call. It seemed that each nation was in a fierce competition to excel the others. France built a nearly full-size wing of the Palace of Versailles.

On October 9, 1893, nearly a million people paid 50 cents to attend the opening where President Grover Cleveland pushed a solid gold button to switch on George Westinghouse’s electric lights that illuminated in a bath of brilliant whiteness the staff-laden buildings of the Fair. Nearly half of the total population of the US attended the Fair.

It is impossible to describe the awesome accomplishment of the White men and women who came together to create one of the wonders of the modern world. Everything about it was the biggest, the best, the greatest. It had the longest telescope in the world, the largest building in the world, and a choir of 2,500 singers.

A good book to read on the subject is Erik Larson’s The Devil in the White City. Another place that I really recommend is the documentary narrated by Gene Wilder titled “Magic of the World’s Fair.” Trust me, the documentary will amaze you.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=cpOQE5KJJds%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26rel%3D0

If you watch the documentary, and I hope you do, you will be left with a sense of appreciation for what white people have achieved. Like George Ferris who was not content to allow the erector-set appearing Eifel Tower to stand as the crowning glory of civilization, there were others who motivated by money, fame, or ego, would scale mountains of obstacles, and leave their indelible record in the history books and in their genes for future generations.

You might also feel a bit wistful if not melancholy as you contemplate that White people descended to the deepest part of the oceans, climbed the highest land masses, and flew to the moon to go for a walk.

Can we ever attain the impossible tasks again? Or have we lost that intangible component, that antecedent of accomplishment, that precursor of victory, and that faculty of deliberative striving?

Have we lost it — our will?

Category: Uncategorized

CAPITOL “INSURRECTION” HOAX: How Lying Press Would Spin The Jan 6 Protest If Trump Were A Democrat

Posted on by

CAPITOL “INSURRECTION” HOAX: How Lying Press Would Spin The Jan 6 Protest If Trump Were A Democrat.

Powerful video with Peter Brimelow of VDARE. This alleged “insurrection”—this alleged “coup d’état”—carried no weapons. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZcoGPb5Qjj01/?utm_campaign=CAPITOL+%22INSURRECTION%22+HOAX&utm_content=VIDEO&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendx

TD Bank Anti-White Virtue Signalling

Posted on by

TD Bank Anti-White Virtue Signalling

I was at the TD Bank today and after the usual mask harassment, I waited in line and watched the screens above the tellers. Posters plugging Black History Month & pukesome virtue signalling: “We are committed to fighting anti-Black racism, this month and every month.” What about fighting anti-White “employment equity”? What about recognizing and supporting European History Month, celebrating the overwhelming contributions to Canada of the European founding/settler people?

The Origins of White Guilt by Dr. Tom Sunic

Posted on by

The Origins of White Guilt by Dr. Tom Sunic

February 8, 2021/14 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Vincent Van Gogh, “Sorrowing old Man,” 1890

There are several different approaches to the study of the pathology of White guilt, including linguistic, historical and religious. One needs, however, to critically look at this faulty verbal construct first, a construct which first appeared in America several decades ago, and which has been championed in the media and academia ever since.

At first look, the expression “White guilt” defies lexical rules of Standard English.  Should one accept this expression as a valid tool in social and political communication, one might just as well substitute the adjective “white” with the adjectives “brown,” “yellow,” or “black.” So far, however, no scholar, no journalist has ever ventured to use the expressions Black Guilt or Brown Guilt, for the simple reason that from the semantic point of view these colorful expressions sound silly in the standard English language.  The same lexical rule, however, does not apply to White guilt, an expression that has become by now part of the everyday language. In addition, seen from the educational perspective, the expression “White Guilt” is designed to serve as a guidebook for reeducating and reprograming Whites, or short of that for having Whites expiate their real or alleged sins of racism. Conversely, all other non-White racial categories are automatically exonerated from any guilt feelings and thusly from any need for political penitence.

The difficulty in dealing with the concept of “White guilt” is further exacerbated by the impossibility of having it properly translated into non-English languages in Europe. Over the last eighty years US college social science departments, mostly controlled by crypto-communist scholars, have been in the forefront of crafting outlandish political terms and creating new political concepts which, when translated and transposed into the European media and school curricula sound odd. Moreover, ill-defined American verbal constructs, such as “hate speech,” “ethnic sensitivity training,”” diversity,” “white supremacists,” “affirmative action,” have by now become a linchpin in the US education and legislation. These expressions, when used in other European languages often produce unintelligible verbal and legal equivalents.

Of course Europe has concocted its own bizarre expressions, especially when used during legal proceedings against nationalist dissidents at local courts of justice. A case in point is the German highly obtrusive, abstract compound noun that figures prominently in the German Criminal code, e.g.,  Paragraph # 130, bearing the demonizing subtitle “Volksverhetzung.” This heavy-handed German compound noun is a clear-cut case of linguistic barbarism, having given birth by now to dozens of faulty English translations (popular incitement, sedition, etc.). It is also a word that during court hearings never ever explicitly denotes the defendant’s ethnicity. This word, which German prosecuting attorneys have been tossing around since the early 1990s when pressing charges against social undesirables, has thus far dispatched thousands of Germans to prison for varying durations.

The sticky issue for many citizens in the US and Europe, regardless of their political beliefs is that they often take these expressions as a sign of erudite learning, never bothering to examine their etymology. Or worse, never scrutinizing those individuals who first put those words in circulation. The expression “White guilt,” along with hundreds of similarly ill-defined terms that have sprung up in the USA over the last fifty years, is just an embellished follow-up term of the now defunct Soviet-Speak, which likewise contained a myriad of similar surreal nouns and convoluted phrases, such as “democratization,” “domestic fascist terrorists,”  “antifascist struggle,” “socialist fight against counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies,” “economic self-management,” “peaceful  coexistence,” “interethnic  tolerance,” etc.  The Liberal System in the US and EU, along with its legal and academic apparatchiks, is now in the belated process of updating this old Bolshevik language.

Historical Framework of White Guilt

TOO has previously documented the timespan and major architects of this new verbal overhaul whose final objective is the dispossession of White peoples.  One must look firstly at the period starting with 1945 and after, a period which brought about not just a new political order, but also marked the beginning of the use of a new sanitized, demonizing political vocabulary.  Defeated Germany bore the brunt of the new notion of the political, although citizens in the victorious US and the UK swiftly followed suit with their own self-flagellating rhetoric. Words such as “colonialism,” “segregation,” “racial distancing,” “apartheid,” and “fascism,” soon became the metaphors for the absolute evil, with “fascism” now denoting pretty much anything to the right of center. Over the last seventy-five years, the West has embarked on a penitential passion play whose effects can be observed today in most media outlets.  Incidentally, the System’s removal of president Donald Trump from office was in large part due to the fact that Trump’s rhetoric on “fake news” was incompatible with the media’s message of universal love that has inspired the post-World War II narrative as preached by the System.

