Tag Archives: SPLC

Myth or the Great Hoax: The Origins of Modern Demonology

Posted on by

Myth or the Great Hoax: The Origins of Modern Demonology

image.png

Myth or the Great Hoax: The Origins of Modern Demonology

June 17, 2023/0 Comments/in ChristianityFeatured Articles/by Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

We all use mythical language, although we seldom admit it. In contrast to concepts which are the hallmarks of modern discourse, myths are based on images and symbolic forms of speech. In the mythmaking narrative images change and vary over historical time and place although their driving force remains constant in the identity building process of peoples, tribes, nations, including political movements. Many Christians, along with many atheists and agnostics, who deride as surreal ancient Greek myths, resort to their own self-made myths, adorning them with their own pack of metaphors and imagery. In a sharp contrast to the historically recorded end-of-time, single-God revelation religions, such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity, European myths surfacing in epics, folk tales, legends or sagas have the advantage of overstepping the historical timeframe. They fuse the past present and future in one whole, offering the hope of gods’ return and announcing the rebirth of a vanished or destroyed political order.

The man of the myth discovers his freedom not in the possibility of building up his own history, but in the fact of being free vis-à-vis history.  It is in the abolition, relativization and reinterpretation of history that he finds his freedom.[i]

Ancient Europeans who believed in myths had a profound historical consciousness. Yet—unlike Christians, Jews or Muslims, let alone unlike modern political true believers—they could neither grasp nor embrace a linear historical and “unique” narrative announcing the beginning of time and the end of time. To a traditional man, of the myth, history, with its incessant flow of time, is always open. The belief in a plurality of gods means also the ability of accepting the plurality of ideas, the plurality of different truths and consequently rejecting a single religious or political dogma.

The tragic side of life is a cornerstone of ancient myths, as depicted in ancient Greek epics and dramas. However, one never spots in ancient mythical prose or poems signs of religious and political nihilism. The man of the myth is essentially a historical optimist: he believes in the return of historical cycles that will also bring about the return of the hero and witness the rebirth of gods, even if the sky is doomed to fall with the entire cosmos swept in chaos. One of the sharpest American scholars of the twentieth century, Joseph Campbell, understood well the subconscious human desire for the world of the myth, myths being “like dreams, revelations of the deepest hopes, desires and fears, potentialities and conflicts, of the human will.” [ii]  The mythical world is anchored in all of us, as can be witnessed by an ever-growing interest in the mythical characters inhabiting J. R. R. Tolkien’s novels or George Lucas’ movie Star Wars, as well as in the proliferation of hundreds of science fiction movies.

Despite his insight into various faces of mythmaking Campbell was not spared from demonization by new mythmakers who labeled him with their own mythicist vocabulary an “antisemite and racist.” [iii]

Vice, or better yet, virtue signaling squads of the modern morality police, such as the SPLC or the ADL, were quick to shove Campbell into the realm of underground demons.

Resorting to a mythical language is also a prime goal of modern political demagoguery. The word ‘myth’ is often used incorrectly in defaming a political adversary. This word, when used in political discourse carries a derogatory meaning, bearing no resemblance to the ancient belief in mythos. Today its verbal derivatives are widely used to delegitimize the beliefs of a political opponent, often having the goal of ruining his reputation in the public eye by painting him as some kind of a conspiracy theorist. The problem with conspiracy theorists, regardless whether they come from the Left or the rightwing political spectrum is that they can never be refuted with any empirical, forensic and contradictory argument.

To a very extent that conspiracy theories claim to “explain” everything, rejecting out of hand any contradiction and any argument put forward against them is seen either as a proof of their opponents’ “naivete”, or a simple plot by conspiracy theorists aiming to prevent them from being exposed. Any contradiction any denial only becomes an additional proof of the existence of conspiracy.”[iv]

Many conservative and nationalist authors in their own description of leftwing opponents have popularized expressions such as the “myth of progress,” the “myth of Marxism,” “the myth of multiculturism.” On their part, left-leaning authors accuse nationalists and conservatives of believing in the myth of race and the myth of Jewish world conspiracy. Many Jewish and liberal authors, however, seldom tire from resurrecting their own conspiracy-laden language depicting and evoking the mythical and ever lurking “white supremacist,” anti-Semite, or Neo-Nazi bent on destroying the liberal democratic order. Even if White anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis were to disappear, the Liberal System would need to reinvent them over and over again – similar to the ex-Soviet Union and its former client states who, in order to justify their repressive nature, constantly kept resurrecting the myth of the Fascist Evil.

