I think “diversity,” “multiculturalism” and “protected classes” are merely pretenses by which the neo-Bolshevik left-liberals, Neolibs and State-worshippers mean to continue the eradication of Christianity from Western civilization—and indeed to eradicate the tradition of Western civilization itself.

Establishing legal speech codes, anti-Christian policies and historical victim status as necessary to ensure “tolerance” and protect minorities from the (dwindling) Christian majority accomplishes several goals: 1) It sends the message the Christians are dangerous and intolerant, and need strict legal guidelines to keep them from persecuting others; 2) It establishes on ostensibly benign pretense for subordinating Christianity, liberty, freedom and the individual to the control of the State; 3) It pits races and religions against one another, and promotes the State as the primary arbiter and final authority to sit in judgment of all when conflict inevitably arises, hence establishing predominance of the State in the public’s mind; 4) It weeds out those willing to exercise their free speech rights to the maximum and hence nips non State-sanctioned movements, ideas and ideologies from catching fire.

Left-liberals, Neolibs and even Neocons have been working independently and together towards this agenda for decades, primarily motivated by their hatred of Christianity and their desire to supplant it. It is ironic that Neocon Steyn has gotten caught in an authoritarian trap that his ideology helped to construct. If the Neocons were well-intentioned, this turn of events would make them start thinking twice about their statist authoritarianism. But given that they are not really interested in liberty and liberation of the individual, but rather control over him, the lesson they will likely take from this is that it is more important than ever for them to seize control of the State so that they are the ones in a position to do the persecuting. Basically Neocons, Neolibs and left-liberals are fighting it out to see which one gets to play God, but are all united in their beleif that whoever it is, their power should flow from the State.

And yet Buchanan condemned European papers for printing the cartoons poking fun at Mohammed.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005021.html

Mr. Buchanan, state-mandated multiculturalism and the suppression of free speech are two aspects of the same process: the growing power of the state.

Left-liberals, Neolibs and even Neocons have been working independently and together towards this agenda for decades, primarily motivated by their hatred of Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While this may be true in regards to neo-cons and materialists [which exist on both sides of the ideological argument, to paint people simply into left and right spheres isnt true. Lets look at America as a whole. Some 85% of Americans believe in a higher power, or GOD. That means that, in reality, an equal number of people who vote left are just as religious as the right. Dont listen to the pundits.

“And yet Buchanan condemned European papers for printing the cartoons poking fun at Mohammed.” That was one of the few instances in which I strongly disagreed with Buchanan, but his position on that should be understood in the context of his view that “men who believe deeply in something, even when wrong, usually triumph over men who believe in nothing.” Thus, nihilistic degenerates who don’t like Islam simply because it’s a belief in something are not good allies for those who oppose the threat posed by Islam to Euro-Christian cultures.  I agree, but I disagree on the specific cartoon issue and question whether that was a good moment for Mr. Buchanan’s Maistrian critique of this larger issue.

very true , jet.  Also, pat’s article pointed out many past examples of censorship as well.  Lesson to be learned:  There should be NO censorship of any kind, history is sadly mostly composed of thieves who call themselves “rulers” and impose one form of censorship or another.  As far as Steyn, I won’t cry a damn tear for that fool.  He is getting his just desserts.  The man may be unfairly judged on free speech grounds, but his whole proffesional life he has done nothing but lie and slander muslims, distorting who they are.  And he and his other neocon folk then go on to invade muslim countries, make them radical by doing so, so that Steyn can then point to them and say “see? I told you so”.  In other words, Steyn and company want enemies, and they do it by creating them, by radicalizing those they want to kill.

jerry:
“his whole proffesional life he has done nothing but lie and slander muslims, distorting who they are...”

Hmm, I might have agreed with you except that my own actual experiences with Muslims have tallied so closely with Steyn’s.  I can’t see any distortion.

Re RonL. Pat Buchanan questioned the prudence and wisdom of the newspapers that published the Muslim cartoons. He did not suggest that the government should enact penalties. He is consistent.

It should be remembered that the cartoons were a deliberate provocation concocted by Jewish extremists. The Danish editor, Rose, was a Ukranian born Jew who ran the cartoon contest after visiting his friend the notorious racist, Daniel Pipes. It was a cheap Zionist stunt.