What is frequently overlooked, however, is that guilt-tripping Whites in the realm of politics has been unfolding hand in hand with a gradual criminalization of the White cultural heritage. The destructive role of the Frankfurt school and its mostly Jewish-Marxist scholars in instilling the concept of White guilt has been amply demonstrated (here), although the postwar brainwashing of Whites can by no means be attributed to Jewish scholars and activists only.  I tried, quite some time ago, to summarize the history of intellectual purges in Europe, starting immediately after the end of World War, which gradually resulted in the growth of the language of guilt, leading subsequently to suicidal self-denial of millions of White students and politicians in Europe and the US.  As I noted in Homo Americanus,

Particularly harsh was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics. Since National- Socialist Germany had significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US reeducational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers. Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the American occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy to what later would become “the democratic Germany.” [i]

Likewise, French intellectual life from 1944–1950 was similarly depleted of hundreds of anticommunist and nationalist intellectuals suspected of fascist collaboration, with many becoming objects of public shaming. Dominique Venner:

Of all professional categories, journalists and writers were hit the hardest. This underlines the ideological character of the conflict and the ensuing purges. The proportion of writers and journalists who were shot, imprisoned, and barred from their profession surpasses all other professional categories. Do we need to be reminded of the assassination of Albert Clément, Philippe Henriot, Robert Denoël, of the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle, of the death of Paul Allard in prison prior to court hearings and of the executions of Georges Suarez, Robert Brasillach, Jean Luchaire […] [or] the death sentence pronounced in absentia or a commuted prison sentence for Lucien Rebatet, Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, etc.?” [ii]

Ironically, it was thanks to the threat of Soviet communism during the Cold War that many previously banned European thinkers and academics managed to resurrect their career.  It didn’t last long.  From 1950–1990, Western intelligence agencies, with the USA at the helm, had to rely heavily on skills of prominent anticommunist and White nationalist academics and scientists in an effort to contain the perceived Soviet threat. With the Cold War over, with the Soviet Union dead by 1990, the System, i.e., the Deep State, began to recuperate again its own crypto-communist repressive, albeit Covid-covered face, the grand finale of which was seen on January 20, 2021, during the System’s staged palace coup in Washington DC.

The religious framework of White guilt

Putting solely the blame on the liberal media and crypto-communist college professors for generating the culture of White guilt is only partially correct.  In order to tentatively elicit a convincing answer regarding the pathology of White guilt one needs to raise some rhetorical questions about Christian teachings. Why are White Christian peoples, in contrast to other peoples of other races and other religions on Earth, more prone to excessive altruism toward non-White out-groups?  Why are guilt feelings practically nonexistent among non-White peoples? One answer to these questions may be found in Christian teachings that have made up  an important pillar of Western civilization over the centuries.  Over the last one hundred years, modern Liberal and Communist elites have aggressively promoted those same feeling of White guilt, albeit in their own atheistic, secular and “multicultural” modalities. One must rightfully reject the Liberal or Antifa palaver about White guilt, yet the fact remains that the Vatican, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the German Bishops’ conference, along with all other Christian denominations in Europe and the US today are the loudest sponsors of non-White immigration to Europe and America, as well as the strongest advocates of White guilt (here).  The Church’s ecumenical preaching about a global city under one god with all of humanity is fully in accordance with the early Christian dogma on man’s fall and his eventual redemption.

It must be pointed out that early Christian apostles, evangelists and theologians who foisted the dogma of man’s guilt were all by birth and without any exception non-Europeans (St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Paul, Cyprian, etc.)  from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor and Judea.  Having this in mind, lambasting Islam or Judaism in the present as the sole carriers of aggressive non-European anti-White ideology, as many White nationalists do, while downplaying the Middle-Eastern birthplace of Christianity, cannot be a sign of neither moral nor intellectual consistency.  The Roman poet Juvenal, describes graphically in his satires the Rome of the late first century, a time when the city was swarming with multitudes of Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers, all of them offering a quick ride to eternal salvation for some and eternal damnation for others (here). Similar messianic, redemptive beliefs about the shining future, under the guidance of prominent early Bolshevik agitators, most of them of Jewish origin, have found their new location, two millennia later, among credulous intellectuals and equality-hungry masses. After the fall of Communism, the same messianic drive to punish the guilty ones who defy modern Liberal and multicultural scholasticism found its loudest mouthpiece among US neocons and antifa inquisitors.

This is not the place to rehash  Friedrich Nietzsche’s own emotional ravings at Christians, nor quote dozens of thinkers and scholars who had earlier described  the psychological link between early Jewish and Christian zealots of first-century Rome and communist commissars of the early twentieth century. Times have changed but the obsession as to how extirpate or reeducate those who doubt the myths of the System haven’t changed a bit.  The psychological profile of US modern-day Antifa zealots and their college professor supporters bears a close resemblance with early uprooted, largely miscegenated, effeminate Christian masses in the late Roman empire.  The Jew St. Paul and later on the North African St. Augustin — judging by their own convulsive contrition — suggest that they suffered from bipolar disorder. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (7:18) may be  the key to grasping the modern version of neurotic White self-haters put on display by  prominent news anchors and humanities professors today:  “And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t.  I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.”

Walter F. Otto, a renowned author on ancient Greek gods [iii] and one of the most quoted Hellenistic scholars, describes the differences between the ancient Greek vs. Christian notion of the sacred. He notes that ancient pagan Greeks laid emphasis on the feelings of shame, unaware of the meaning of feelings of guilt. In his still untranslated book dealing with Christian vs ancient Greek spirituality, he writes:

Mentally sick were their leaders; the weaklings only followed them. The impetus to this  large (Christian) movement came from Paul the Apostle, i.e., from one of those tormented souls who carry an incurable wound within themselves. His furious, bloodthirsty hatred of the new (Christian) faith, his just as furious commitment to it, his ecstatic experience turning him at a single blow from the executioner of Christians into their most fanatical champion — this all  tells  how terrible [Christianity] basically stood and what was to be expected from its spirituality.[iv]

At some point Whites will need to realize that a successful healing of their feelings of guilt presupposes a critical reassessment of their Judeo-Christian-inspired origins.  If Whites in Europe and the US were once upon a time all eager to embrace the Semitic notion of original sin, no wonder that two thousand years later they could likewise be well programmed to put up with a variety of World War II necrophiliac victimhoods, as well as tune in to fake news delivered by their politicians.  Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity. In Athens or in Jerusalem.


NOTES:

[i] T. Sunic, Homo americanus; Child of the postmodern Age (London: Arktos, 2018), p. 75-76.