Without using over and over again the modern myth of the Absolute Cosmic Evil, allegedly incorporated today in the eternal Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist, the Liberal System would fall part.

To the word of the myth, one could substitute more hyperbolic verbal constructs such as the “big lie,” the “grand hoax,” or “political theology,” or even “fake news,”—expressions which are quite trendy among conservative and nationalist authors. While the Left likes to denounce the “myth of the White race” as a sign of pseudoscientific and retarded mindset, the Right, by contrast, denounces the liberal and communist myth of egalitarianism as a belief contrary to the laws of evolutionary biology.

Credo quia absurdum, or the belief in the Big Lie.

The line between a belief in the big lie and a belief in some kind of a myth is often blurred. It is wrong to assume that only a few bad people impose their political lies on a credulous or stupid populace. Very often it is savants and allegedly great minds who are believers and instigators of surreal political myths, strange beliefs, bizarre victimhood stories which they usually discard after some time and replace them with new trendy myths or hoaxes. Often masses deliberately accept new political myths because it is all too human to take wishful thinking for granted. In the study of crowd hysteria, Gustave Le Bon observes how masses accept political myths without ever reflecting upon their disastrous consequences:

Crowds being only capable of thinking in images are only to be impressed by images. It is only images that terrify or attract them and become motives of action.[v]

It can be the mythic imagery of the shining communist future, or the myth of the end of the world caused by the Covid pandemic that can whip up masses into political frenzy or justify the most severe forms of political repression.  Religions, as well as modern beliefs and ideologies are also heavily interwoven with mythical scenes. Often those who ridicule beliefs in the mythical nature of the scenes from the Bible or from Homer’s Iliad are receptive to modern myths of a Marxist classless paradise on earth or the nature of permanent economic growth in Liberalism. One may recall intellectual enchantment with the Freudian-Marxist mystique by hundreds of thousands of US and European college professors in the first half of the twentieth century and extending even after psychoanalysis had lost all scientific credibility and communism had resulted only in political repression and economic stagnation. By the end of the century, these professors had no qualms in replacing their former ideologies with new myths of the free market and the myth of the invisible hand.  The capitalist myth aptly called “monotheism of the market” by the French philosopher Roger Garaudy, suggests the belief in permanent economic growth as the only salutary objective of human existence.[vi]

But one must be careful when reading Garaudy’s texts, as well as those of hundreds of other popular academics and authors preaching formulas of religious or political salvation. Garaudy was a reputable World War II antifascist resistant fighter, later a high-ranking French communist party member and a renowned intellectual—before he turned into a devout Muslim toward the end of his life. For his revisionist and anti-Israeli writings, he was also charged and convicted by the French courts with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, claiming it to be a “Jewish myth.”[vii] Regardless of what one may think of Garaudy’s  many astute observations about Israel, Jews, and American decadence, recanting his once upon-a-time mythical persona and accepting the other mythical opposite is not a sign of integrity of character.

Many revisionist scholars critical of Jews and their social status depict the Jewish World War II victimhood as a new secular religion containing its own legions of saints, sacraments, salvagers and survivors. What strikes one is the following: while one may openly downplay, deride and minimize the number of victims of communist killing fields during the Ukrainian Holodomor, the Croat Bleiburg, the Gulag sewage system in the ex-Soviet Union, or the millions of killed German civilians, during and after World War II without facing legal troubles, critical debates on the Jewish Holocaust story must stay off limits—an excellent marker of the power of the Jewish community.

But even authors complaining about legal duplicity regarding the narrative of Jewish victimhood are seldom consistent. Many of them believe in good faith in the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary and various surreal miracles performed by Jesus and his early Jewish disciples. They would never consider their faith in Jesus a myth, let alone, a hoax, a fraud, or a conspiracy theory.  They reject the claims by anti-Christian authors “that Jesus was a deliberately constructed myth, by a specific group of people with a specific end in mind,”[viii] as David Skrbina wrote recently.