Chris-- As a libertarian atheist who has observed the persecution by christians of nonbelievers over the centuries (think the Salem witch trials), it is with a sense of satisfaction that I witness these obnoxious prudes getting a dose of their own medicine. It helps, some, to counter the devastating sense of loss which accompanies the demise of our Constitution.

The demise of free speech is trully regretable; and that Christian norms are the true traget is probably not off the mark.  But why the near blackout on discussion of the actual obliteration of Christian societies around teh world? 

Chronicles still posts essays on the topic, LewRock mentioned them in the past and has since all but stopped, and TakiMag never gets into it.  Why?  Do these developments not horrify the paleocons here?  That our war against terrorism has succeeded in wiping out Christianity in Mesopotamia is to me stunning.  That America and most of western Europe have aided in the creation of “Kosovo” as a state is even more bewildering.  WE are not talking about speech or the exchange of barbs in the local papers with these two examples.  We are talking about the beheading and slaughtering of nuns, priests, and their flocks.  And about the annihilation of their churches, such that traces of the Lord’s Church have almost disappeared from these lands.  All while we watch.  And I mean WE.  The internecine exchange of insults among the contributing editors of one paleocon site or another are perhaps interesting in the way that a soap opera is interesting, but people, let’s splash some cold water on the face, move on, and look at what the hell is going on.

Grant - what do you mean by your suggestion that prosecuting individuals or publications for voicing sentiments allegedly offensive to Muslims would “counter the devastating sense of loss which accompanies the demise of our Constitution”?  Freedom of speech lies at the heart of our Constitution and society, and the answer to your point about the Salem witch trials (which were hardly about any persecution of nonbelievers anyway) is simply that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Canada’s commitment to multiculturalism and the equality of all religions, races and cultures requires the silencing of those who do not believe all races, creeds and cultures are equal.

A morose carryover from my 1970s flirtation with the aimless capers of hippiedom is a dose of background paranoia:

What if multiculturalism isn’t a commitment to equality as much as an instrument to transform progressive, democratic – and prosperous – western societies into backward, oppressive economic sinkholes filled with people (us) willing to accept their own enslavement in exchange for grubby survival? And one key component of all slave states is censorship. Free speech and free thought are essentials to any system truly free, and vice-versa.

Second thought… maybe it’s not paranoia. Maybe it’s lucid thinking – however rarely this blessing extends. That lucidity would be a reflection of the conservatism afforded by experience in the real world. One revelation over the years: In a social system with no backtalk, there’s little need for substantial trickle-down. The good stuff stays up. The bad stuff is an 800-lb. hammer… and gravity is strong.

I am ashamed of what is happening to my country. What is most frightening is not the ‘hate’ laws per se but rather the expansion of a quasi-judicial system that deprives the defendant of protections that exist in a normal court of law.

And where is Prime Minister Harper and the ‘Conservative’ party in all this? He has the power to amend the legislation in question. At the very least, he can speak out against what is happening.

What we are seeing now is merely a manifestation of Tocqueville’s great fear that the infatuation Americans have with equality will ultimately lead to a complicate acceptance of despotism in order to forcibly achieve equality. This “infatuation” with equality has been actively facilitated by various forces within American society who either idealistically believe in equality or recognize the political advantages in pretending to do so. The genesis of the equalitarian movement can probably be traced all the way back to Christianity, but it was not until the 1920s that equalitarianism began to make real progress. It was then that the Franz Boas School of Anthropology was formed and the ideas of these anti-Western intellectuals were seized upon by a managerial state that came to realize equalitarianism in a world of natural inequality is a recipe for unlimited expansion of leviathan powers. More specifically, if inequality existed, then it was because of unfair conditions that the state was mandated to correct through social planning and social engineering. It is noteworthy that equalitarianism also provides the moral basis for the guilt politics that have destroyed the will of Western Man to preserve his distinct group identity. Paradoxically, equalitarianism has had the opposite effect on other groups of men who now falsely believe that the promotion of their cultural identity is more important than the preservation of the Western way of life.

I may be unique here; a Canadian citizen, living in Canada and who worked for PJB (New Hampshire, 1996). 