[ii] Ibid, p. 88. (Translated and quoted in Dominique Venner,  Histoire  de la collaboration (Paris: Pygmallion, 2000), p. 515-516).

[iii] Walter F. Otto, The Homeric Gods (translated by Moses Hadas) (London: Thames & Hudson, 1954).

[iv] Walter F. Otto, Der Geist der Antike und die  christliche Welt (Bonn: Verlag F. Cohen, 1923), p. 44.

The Origins of White Guilt

February 8, 2021/14 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Vincent Van Gogh, “Sorrowing old Man,” 1890

There are several different approaches to the study of the pathology of White guilt, including linguistic, historical and religious. One needs, however, to critically look at this faulty verbal construct first, a construct which first appeared in America several decades ago, and which has been championed in the media and academia ever since.

At first look, the expression “White guilt” defies lexical rules of Standard English.  Should one accept this expression as a valid tool in social and political communication, one might just as well substitute the adjective “white” with the adjectives “brown,” “yellow,” or “black.” So far, however, no scholar, no journalist has ever ventured to use the expressions Black Guilt or Brown Guilt, for the simple reason that from the semantic point of view these colorful expressions sound silly in the standard English language.  The same lexical rule, however, does not apply to White guilt, an expression that has become by now part of the everyday language. In addition, seen from the educational perspective, the expression “White Guilt” is designed to serve as a guidebook for reeducating and reprograming Whites, or short of that for having Whites expiate their real or alleged sins of racism. Conversely, all other non-White racial categories are automatically exonerated from any guilt feelings and thusly from any need for political penitence.

The difficulty in dealing with the concept of “White guilt” is further exacerbated by the impossibility of having it properly translated into non-English languages in Europe. Over the last eighty years US college social science departments, mostly controlled by crypto-communist scholars, have been in the forefront of crafting outlandish political terms and creating new political concepts which, when translated and transposed into the European media and school curricula sound odd. Moreover, ill-defined American verbal constructs, such as “hate speech,” “ethnic sensitivity training,”” diversity,” “white supremacists,” “affirmative action,” have by now become a linchpin in the US education and legislation. These expressions, when used in other European languages often produce unintelligible verbal and legal equivalents.

Of course Europe has concocted its own bizarre expressions, especially when used during legal proceedings against nationalist dissidents at local courts of justice. A case in point is the German highly obtrusive, abstract compound noun that figures prominently in the German Criminal code, e.g.,  Paragraph # 130, bearing the demonizing subtitle “Volksverhetzung.” This heavy-handed German compound noun is a clear-cut case of linguistic barbarism, having given birth by now to dozens of faulty English translations (popular incitement, sedition, etc.). It is also a word that during court hearings never ever explicitly denotes the defendant’s ethnicity. This word, which German prosecuting attorneys have been tossing around since the early 1990s when pressing charges against social undesirables, has thus far dispatched thousands of Germans to prison for varying durations.

The sticky issue for many citizens in the US and Europe, regardless of their political beliefs is that they often take these expressions as a sign of erudite learning, never bothering to examine their etymology. Or worse, never scrutinizing those individuals who first put those words in circulation. The expression “White guilt,” along with hundreds of similarly ill-defined terms that have sprung up in the USA over the last fifty years, is just an embellished follow-up term of the now defunct Soviet-Speak, which likewise contained a myriad of similar surreal nouns and convoluted phrases, such as “democratization,” “domestic fascist terrorists,”  “antifascist struggle,” “socialist fight against counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies,” “economic self-management,” “peaceful  coexistence,” “interethnic  tolerance,” etc.  The Liberal System in the US and EU, along with its legal and academic apparatchiks, is now in the belated process of updating this old Bolshevik language.

Historical Framework of White Guilt

TOO has previously documented the timespan and major architects of this new verbal overhaul whose final objective is the dispossession of White peoples.  One must look firstly at the period starting with 1945 and after, a period which brought about not just a new political order, but also marked the beginning of the use of a new sanitized, demonizing political vocabulary.  Defeated Germany bore the brunt of the new notion of the political, although citizens in the victorious US and the UK swiftly followed suit with their own self-flagellating rhetoric. Words such as “colonialism,” “segregation,” “racial distancing,” “apartheid,” and “fascism,” soon became the metaphors for the absolute evil, with “fascism” now denoting pretty much anything to the right of center. Over the last seventy-five years, the West has embarked on a penitential passion play whose effects can be observed today in most media outlets.  Incidentally, the System’s removal of president Donald Trump from office was in large part due to the fact that Trump’s rhetoric on “fake news” was incompatible with the media’s message of universal love that has inspired the post-World War II narrative as preached by the System.

What is frequently overlooked, however, is that guilt-tripping Whites in the realm of politics has been unfolding hand in hand with a gradual criminalization of the White cultural heritage. The destructive role of the Frankfurt school and its mostly Jewish-Marxist scholars in instilling the concept of White guilt has been amply demonstrated (here), although the postwar brainwashing of Whites can by no means be attributed to Jewish scholars and activists only.  I tried, quite some time ago, to summarize the history of intellectual purges in Europe, starting immediately after the end of World War, which gradually resulted in the growth of the language of guilt, leading subsequently to suicidal self-denial of millions of White students and politicians in Europe and the US.  As I noted in Homo Americanus,

Particularly harsh was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics. Since National- Socialist Germany had significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US reeducational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers. Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the American occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy to what later would become “the democratic Germany.” [i]

Likewise, French intellectual life from 1944–1950 was similarly depleted of hundreds of anticommunist and nationalist intellectuals suspected of fascist collaboration, with many becoming objects of public shaming. Dominique Venner:

Of all professional categories, journalists and writers were hit the hardest. This underlines the ideological character of the conflict and the ensuing purges. The proportion of writers and journalists who were shot, imprisoned, and barred from their profession surpasses all other professional categories. Do we need to be reminded of the assassination of Albert Clément, Philippe Henriot, Robert Denoël, of the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle, of the death of Paul Allard in prison prior to court hearings and of the executions of Georges Suarez, Robert Brasillach, Jean Luchaire […] [or] the death sentence pronounced in absentia or a commuted prison sentence for Lucien Rebatet, Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, etc.?” [ii]

Ironically, it was thanks to the threat of Soviet communism during the Cold War that many previously banned European thinkers and academics managed to resurrect their career.  It didn’t last long.  From 1950–1990, Western intelligence agencies, with the USA at the helm, had to rely heavily on skills of prominent anticommunist and White nationalist academics and scientists in an effort to contain the perceived Soviet threat. With the Cold War over, with the Soviet Union dead by 1990, the System, i.e., the Deep State, began to recuperate again its own crypto-communist repressive, albeit Covid-covered face, the grand finale of which was seen on January 20, 2021, during the System’s staged palace coup in Washington DC.