Neither do the faithful ones who believe in the Jesus story want to hear the arguments purporting that the history of Christianity is replete with serial killings of infidels as well as lengthy inter-Christian religious wars. It remains difficult for them to admit that Christianity emerged in Judaism and that until the end of the Second Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, all the way till the end of the second century, Christianity was just one of the several infighting Jewish sects in the Roman empire.

Christianity remained Jewish Christianity. As we move into the second century not only certain Christian sects can be described as ‘Jewish-Christian’, but Christianity as a whole can still properly be described as ‘Jewish Christianity’ in a justifiable sense.[ix]

The prominent Christian theologian Adolf Harnack also traces the roots of Christianity to Judaism, claiming that “it was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which seems to have provoked the final crisis, and led to complete breach between the two parties.”[x]

The debate on mythical Jewish-inspired origins of Christianity is largely avoided by modern White Christian conservatives and White Christian nationalists. It must be noted though that the most critical analyses of Christianity over the last century and half have not come from the Left, but primarily from conservative and nationalist authors, especially in Germany and France. Particularly in Germany during the National-Socialist regime, from 1933 to 1945, there was a flurry of well-researched books and scholarly pieces by hundreds of academics dealing with the interrelationship between race and religion. Most of those authors contend that there is a causal link between Judaism-Christianity and their modern secular offshoots in the modern myth of Communism and Liberalism

We cannot expect that Christian religion, which originated from Jewish racial heritage, and which today still feels constrained by a baptism commandment issued 2000 years ago in the Jewish land, will atone for the guilt of the German soul.[xi]

It is a great setback that the works by German religious scholars, regardless of the demonic, or rather demonized nature of the National-Socialist epoch when their works were published, have not yet received a proper scholarly evaluation. Nor are the books on the racial makeup of a man, tribe or a people and how it affects the choice of his religion easily accessible. This raises the question of genetic and racial proclivity of any racial ingroup toward accepting or rejecting a foreign religious or political myth. Wilhelm Hauer a prominent religious scholar in National-Socialist Germany, noted:

For one thing, there is no longer any doubt today that race means not only body forms, but also forms of the soul and the spirit. And secondly, religion is not just a matter of the absolute truth, but also of various forms of truth by the bearers of religion.[xii]

Each racial group has its own vision of afterlife including its own notion of truth, or for that matter its acceptance of the big lie. Accordingly, to a large extent it is racial heritage of each man that shapes his world view. Between the German notion of “reality (Wirklichkeit) and “truth” (Wahrheit) there is a sharp distinction that needs to be made.

In addition, it is with great modesty of which Indo-European man is aware: we possess reality while being also possessed by it, but we are eternally on the way to truth, if by this we mean the knowledge of finitude. The absolute truth in the sense of final possession of the deepest mysteries is nonexistent. Such possession would mean the death of the living spirit. [xiii]

Why did early Europeans in the ancient Roman Empire out of hundreds of different cults and sects, each with its own myth, metaphor or allegory, embrace a small Middle Eastern Judaic cult will remain a riddle. Starting with the second century, many Oriental cults had already spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire, cults such as the Persian Mithra cult among Roman soldiers and the Egyptian Isis and Serapis cult, very popular in the high echelons of the Roman imperial court.[xiv] But they did not last long.

Wilhelm Nestle, a German philologist and expert on the mindset of early Greeks and Romans, writes in one of his essays published in the quarterly Archiv für Religionswissenschaft that late Greco-Roman pagan thinkers were hostile to the idea of the messiah insofar as they recognized in messianic prophesies a presumptuous claim by the Jews to future world domination.”[xv]

Nestle, along with many other German scholars in the first half of the twentieth century  voices amazement at how prominent and large European tribes and peoples had fallen prey to a strange Oriental cult preached by a small and insignificant tribe in Judea.