I am torn.  Obviously, the target of odious human rights commissions – staffed by odious left-wing political hacks masquerading a jurists – are conservatives and/or orthodox Christians.  I cannot think of any Mohammedan, for instance, who has been dragged before these commissions to account for calling Jews “pigs” or for the stoning of homosexuals.

“Canadian” is also correct to point out that in “prosecuting” complaints, justice is perverted.  The complainant has all of his expenses paid for by taxpayers.  The accused, none.  There are no rules of evidence.  Due process is – well, you can’t ignore something which doesn’t exist in these instances.  Guilt is presumed.  The principle of natural justice is totally absent and hundreds of years of common law tradition are ignored.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has a – get this – one hundred per cent record of finding against the accused.

I said I was torn.  These complaints are all complaints about application.  There are perfectly reasonable arguments for limiting free speech. I have nothing against the principle, in fact I support it.  Others (W. Kendall, for one) make the argument persuasively: 

All political societies have a public orthodoxy which must be vigorously defended – its preservation is vital to the survival of the regime – and those who attack, or even question it, should be persecuted (recognizing that persecution can take many forms).  The inability or unwillingness to do so is a sign of cultural fatigue and rot. Athens’ condemnation of Socrates was the act, arguably, of a healthy society.

I live in a country where the public orthodoxies of equality and multiculturalism have literally been written into our constitution.  We accepted it, and now must live with the perfectly logical outcome.

Hate speech codes are selectively applied to further a particular agenda. Take Daniel
Goldhagen’s besmirching the Holy See, calling him “Hitler’s Pope.” Any casual reading of
World War Two histories reveals constant complaints of the Nazi hierarchy about the Church’s
resistance to Nazi pressure. “Ah,” the detractors bray, “but the Pope signed the Concordat
with the Nazis! Gotcha!” What was this Concordat? The Church negotiated dozens of Concordats
with sovereign states on issues of taxation, property, recognition of parochial education,
the status of the clergy. The Concordat with Germany had been under negotiation for years with
the Weimar Government when the new German Chancellor took power. And what of the Pope’s attitude
toward the Chosen? He hid so many from deportation that the Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism
and named his son Pius. Does Goldhagen know any of this? How can’t he if he immersed himself
for years in the entrails of the war? His work is not unique in fostering true hatred toward
a Church that doesn’t fight back. And yet this selective hatred is there for all to see, but
none dare call it that. It’s safer to pile on and remain Politically Correct.

And I can personally attest that Dan Robertson did an outstanding job working for PJB in ‘96.

“As a libertarian atheist who has observed the persecution by christians of nonbelievers over the centuries (think the Salem witch trials), it is with a sense of satisfaction that I witness these obnoxious prudes getting a dose of their own medicine.”

Atheists and Leftists always seize on a few anecdotal acts of intolerance over the 2000 years span of Christianity and inflate them, drama queen style, into a permanent judgment on an entire civilization. What they ignore is that Western civilization and all its fruits, including classical liberalism, are a manifestation of Christian civilization. Almost all left liberals (who’s narcissism is so severe their “liberalism” is now morphing into hedonism) are, and have been for decades, accomplishing nothing so much as the infantile act of biting the hand that feeds. Their mentality is reminiscent of Bolshevism for a reason, and totalitarianism is where it will inevitably lead. Oh, but they “showed” those Christians, didn’t they. Kind of like a self-absorbed teenager denied the keys to the car who then sneaks out at night, steals it, and drives it into a tree. How mature. No wonder left-liberals and Neocons/Neolibs are so indifferent to Constitutional restraints: they are too emotionally and intellectually stunted to appreciate our Western heritage, and thus too selfish to see that it is handed down to succeeding generations.

Free Speech is a bit of a misnomer in the lapsed Republic. Free Chat would be a better term of description. The reason our dutiful public and it’s preening “enlightened” seem so hellbent upon sliding into Hate-Speech legislation is that there really is very little to mourn if as much as 90% of the current spoken word became outlawed. The Multiculturists generally follow the jejune definition of American Society which is the “boiling pot”, where all traces of individualism are boiled off in favor of a remaining gruel of polite, if bland sludge.