The religious framework of White guilt

Putting solely the blame on the liberal media and crypto-communist college professors for generating the culture of White guilt is only partially correct.  In order to tentatively elicit a convincing answer regarding the pathology of White guilt one needs to raise some rhetorical questions about Christian teachings. Why are White Christian peoples, in contrast to other peoples of other races and other religions on Earth, more prone to excessive altruism toward non-White out-groups?  Why are guilt feelings practically nonexistent among non-White peoples? One answer to these questions may be found in Christian teachings that have made up  an important pillar of Western civilization over the centuries.  Over the last one hundred years, modern Liberal and Communist elites have aggressively promoted those same feeling of White guilt, albeit in their own atheistic, secular and “multicultural” modalities. One must rightfully reject the Liberal or Antifa palaver about White guilt, yet the fact remains that the Vatican, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the German Bishops’ conference, along with all other Christian denominations in Europe and the US today are the loudest sponsors of non-White immigration to Europe and America, as well as the strongest advocates of White guilt (here).  The Church’s ecumenical preaching about a global city under one god with all of humanity is fully in accordance with the early Christian dogma on man’s fall and his eventual redemption.

It must be pointed out that early Christian apostles, evangelists and theologians who foisted the dogma of man’s guilt were all by birth and without any exception non-Europeans (St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Paul, Cyprian, etc.)  from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor and Judea.  Having this in mind, lambasting Islam or Judaism in the present as the sole carriers of aggressive non-European anti-White ideology, as many White nationalists do, while downplaying the Middle-Eastern birthplace of Christianity, cannot be a sign of neither moral nor intellectual consistency.  The Roman poet Juvenal, describes graphically in his satires the Rome of the late first century, a time when the city was swarming with multitudes of Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers, all of them offering a quick ride to eternal salvation for some and eternal damnation for others (here). Similar messianic, redemptive beliefs about the shining future, under the guidance of prominent early Bolshevik agitators, most of them of Jewish origin, have found their new location, two millennia later, among credulous intellectuals and equality-hungry masses. After the fall of Communism, the same messianic drive to punish the guilty ones who defy modern Liberal and multicultural scholasticism found its loudest mouthpiece among US neocons and antifa inquisitors.

This is not the place to rehash  Friedrich Nietzsche’s own emotional ravings at Christians, nor quote dozens of thinkers and scholars who had earlier described  the psychological link between early Jewish and Christian zealots of first-century Rome and communist commissars of the early twentieth century. Times have changed but the obsession as to how extirpate or reeducate those who doubt the myths of the System haven’t changed a bit.  The psychological profile of US modern-day Antifa zealots and their college professor supporters bears a close resemblance with early uprooted, largely miscegenated, effeminate Christian masses in the late Roman empire.  The Jew St. Paul and later on the North African St. Augustin — judging by their own convulsive contrition — suggest that they suffered from bipolar disorder. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (7:18) may be  the key to grasping the modern version of neurotic White self-haters put on display by  prominent news anchors and humanities professors today:  “And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t.  I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.”

Walter F. Otto, a renowned author on ancient Greek gods [iii] and one of the most quoted Hellenistic scholars, describes the differences between the ancient Greek vs. Christian notion of the sacred. He notes that ancient pagan Greeks laid emphasis on the feelings of shame, unaware of the meaning of feelings of guilt. In his still untranslated book dealing with Christian vs ancient Greek spirituality, he writes:

Mentally sick were their leaders; the weaklings only followed them. The impetus to this  large (Christian) movement came from Paul the Apostle, i.e., from one of those tormented souls who carry an incurable wound within themselves. His furious, bloodthirsty hatred of the new (Christian) faith, his just as furious commitment to it, his ecstatic experience turning him at a single blow from the executioner of Christians into their most fanatical champion — this all  tells  how terrible [Christianity] basically stood and what was to be expected from its spirituality.[iv]

At some point Whites will need to realize that a successful healing of their feelings of guilt presupposes a critical reassessment of their Judeo-Christian-inspired origins.  If Whites in Europe and the US were once upon a time all eager to embrace the Semitic notion of original sin, no wonder that two thousand years later they could likewise be well programmed to put up with a variety of World War II necrophiliac victimhoods, as well as tune in to fake news delivered by their politicians.  Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity. In Athens or in Jerusalem.


NOTES:

[i] T. Sunic, Homo americanus; Child of the postmodern Age (London: Arktos, 2018), p. 75-76.

[ii] Ibid, p. 88. (Translated and quoted in Dominique Venner,  Histoire  de la collaboration (Paris: Pygmallion, 2000), p. 515-516).

[iii] Walter F. Otto, The Homeric Gods (translated by Moses Hadas) (London: Thames & Hudson, 1954).

[iv] Walter F. Otto, Der Geist der Antike und die  christliche Welt (Bonn: Verlag F. Cohen, 1923), p. 44.

The Enemy Insided the Gates

Posted on by
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

The Latest Anti-White Outrage by Corporate America

Posted on by

The Latest Anti-White Outrage by Corporate America

Another anti-White corporate giant. Boycott Coke’s glorified sugar water.
“Coke Requires Diverse Lawyers”, in Seattle Times, January 30, 2021. p. A12.
The world’s largest producer of sugar water warns that it will not contract with law firms that have too many White lawyers. Coca-Cola said it would no longer tolerate excuses, and the number of White lawyers in the firms it deals with must be reduced immediately.

At least 30% of lawyers in such firms must be diverse [not White] and 15% must be Black., and this percentage will be gradually raised to 50% POC. Any law firm that is too White will be docked 30% of fees at first, and then will be permanently blacklisted.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

The last time the old Conservative Party was led by someone whose political philosophy I would feel comfortable acknowledging as my own was almost a decade before my birth.  The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, who became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in Opposition in 1956, led it to victory (a minority government) in the 1957 Dominion election, shortly before winning the party’s largest majority in percentage of seats ever the following year.   Reduced to a minority government again in 1962, Diefenbaker’s government fell in 1963 when Tommy Douglas’ socialists and the right-wing Social Credit Party both supported Liberal leader Lester Pearson when he called for a vote of no confidence because of Diefenbaker’s refusal to allow Washington D. C. to dictate policy in Ottawa on the matter of the nuclear arming of the Bomarc missiles.  