It seems incomprehensible that God did not send the messenger of his revelation to a large and famous people, but to the Jews in a small corner of the Earth, and that despite being omniscient he left his “son” to be shamefully punished by bad people. [xvi]

It does not make much sense to criticize inordinate Jewish political, social, and intellectual influence and popularity, which among other things can still be observed in the writings of a Jewish-born Karl Marx and his modern followers, or modern Jewish neocons dominating the U.S. foreign policy establishment, while at the same time accepting Christian scripts and screeds  which were originally written by Jewish prophets. This is a clearcut case of spiritual and political neurosis that the entire West has been victim of over the last 2000 years.

Seen from the secular perspective, the strong an unwavering support of Israel today by the United States is part of the predictable political theology based on the myth of self-chosenness borrowed from the Jewish Old Testament.[xvii]  It has served over the last one hundred years as a legal justification for its messianic do-good diplomatic efforts, but also its military engagements all over the world. The mythical “city on the hill,” the “manifest destiny” and the recent launching of “diversity” programs are essentially mythical derivatives from the Bible cloaked in modern languages.

It would be false to ascribe the mythical mindset or the religious mindset to one race or to one group of people only.  The myths of the nation and nationalism have  plunged European peoples into incessant and bloody civil wars, from Troy to the Thirty Years War, from the American Civil War to World War II and likely to the upcoming Third World War.

Myth, be it bad or good, is not a privilege of any people or race. Some of the sharpest Western minds who detected best the myth of the communist and liberal   myths were devout Catholics. We owe much to the early Catholic author Joseph de Maistre who criticized the French Revolution of 1789 and who was among the first to debunk the abstract globalist myth of “human rights.” Also, there are legions of Catholic writers who are critical of liberal modernity, such as J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Molnar and many, many others.

One must also mention a Catholic conservative expert in the international law and a noted political scientist Carl Schmitt, who was very popular in Weimar Germany, National-Socialist Germany and post-World War Germany, and who is now a household name of the New Right and the Alt-Right both in the U.S. and E.U. To him we owe the statement that “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.”[xviii]


NOTES:

[i] Alain de Benoist, „Mythe“, Krisis, (Paris, numéro 6, Octobre, 1990), p.8.

[ii] Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space; Metaphor as Myth and as Religion (Novato: New World Library), p.27.

[iii]  „ After Death the Writer is accused of Anti-Semitism “, The New York Times (Nov 6, 1989).

[iv] Alain de Benoist, „Psychologie du Conspirationnisme“, in Critiques-Théoriques (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme), p. 96.

[v] Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd; A Study of the Popular Mind (London: T. Fisher Unwin,1920), p.76.

[vi] Roger Garaudy, Avons-nous besoin de Dieu ? (Paris: Ed. Desclée de Brouwer 1993), p. 205.

[vii] Roger Garaudy, Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne  (Paris: Samizdat, 1996).

[viii] David Skrbina, The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years (Detroit: Creative Free Press, 2019), p. 23.

[ix] James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways (London: SCM Press, 2006), p. 307.

[x] Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vol. I (NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), p. 63.

[xi] Robert Luft, Die Verchristung der Deutschen (1937 Archiv-Edition, Verlag  Dietrich Bohlinger 1992), p. 74.

[xii] Wilhelm Hauer, Religion und Rasse (Tübingen:  JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck, 1941), p. 6.

[xiii] Ibid., Hauer, p.48.

[xiv] Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (1909 Eugene, OR:Wipfs and Stock Publishers, 2003).

[xv] Wilhelm Nestle, „Die Haupteinwände des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum“, in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, Vol. XXXVII, Book 1 (Leipzig: BG Teubner, 1941), p.61

[xvi] Ibid., p.87.

[xvii] T Sunic, Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age, with preface by K. MacDonald and postface by A. de Benoist  (Arktos, 2017).

[xviii] Carl Schmitt, Political Theology (1934 Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 1985), p.3

So what if I am a Racist?