Still though, the remaining 10% of spoken intelligence is worth fighting for, even if we have to endure the greatest cascade of vigorous numbskullery in the history of mankind.

All political societies have a public orthodoxy which must be vigorously defended… The inability or unwillingness to do so is a sign of cultural fatigue and rot.

Uhh… Look… Down here in the states, we are captivated by the idea that public orthodoxies of our political society must be tempered and tested in the open square of vigorous debate. Good ideas last; weak ones don’t. It’s just that simple. Any regime that must rely on repression to sustain itself has relinguished all legitimacy to rule, and that’s a rot more virulent than critique and dissent can avail. We should never assume the regime has all the answers, and when we do, we suffer as we are suffering now, under the thumb of an absentee President and his lawless administration.

Chris Moore,

Classical liberalism is not a manifestation of Christian civilisation, but a rebellion from it.  How is classical liberalism derived from Christian civilisation, seriously ?

San Fernando Curt wrote, “Uhh… Look… Down here in the states, we are captivated by the idea that public orthodoxies of our political society must be tempered and tested in the open square of vigorous debate.”

A bit idealistic, don’t you think ?  Captivated is a good word, though, since society is literally held captive by this menacing idea, starving to death and being abused, yet enamoured with the lying, thuggish idea like a bad case of Stockholm’s syndrome.

Men are fickle, mediocre, imperfect, and faulty.  They are selfish and, always discontented with what they have, love only what they have not.  Man does not know what he wants, always pursuing what is perceived to be to his immediate advantage but ultimately deleterious to his health, his spirit, and his station in life.  He wants what he does not want.  He does not want what he actually should want.  Man wants to want, to paraphrase the Count. 

He wrote, correctly, “In the works of man, everything is as poor as its author; vision is confined, means are limited, scope is restricted, movements are labored, and results are humdrum.” People complain of the despotism of princes; they should really complain of the despotism of man.

As long as men are afflicted by the effects of original sin, until the eschaton comes down from with the Heavens and the heavenly host in the wake of a red-robed royal Jesus Christ saddled gloriously upon a white steed, grand ideas will struggle to maintain currency.  The Truth is disadvantaged by man’s will not to hear it.  He is benighted by the custody of the eyes, the custody of the flesh, and the pride of life, and in many of his actions he is terribly evil.  The Truth is spread but by the grace of God, the imperceptible designs the Holy Ghost, and in spite of man’s sinfulness.

The inability of the leaders of the rebellion of the American colonies to realise this mysterious Truth about man’s condition is partially to blame for our current problems.  They set man free, through the first amendment and the emphasis on free thought and discussion, from the saving bonds of Authority and the ministers of God on earth who punish the wicked.  They denied Original Sin, introduced a Jacobin theory of human rights, abandoned all the customs and conventions of their fathers that acted as the sinews of society, shirked tradition, and betrayed the legacy of the human race.  So long as we have men attempting to build society upon abstract sophistries and naïve utopian theories, we shall have a preponderance of mediocre, insane, and stupid ideas dominating us.  In order to advance socially, most will pay homage to the madness.  Eventually, this edifice built against nature will unravel, for nature abhors a vacuum and can be a cold mistress when ignored.  And then man will start afresh in the manner of his fathers, rebuilding the glories of a civilisation abandoned by arrogant philsophers a few centuries before.

Good ideas last; weak ones don’t. It’s just that simple.

Good ideas are forgotten because they make men sacrifice quick delights to cultivate long-term manly virtues.  If one has enough money to indulge, he will willingly spoil himself in debauched, bacchanalian, frivolous, pathetic stupidity.  Weak ideas are fashionable because they allow people to do as they please and still sleep at night.  Good ideas cannot die but must be renewed every so often by the burning zeal of a few great men with the conviction to stop great events from turning into great tragedies.

Any regime that must rely on repression to sustain itself has relinguished all legitimacy to rule.

Society is like a baroque garden and its beauty is the maintenance of the common good and social peace, which is order.  Over time, it matures into a lush vista so long as all things are kept in proportion and everything is in its proper place.  When a weed sprouts, it must be uprooted.  If an unwelcome flower invades the wrong spot, it must either be co-opted into some clever organic development or it must be destroyed.  As long as men are not angels, that is simply how things will be.  No amount of injurious babble from sophists and calculators will be able to erase Original Sin, for the Cross remains constant while the world turns.