Pearson, who had betrayed his country to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union when he was attached to our Washington embassy in World War II (see the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley before the American House of Un-American Activities Committee), and betrayed the entire Commonwealth to both the Soviets and the Americans when he sided with these powers against the alliance of Britain, France, and Israel in 1957 as a Minister in the government of Louis St. Laurent, was here acting on behalf of John F. Kennedy’s government in the United States.   Diefenbaker continued to lead the party in Opposition for the next four years, which saw the shining moment of his entire career, when he led the Conservatives in fierce opposition to the new flag of 1965, the first major step taken by the Liberals during the long period in which they were led by Lester Pearson and his successor Pierre Trudeau to radically re-invent the country, and strip it of the most visible symbols of its Loyalist heritage and identity.   In 1967, Diefenbaker was replaced by Robert Stanfield as party leader in a leadership convention that was the culmination of two years’ worth of effort on the part of Dalton Camp, then the party president (which is not the same thing as party leader) to oust him.

While I admit that Diefenbaker’s performance in the office of Prime Minister was far less stellar than his performance in the office of Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, his political philosophy was what I admire most about him.  He was a fierce defender of Canada’s Loyalist history and heritage, the traditional institutions derived from these such as the monarchy, Parliament, and the Common Law, and the symbols of all of these, such as the old flag.   While most if not all of his successors have paid lip service to much of this, it has never been with his passion.  He opposed all threats to Canadian freedom, whether it was the external threat posed by increasing American cultural and economic influence – or, as in the case of the Bomarc missiles incident, political influence – or the internal threat posed by the subversion of Parliamentary tradition, the exponential growth of the civil service, and the alarming way in which the government was increasingly treating the latter as a means of bypassing the former to govern by bureaucratic regulation rather than Parliamentary legislation.   His views are best stated in his own words in the speeches collected in his Those Things We Treasure (1972).  

This book and John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown (1956 – posthumously edited by Judith Robinson) are the two classic texts of the political philosophy associated with the old Conservative Party from Sir John A. MacDonald to John G. Diefenbaker, a Canadian version of classical British Toryism.  Sadly both books have been out-of-print for years, although Diefenbaker’s has been fairly easily and inexpensively obtainable through used-book stores.   (I first obtained a copy from Black’s Vintage Books in Winnipeg, sadly no longer around, when I was still a theology student in college.   I had to send away for Farthing’s book when my attention was drawn to it by Ron Dart several years later.)   The classic text of the religious philosophy underlying this political philosophy, expressed as a jeremiad over the latter’s failure, was George Grant’s Lament for a Nation (1965), which remains in print.

After Diefenbaker was ousted, the leadership of the Progressive Conservative fell alternately to people who were more-or-less socialists in Conservative garb, like Stanfield, and had little-to-no problem with increasing bureaucratization and its threat to Canadian freedom, or to people who were basically big business liberals in Conservative garb, like Brian Mulroney, who promoted free trade with the United States, which throughout Canadian history had been a Liberal Party policy, and who had little-to-no problem with increasing American economic and cultural influence over Canada.     It was while Stanfield led the party that a “conservative movement” outside of the party began to form to oppose what Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals were doing and lobby for conservative causes, obviously because it was felt that the Party was failing to do this.    While the organizations and publications that made up this movement fought for good things for the most part – to give one example, Colin Brown founded the National Citizens Coalition in 1975 to fight for government fiscal accountability against Trudeau’s huge deficits – it lamentably tended to ignore the classical texts of Canadian Toryism mentioned in the previous paragraph and look for inspiration to the American conservative movement.   

This led to a blindness in the Mulroney years.   They could perceive that Mulroney had little interest in combatting the sweeping social, moral, and cultural changes that were quickly being introduced as a result of Pierre Trudeau’s having given the Supreme Court powers similar to its American counterpart by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the constitution (although to give credit where credit is due Mulroney was the last Conservative leader to attempt to pass legislation restricting abortion after the newly empowered Court struck the existing laws down in 1988) and thus in that sense was way too far to the Left like Stanfield,  but failed to recognize that the problem stemmed from unnaturally grafting an element of the American republican system onto our system of Crown-in-Parliament where it neither belongs nor fits (a mistake Tony Blair would later make in the United Kingdom) and to see Mulroney’s reversal of traditional Conservative opposition to free trade with the United States for the betrayal it was.   It was during the Mulroney years that the conservative movement allied itself with a populism that had been growing in the Western prairie provinces in response to the exceedingly arrogant way in which they had been treated by Ottawa under Trudeau and how Mulroney had offered little in the way of redress.   Together they formed a new party, the Reform Party of Canada.

This was not the first time conservatism and populism had been united in Canadian history.    John G. Diefenbaker, as explained above, was the last Conservative leader to fully represent in a way that did more than lip service, authentic traditional Canadian Toryism, but he was also a prairie populist reformer, a role that arose naturally out of his early career as a defence lawyer in Saskatchewan.   W. L. Morton, who was head of the history department at the University of Manitoba and the author of the Kingdom of Canada and a Canadian historian second only to Donald Creighton was, like Creighton, a traditional Tory, and, unlike Creighton, a strong advocate for fairer representation of the West in the Dominion government.   Diefenbaker and Morton, however, combined traditional Toryism with Western populism.   The Reform Party combined a neoconservatism that looked for inspiration to the United States with Western populism and this was not a good mix.   Ironically, they gave their party what had originally been the Confederation era name of their despised foe, the Liberals.   Also ironic, but in a less amusing way, their dividing the right-of-centre vote with the Progressive Conservatives kept the Liberals in government from 1993 to 2005.

Realizing that their division would only keep the Liberals in perpetual power, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party began “Unite the Right” discussions in the late 1990, partially merging into the Canadian Alliance in 2000 and then fully uniting into the present Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.  They have had four leaders since then.   The first of these was Stephen Harper, who became Prime Minister with a minority government in 2006, won a majority government in 2011, and served as Prime Minister until 2015.   When Captain Airhead led the Liberals back into government in the Dominion election of that year, Harper stepped down, was briefly replaced by Rona Ambrose as an interim leader, before Andrew Scheer was chosen as the next leader.   Scheer performed incredibly poorly in that role, being initially too cautious as Opposition Leader, then essentially throwing away an election that was practically being handed to him by Captain Airhead with his self-destructive heaping of scandals upon scandals, with his, that is Scheer’s, one shining moment coming in March of last year, when he resolutely opposed the Liberals’ attempt to use the pandemic to escape Parliamentary oversight for two years.   At this point, however, it was too late to salvage Scheer’s leadership, and Erin O’Toole was chosen as the next leader.

Erin O’Toole has now set the record for the shortest time it has ever taken for a Conservative leader to so disgust me that I vowed never to vote for anyone in the party as long as he led it.   It took Stephen Harper until the last year of his premiership, when he introduced legislation to enhance the powers of government to invade the privacy of Canadians and spy on them, to do that.   Erin O’Toole has not even been leader for a full five months yet and he has already managed to do so.