Posted on by

So what if I am a Racist?

by Tim Murray

Burnaby, BC – real estate density to accommodate massive Asian immigration
There are many in the environmental movement who have chosen to take the coward’s way out. They know that population growth plays a crucial role in environmental degradation. And they know that in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom it is immigration which drives population growth and that it will play an even more decisive role in the future.
But they have chosen to take the Fifth Amendment. They have chosen to remain silent and look the other way, focusing instead on campaigns to reduce consumption, promote renewable technologies, greener lifestyles and sideshows to defend this or that threatened habitat, forest or species. By Mark Twain’s definition, they are liars of the silent kind. They know in their hearts thatimmigration-driven population growth has a profoundly negative ecological impact, but they say nothing. This is ethically equivalent to knowing that someone has planted a bomb in the subway and not saying anything to the police.

Then there are the environmentalists who not only tell the silent lie, but are determined to silence those brave enough to tell the truth. Many of them draw salaries from “green” NGOs whose primary goal is to maintain and grow their bureaucracy. Cynics can be forgiven for regarding them as essentially fund-raising tools which not only solicit donations from credulous innocents, but from corporations seeking ecological dispensation and good publicity. These organizations are case studies of Roberto Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. Success transforms fledgling grass roots movements into organizations with salaried staff and directors with a vested interest in the financial viability of their employer. Consequently they will pursue goals to promote the maintenance and growth of the organization even when those goals run counter to the original aims of the movement. Green crusaders become money-grubbing corporate lackeys.

If this wasn’t morally reprehensible enough, some go further. They enlist the services of the Merchants of Smear, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the Center for New Community. Hired guns whose mission is to destroy reputations, especially the reputations of environmentalists who campaign for population stabilization.

And finally there is another category of population deniers — those who choose the path of least resistance. Those who are terrified of being found guilty of guilt-by-association. So they distance themselves from sustainable population campaigners to avoid being tarred with an ugly brush.

They do so for fear of the “R” word. Racism. A word that is seldom precisely defined, but always brandished as a weapon of fear and intimidation to shut down debate. It permanently marks the accused with a stain that can never be removed. Ask the widowed husband of the late June Callwood, a famous Canadian journalist who championed progressive causes. Unjustly smeared by an identity group, she spent the remainder of final years a broken woman. To be labeled “racist” and have it stick is professional suicide and the death knell of one’s credibility, no matter how broad and sound one’s perspective may be.

Vancouver, BC, real estate development to accommodate massive Asian immigration

In Canada, more so than in America, Australia or Britain, such is the cult status of mass immigration that to challenge any facet of it is thought in most quarters to be intrinsically “racist”. Mass immigration and the deification of the immigrant is part of the national DNA. As we witnessed in the Republican Primary contest, political candidates love to trot out rags-to-riches, immigrant-makes good stories of how their father came to this country a humble, hard-working man of meagre means and saw his son rise to achieve the American dream. Democratic Presidential nominee candidate Bernie Sanders hit that key too. Many times.

Canadian politicians pull the same emotional string. And it works. It all lends credence to the false narrative that Canada is a nation of immigrants, that immigrants “built this country”, and must continue to build it. The idea that Canada is “over-built”, that we have exceeded our ecological carrying capacity, is inconceivable. It is not on the table — and the growth lobby, in collusion with the media cartel — is determined to keep it there. Obviously, the useful idiots of the Left are party to the plot. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the working man or woman’s best friend is a tight labour market. But then the Left no longer is no longer the advocate of the working class, but the champion of identity groups and migrant rights. “No One is Illegal” is a slogan born to serve the corporate bottom line.

So how does racism come into the conversation? It’s like this. If you are drawing a third of a million people into your country every year and most of them are from “non-traditional” sources, then most of them — an overwhelming number of them — are going have a skin pigment other than white. Therefore, to propose any restriction, or God forbid, a moratorium on immigration for any reason, is “racist”, and the one making the proposal is a “racist” who automatically is beyond the pale of polite discussion and deserves to be consigned to oblivion. He certainly will never see the inside of a CBC studio.

Well, I’m an environmentalist and I have chosen to make a lot of noise about immigration. In doing so, as one could predict, I am just about as popular as flatulence in an elevator. I talk loudly about the ugly “I” word because I would rather be right than politically correct. I know that if we grow our population by 18% we can’t expect to cut our GHG emissions by 3%. It can’t be done. And I know that if we have covered 20% of our Class 1 farmland in sprawl with this kind of growth that we haven’t a hope of feeding ourselves if immigration rates persist and affordable oil runs out.