On Monday O’Toole announced that he would be seeking to kick Derek Sloan out of the party caucus.   Sloan is the Member who represents the Upper Canada riding of Hastings-Lennox and Addington in the House of Commons.   Although he is a quite young MP – he is in his mid-thirties and was elected for the first time in the Dominion election of two years ago – he was one of O’Toole’s rivals in the leadership race last year.   He had become a target of the Left earlier that year when he asked the question of whether Theresa Tam, the federal chief medical mandarin, was working for Canada or China.  The Left assumed this to be a racist question based upon Tam’s ethnicity, although the question naturally arises out of the possible conflict of interests between her position in Canada and her role in the World Health Organization over which Red China has held an inordinate amount of influence, especially under its current director.   Sloan, a Seventh Day Adventist, is also a strong social conservative who opposes abortion, gender-identity discrimination legislation, and the Liberal government’s current attempts to ban conversion therapy.   O’Toole’s announcement was based upon the revelation that Sloan had received a donation from Paul Fromm.   On Wednesday the party voted to expel Sloan from the caucus.

Sloan’s response to this, appropriately, was to call out O’Toole for his blatant unfairness and hypocrisy.   Sloan could not have been reasonably expected to have known that the donation came from Paul Fromm since he had used his first name, Frederick, in making it, nor, would I add, is it reasonable in a free country to expect people who receive donations to vet their donors to make sure they are not guilty of some sort of crimethink.   That is the unfairness – the hypocrisy is in the fact that the party took a cut from the same donation and had sold a membership to the donor. 

This incident illustrates the biggest problem I have with the post-Diefenbaker leadership of the Conservative Party whether of the Left-leaning Stanfield variety or the American neo-liberal Mulroney variety.   They have all been terrified of being labelled “Far Right” and since they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to define the “Far Right” and attach this label to whomever they wish without serious challenge, this has meant that they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to dictate the acceptable parameters of thought within their own party.   Back in the period alluded to earlier, when discontent with the performance of the Progressive Conservatives had led to the creation of first a conservative movement and then the Reform Party of Canada, Dalton Camp, the party official who had orchestrated the backstabbing of Diefenbaker, was a regular commentator on the CBC.   He was frequently part of a panel with Erik Kierens of the Liberals and Stephen Lewis of the NDP as the Conservative representative to create the false impression of balanced commentary (like Kierens he very much represented the Left wing of his own party).  

Camp shared with his Liberal and NDP colleagues an abhorrence of social conservatism or “the Religious Right” as he called it, and regarded the phenomenon as both an import from the United States and the next thing to fascism.   This was utter nonsense, of course – most of the things that the Religious Right railed against – abortion on demand, the relaxing of laws and liberalization of attitudes towards sexual morality, the driving of the Bible and Lord’s Prayer out of schools – came to Canada much later than they did to the United States and consequently what social conservatives wish to return to had remained the status quo here much longer and had been the status quo much more recently(1).    Indeed, the first issue in the Culture War between the Left and the Religious Right in which the Left’s triumph in Canada preceded its victory in the United States was same-sex marriage, and Camp could hardly have claimed the Religious Right’s stance on this issue as an American import because he died of complications from a stroke the year prior to the first court-ordered alteration to the status quo of 1 man + 1 woman = marriage and three years before the Liberals introduced the bill in Parliament that generalized the change.    The leadership of the Conservative Party, however, was terrified of the accusations coming from the Liberals, the NDP, the Left-dominated mainstream media, and their own Dalton Camp, that the social conservative ideas of  the conservative movement and the new Reform Party were dangerously” Far Right”.

That by taking this stance they were helping to move the centre of the Canadian mainstream dangerously close to the “Far Left” never seemed to occur to them.

Everything I have just said with regards to the social, moral, and religious issues of the Culture War also applies to the issues pertaining to immigration, nationality, and race except that with these issues, the Progressive Conservative Party leadership was even quicker to concede to the Liberals and to the Left the right to define a consensus and the acceptable parameters containing that consensus from which all dissent would be excluded. The capitulation was more complete.   Furthermore, the leadership  of the Reform Party joined in this concession with regards to these issues.

What is the consensus that the Liberals and their further-to-the-Left allies, given this free reign, imposed upon Canada?

It amounts to this: if you are white, discriminating against someone who is not is about the worst thing you could do, and the law must protect others against your discrimination by giving the government the power to punish you with complete and total economic and social destruction, but you yourself must have no protection under law against discrimination, because you, being white, are incapable of being discriminated against, and if you complain about or even notice the unfairness of this then you are an evil, prejudiced bigot, a racist, a Nazi, who must either be re-programmed or completely excluded from society.

The Liberal Party worked hard at establishing this double standard which is utterly repugnant morally and completely indefensible intellectually as consensus, or rather state-imposed dogma,  during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   In 1970 Parliament passed a bill introduced while Pearson was Prime Minister that added sections 318-320 to the Criminal Code which created several new offences each having to do in some way with “hate propaganda”.   This was entirely unnecessary because anything criminalized by these sections that really ought to be against the law was already against the existing laws against inciting crime and violence.   The existing laws were superior in every way because they protected all Canadians alike.   In 1977, Trudeau’s Liberals rammed the Canadian Human Rights Act through Parliament.   Despite the title, this bill had nothing to do with ensuring that such basic rights as life, liberty, and property were guaranteed to all people in Canada or in protecting anybody in Canada from the abuse by the state that is the first thing that pops into most people’s minds upon hearing “human rights violations”.   The Act was entirely about dictating to Canadians that they could not discriminate against each other on the grounds of race, sex, etc. in their private lives.   It established an investigatory body to look into accusations of discrimination, and a tribunal to hear the charges.   Since it is considered “civil law”, the accused are denied the rights they would have as defendants under criminal law.   The reality, however, is that it punishes the “crime” of wrongthink.   Although the law is written in such a way as to make the offence reside in the act of discriminating rather than the race/sex/whatever of the complainant and the accused so that in theory, the white person turned down from a job by an employer who only hires people from his own Asian or African nationality ought to have just as strong a case as someone in the reverse situation, that is not how it works in practice.   The Commission that investigates and the Tribunal that hears these cases operate on an Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others” basis, which is, of course, how the Trudeau Liberals instructed them to operate from the beginning.   In the few instances when anybody has ever bothered to question the uneven way in which this law is administered, the answer has always been to point back to the intent behind the law, to protect “vulnerable minorities”.    It is, of course, incredibly bad practice to allow the intent behind a law that is worded in such a way as to suggest that it protects everybody from racial discrimination to overrule the wording and turn it into a law that protects people from some races and not others, but then, the law itself is bad because it unnecessarily extends government control into the private lives of Canadians to the point of telling them what they can and cannot be thinking when interacting with others when all that was really called for was for the government to lead by example in not practicing colour discrimination itself.   That, however, would have required going back to the policies of John G. Diefenbaker, the Conservative Prime Minister who  militantly opposed racism and whose vision for the Dominion of Canada was one of national unity, which he believed in so strongly that he made it the title of his three volume memoir One Canada, instead of following the bad example of the Americans, who at least had the sense to call their earlier and equivalent law a “Civil Rights Act”. 

The protecting “vulnerable minorities” justification for all this bad legislation and practice has grown in its rhetorical force from then until now and Pierre Trudeau’s foul offspring has just trotted it out again in support of his upcoming efforts to seize even more control over what Canadians are allowed to think and communicate to each other.   Its rhetorical force should have shrunk.   At the time it was first evoked, 96% of Canadians were white.   This is no longer the case today, indeed, we are at the point where whites becoming a minority is on the near horizon, but the voices from the Left telling us that everybody else belongs to a “vulnerable” or “disadvantaged” minority that needs increased government protection against whites are becoming louder, more stringent and more hysterical by the day.   Don’t expect  those same voices to come to the defence of whites when they become a minority and one far more vulnerable than any other in Canada has ever been due to decades of this anti-white propaganda.   The demographic transformation just alluded to is the direct result of immigration changes introduced by Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   I don’t mean the points system introduced by Order-in-Council in 1967.   It is itself an admirable and fair way of processing applications based upon individual merit, although the Pearson Liberals do not deserve the credit for eliminating racial discrimination from immigration policy that the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History – what Donald Creighton dubbed “the Authorized Version” – assigns them because Diefenbaker had already done that in 1962.   I refer rather to a number of changes introduced quietly, unannounced, and with no fanfare, whereby the civil servants charged with processing applications were told to give priority to applications from non-traditional source countries over those from traditional source countries with the result that “traditional Euro-British sources of immigration were effectively shut off in favour of migrants and their extended families from the Third World” (Kenneth McDonald, A Wind in the Heath: A Memoir, Epic Press, 2003).  

Instead of opposing all of this, as they ought to have done, the Progressive Conservatives whether the socialist Stanfield types, the moderate Joe Clark types, or the neo-liberal Brian Mulroney types embraced it.   Indeed, when Brian Mulroney took over the leadership of the party he basically sent out the message that opposition to the Trudeau agenda on these issues would not be tolerated and that discrimination against whites would be continued.   As Prime Minister, in fact, he set out to out-Trudeau Trudeau himself with regards to immigration.   Perhaps some of the Conservative leader were dense enough to think that Pearson and Trudeau had been continuing Diefenbaker’s “One Canada” vision rather than subverting and inverting it.   For the most part, however, they were terrified of being labelled “Far Right” by the Liberals and the press.   The Liberals, in the Pearson-Trudeau period had attempted the frighten the public into accepting their measures as necessary to fight a non-existent “Far Right” threat, by creating a fake “Canadian Nazi Party”, which their media allies then splashed all over the headlines and the television news.   The Mulroney Conservatives, having received the message, proceeded to pass it on when they gained competition for the right-of-centre vote in the Reform Party.   They ordered CSIS, the spy agency created in the last month of the Trudeau premiership, to create another fake neo-Nazi group, the Heritage Front, which the media again went wild over.   This was in 1989, two years after the Reform Party was formed.   The purpose seems to have been to smear the Reform Party by association, a goal towards which they received assistance from lawyer, activist and Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella in his 1997 book Web of Deceit, which, in my opinion ought to be categorized as fiction, under which genre it might actually deserve an award for its creative plot about the imminent threat of  a neo-Nazism working through the  conservative movement  and  the Reform Party to take over Canada.   Note this is the same Warren Kinsella, who should not be confused with the late novelist W. P. Kinsella (W. P. stood for William Patrick, Warren is, I think, a middle name), but who was, according to a Globe and Mail article conveniently timed to come out just before the last Dominion election, hired by Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives to sling mud of a similar nature against Maxime Bernier, Scheer’s chief rival in the previous Conservative Party leadership race, and his new People’s Party of Canada.

Erin O’Toole has now followed the shameful examples of Mulroney and Scheer.   His motive is obvious enough – only a few weeks ago he was jumped on by Captain Airhead, for giving an interview to Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media.   Captain Airhead, who thinks that only media that he subsidizes and which express views of which he approves, should be allowed to exist, condemned the Rebel as being “Far Right”.   If he had Ludwig von Mises’ concept of “Left” and “Right” as a spectrum moving from total government control on the Left to an absence of government on the Right, he might have had a point, as The Rebel is quite libertarian, but I very much doubt he has read Mises or that he possesses the capacity to do so.   The interview, however, came shortly before the incident on Epiphany when, as Donald the Orange was addressing half a million of his supporters before the Washington Monument, a smaller group entered the Congress building on Capitol Hill, took selfies and, unfortunately in a handful of cases, got into violent skirmishes with the Capitol Hill Police, all of which was blown up by the same media that supported the BLM and Antifa anti-white hate riots that produced far more destruction, violence, and death all across America, into the ludicrous lie of “Trump incites insurrection”.   O’Toole, pissing himself, immediately proceeded to proclaim how much he and the party he leads are against “white supremacists”, by which the media seems to mean anyone who opposes anti-white racism and certainly everyone – all 75 million American voters of them – who supported Trump.   He also took the opportunity to throw his own rival from last year’s leadership race under the bus and out of the party.

Well, perhaps he can instruct his party to stop soliciting me for funds.   I have not received a campaign contribution from Paul Fromm, as I have never stooped so low as to run for office, but I have donated to the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, all of which were founded or co-founded by said Paul Fromm, whom I have known for years.  The first mentioned, which is also, I believe, the oldest is “a group of aid reformers who eschew guilt and believe that population control and free enterprise are the key to development”.   I took that definition from the Glossary in my personally inscribed copy of Down the Drain? A Critical Re-examination of Canadian Foreign Aid written by Paul Fromm and James P. Hull and published by Griffin House, Toronto in 1981.  Fromm and Hull’s approach to foreign aid has always made more sense to me than the Liberal policy of taxing poor people in rich countries to subsidize rich people in poor countries, never more evident than under the current Prime Minister.   The Canadian Association for Free Expression was founded shortly prior to when Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister which was also around the time that Canada’s two most publicized trials for crimethink began, those of Ernst Zuendel, the German born graphic artist and publisher who resided in Toronto and James Keegstra, the school teacher and mayor from Eckville , Alberta.   CAFE is committed to the classical liberal view of John Stuart Mill that speech, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in between, ought never to be suppressed.   While there are many who would think that the cases of Zuendel, whose publications included The Hitler We Loved and Did Six Million Really Die?, and Keegstra, who taught his students that the Jews were behind a conspiracy to dominate the world, stretch that principle past its breaking point, these are, in my opinion, wrong.   Cases like this are not the breaking point of freedom of speech, they are its test.   Only those willing to stand up for freedom of speech, when it is opinions that the vast majority find loathsome that the government is trying to suppress, can truly be said to have passed that test – men like Paul Fromm and the late Doug Christie, who was the lawyer in both of these cases.   If the state is allowed to get away with suppressing extremely unpopular opinions, it will move on to suppressing less unpopular opinions.    In Canada we have moved from the government persecuting a man for saying that Hitler’s victims were significantly less than six-million in number all the way to where the government is trying to tell us that we cannot say that someone born with a penis and testicles and who has XY chromosomes is a man if he self-identifies as a woman.   Give the state censors an inch and they will take a mile.   Pastor Martin Niemöller said “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a socialist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me”.  It astonishes me that there are those familiar with this poem and the story behind who miss the point completely and will get offended at the application I am about to make.  In 1984 – a rather significant date don’t you think – they came for Ernst Zuendel and James Keegstra, and Doug Christie and Paul Fromm spoke out!   Everyone who values the freedom our country was built upon – Richard Cartwright famously expressed the spirit of Confederation by saying that he preferred British freedom over American equality – and for which we have always been told our country went to war against Hitler, would do well to look to that example.