Greenfield acreage cannot be adequately preserved by land-use planning (ask Portland, Oregon). We have the highest growth of any G7 country and with Australia, the highest per capita immigration intake in the world. Biodiversity is on the ropes, especially in the killing zones on the perimeter of our bursting cities. It cannot coexist with the tens of millions of extra consumers that Ottawa plans to import in coming years.

In advocating an immigration moratorium, I find myself in the same predicament I did while working in a theatre in a largely Chinese Vancouver neighbourhood. The movies were often times so popular that there were more people waiting on the sidewalk to get in than there were seats available to sell to them. One of my unhappy duties was to close the door when the theatre was full.

Canada is such a theatre. It has a limited carrying capacity, not established by a fire marshal, but by ecologists and biologists who have offered educated guesses as what it might be. Now a theatre manager or owner might propose that more people be admitted off the street and be accommodated as standing-room patrons. He may even propose that newcomers sit on the laps of those already seated. Taking a cue from fake greens, he might even call it “smart growth” or “eco-density” — but.his motive would be purely mercenary.

Similarly, an economist from the Royal Bank would argue that Canada could admit millions, tens of millions more, and the Real Estate Industry would echo his sentiments. Again for commercial considerations. But neither the theatre owner or nor the economist is governed by the concept of limiting factors, of carrying capacity. Just as it takes a fire marshal to impose reality on the theatre owner, it would take an ecologist or a biologist to introduce the Canadian government to the reality of biophysical limits.

One might recall when, in the face of dwindling stocks, the politicians of Newfoundland protested that the cod fishery must continue because the “economy” of the province depended on it. So the boats went out until the cod ran out. Ultimately the issue was not about what the economy of Newfoundland required, but what the cod stocks could sustain — and in this case, they obviously couldn’t sustain any more fishing. That economist from the Royal Bank, and any number of federal politicians, will protest that our “economy” requires these massive annual injections of immigrants, but our environment will simply not continue to sustain it.

At some point, we will have to establish as a nation, a population plan, an optimum population for this country. When we do, someone will have to close the theatre door. Now, I would put it to my critics, when I closed that door was I “racist” in doing so because 75% of the people left standing outside were of Chinese ancestry?

Ecological Vancouver before Asian Immigration-Invasion

Let me ask another question, suppose I was. Suppose I closed the door for two reasons. One, because the theatre had filled its seating (carrying) capacity and for safety reasons it would be dangerous to allow more people in. And two, because I didn’t like Chinese people. Would the second reason invalidate the first reason? Should the revelation that I am a mean-spirited, nasty, hateful guy who hates children, kittens and little old ladies discredit my argument that the theatre is full?

I want to see the development of a Sustainable Population Plan for Canada, one that would factor in the variables of net migration, births over deaths and refugee quotas. The imperative would be to stay faithful to the desired population target by adjusting any of those variables up or down.

The goal would be to stop biodiversity loss and save biodiversity services. Stop the diminution of farm acreage and wildlife habitat, and meet carbon-emission targets.

But there is another reason for my opposition to hyper-immigration. The one I keep in the closet. I hate right-handed people. I hate the way they have treated me and organized the world for their convenience. Right-handed people make up 90% of the global population. By cutting back on immigration by 90% I know that most of the excluded people will be right-handed. Does this hidden agenda invalidate my previous arguments?

In Canada of late there seems to be a great pre-occupation not with an idea or an action but the alleged motivation behind it. The hate-crimes laws are a case in point. Their logic confounds me. Someone hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I have a wallet full of cash, and the judge gives him a year. If the same thug hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I’m gay, the judge gives him a much heavier penalty. Whatever the moron’s motives, my medical condition is the same.

But such is the political culture of Canada. My “motive” for anti-immigration views warrants more scrutiny and attention than the views themselves. I could only wish that critics would take my arguments on their own merits rather than subjecting me to psychoanalysis. And I wish that the network that I pay for, the state broadcaster, the CBC, would entertain the possibility that today’s heresy might become tomorrow’s truth.