The progressive media, of course, in their lust to help O’Toole crucify Sloan, has been calling Paul Fromm such names as “white supremacist” and “neo-nazi”, as have those members of the neo-conservative press who have defended Sloan on the same grounds on which he defended himself.   Mr. Fromm has never applied such terms to himself, which the media have thrown against him for decades, but has always eschewed and disavowed them (I once witnessed him do so to someone who actually was a self-proclaimed National Socialist).   He has referred to himself as a “white nationalist” but I remember that when he started doing this the term had not developed the connotations it now has and simply meant something along the lines of an advocate for the rights of white people, similar to what groups like the NAACP are for black people in the United States, and I have never gotten the impression that he meant it in any other way.   He should, perhaps, have foreseen the way the term would evolve.   I never liked the term, although I believe that now more than ever, open advocates for the rights and liberties of white people, who are demonized by racist hate groups such as BLM and Antifa with the full support of the media and the politicians and who are officially discriminated against, are needed.   It confuses “race” with “nation” for one thing.   

For another, nationalisms of any sort tend to conflict with my Tory political philosophy.   One’s monarch is the proper object of political allegiance, not a people, race, or nation, and in association with one’s monarch, one’s country, which is a place, one’s home writ large, although not merely in the sense of a location on a map, but a place vested with tradition and history, expressed in its institutions, and including, of course, those who live there.   This is what the old patriotic cry “for King and country” meant.

This brings me back to Diefenbaker.   

Diefenbaker, because he was the last Conservative leader – and the last Canadian Prime Minister – to really embrace “King and country” or “Queen and country” Toryism in a wholehearted way, was the last Conservative leader and Prime Minister capable of taking the strong stand against racism that he did, without replacing it with racism of another sort, as the Liberals who governed after him did.   This is precisely because “Queen and country” is the only object of allegiance which can truly provide civil unity and harmony.   As W. L. Morton put it “Any one, French, Irish, Ukrainian or Eskimo, can be a subject of the Queen and a citizen of Canada without in any way changing or ceasing to be himself.” (The Canadian Identity, University of Toronto Press, 1961, 1972)   If that sounds like Pierre Trudeau’s “mosaic” vision of “multiculturalism”, understand that Trudeau’s doctrine is actually a mockery of this.  Instead of uniting diverse people in loyalty to their Royal Sovereign so that they can all participate in the country over which she reigns in a way that makes the history, traditions, and legacy of freedom of that country their own, Trudeau’s doctrine turned diversity itself into an object of cult worship that keeps them divided so that bureaucrats can increasingly manage their lives and rob them of the freedom that is the property by right of all Her Majesty’s subjects.   If Erin O’Toole really believes that “racism is a disease of the soul” then he would do better to lead his party back to what it was when Diefenbaker led it rather than to win Captain Airhead’s approval by repeating his totalitarian rhetoric about “It has no place in our country” and opportunistically ejecting a rival from the party’s caucus, over his unknowingly having received a donation from the man who has for decades been the most courageous opponent of the only racism that is truly a problem in Canada today, the racism that has been enshrined in law since 1977, anti-white racism.

(1)   This also shows how utterly absurd the expression “Red Tory” is.   Originally, Gad Horowitz coined the term to refer to traditional Tories like George Grant who had some positive views of socialism.   Grant, a strong social conservative who warned that in the legalization of abortion the essence of fascism was coming to North American under the guise of liberalism, did not like having this label applied to him.   Dalton Camp, who was a Mulroney Conservative until Mulroney became a free trader – it is to Camp’s credit that he abandoned the Mulroney camp over this – embraced the label.   Grant wrote his Lament over the fall of the Diefenbaker government, Camp was responsible for ousting Diefenbaker from the party leadership.  Any term coined to refer to the one and appropriated by the other cannot possibly express anything meaningful.    Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 2:02 PM Labels:

Posted on by

Opinion: Immigration may make global net-zero carbon harder

How can the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois claim to believe in man-caused climate change – much less support remedies for it – when they ALL continue to support mass immigration? 


If the Conservative Party of Canada supports the classical liberal notion of free trade along with mass immigration and official multiculturalism – then what exactly are they“conserving”? This question is now even more timely and relevant as Erin O’Toole apparently opposes social conservatism in all of its forms.How can they claim to be “conservative”when they support liberalized trade, immigration and social policies?


The People’s Party of Canada at least offers a home for social conservatives, supporters of free speech and those who wish to preserve Canada’s current ethnocultural character by way of immigration reductionism as well as an end to official multiculturalism.


However, the PPC still supports free trade,deregulation, outsourcing, offshoring and supply side economics.


A true Conservative political party in the historic High Tory MacDonald to Diefenbaker tradition would support a highly restrictive and reductionist citizenship & immigration policy,assimilation over multiculturalism, economic nationalism and trade protectionism. It would also not demonize social conservatives nor restrict freedom of expression. It would seek to unapologetically preserve the Monarchy,appointed Senate, and our Christian European heritage. 


In my opinion, O’Toole AND Bernier are completely divorced from the Canadian High Tory tradition a la MacDonald to Diefenbaker. BOTH offer half bakedversions of the real thing.
Thatcherism and Reaganism – which most aspiring Canadian Conservative leaders (including O’Toole & Bernier) have sought to emulate – in whole or part – over the past 40 years – are in reality repackaged 19th century British Liberalism (Gladstonian liberalism)


Canada needs to rediscover an unapologetic MacDonald/Disraeli High Toryism. 
Opinion: Immigration may make global net-zero harder
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-immigration-may-make-global-net-zero-harder

Gila Kibner