“Chris Moore,

Classical liberalism is not a manifestation of Christian civilisation, but a rebellion from it.  How is classical liberalism derived from Christian civilisation, seriously ?”

How is it a rebellion when most Classic Liberal thinkers were great Christian men?

And Charles, regarding your last post, it’s a lot of words but has no substance.  You accuse the colonies of turning away from God, you say authoritarian regimes are legit… well my friend I have 2 words for you:

prove it

“How is classical liberalism derived from Christian civilisation, seriously ?”

Ever heard of a little Christian concept called Free Will? Didn’t the Founders epitomize classical liberalism? Weren’t they all raised as Christians, and weren’t most of them in fact Christian Deists? Weren’t they following Jesus’ example on down the line through Luther and rebelling against the abuses, corruption and debauchery of Europe and its elites? From where does Jefferson’s concept of God-given inalienable rights emerge? Wasn’t, even, Rousseau and the French tradition at war with the corrupt, moneyed aristocracy? In fact, what noteworthy Western intellectuals haven’t been inspired by the Christian example? And from whence did liberalism itself emerge? Islamic civilization? Sinic civilization? Hindu civilization?  No, Western (Christian) civilization.

This should be Civilization 101, and would be, if the State-centered neo-totalitarians hadn’t been waging an ideological war against Christianity since Marx, and distorting (when not stealing the credit outright for) its many accomplishments.

Americans and the West are being scammed by anti-Christian Marxists and their left-liberal, Neocon/Neolib intellectual heirs, and have been for decades. It’s not Christianity’s fault there are so many useful idiots warped by lift-liberalism about these days; the Marxists systematically planned it that way, and have been carrying out their plan since.

Men are fickle, mediocre, imperfect, and faulty.

...Exactly why no one or group of them should have exclusive control over the exchange of ideas. And to the extent we remain captivated by this idea, you and I won’t be hauled off to a gulag for posting at this website.

“...Exactly why no one or group of them should have exclusive control over the exchange of ideas. And to the extent we remain captivated by this idea, you and I won’t be hauled off to a gulag for posting at this website.”

AMEN!!  If the people are sinful, then just imagine what the government will be like!

Chris-- Allow me to cite a few of the suppressions of thought by the christians over the long centuries:  The inquisition and the crusades.  Believe what you want.  I’ll not oppose you, save in the realm of debate.  But, if it’s in my power, I’ll consign you to the dustbin of history.  And wish you well.

The irony is delicious, considering that a few years ago, multiculturalism minister Hedy Fry was caught in a racist lie about cross burnings taking place in,wait for it....British Columbia. It was an out and out lie, but of course, no charges were ever laid.

The inquisition, the Salem witch trials and the crusades (all of which’s historical significance has been inflated and blown out of proportion by Christianity’s ideological enemies) is the best you can do? What about the millions upon millions of good deeds, hospitals, institutions and charities, lives salvaged, people saved over the centuries? What about Western civilization itself? All irrelevant and moot due to a few bad deeds, conveniently say the bitter, power mad ideologues with an axe to grind.

“if it’s in my power, I’ll consign you to the dustbin of history”

Spoken like a true atheistic Stalinist. The Christian-haters always seem to find each other in the end, and try to drag everyone down to their level.

And for all its occasionally suicidal stunts and trendy memes, I’ll take the West’s university system - the product of visionary Christian monks - over the musty gibberish of Mideastern sages… any day.

chris--

“Christian-haters always seem to find each other in the end,---” .  Don’t confuse hatred with contempt.

“Classical liberalism is not a manifestation of Christian civilisation, but a rebellion from it.”

Amen to that!

“Didn’t the Founders epitomize classical liberalism?”

No. (To some degree yes, but less than believed by modern liberals and some “conservatives.")

“Weren’t they all raised as Christians”

Yes.

“weren’t most of them in fact Christian Deists”

No.

“From where does Jefferson’s concept of God-given inalienable rights emerge?”

Certainly not from the Bible and historic Christianity. While God-given rights is certainly a superior formulation to reason based natural rights, it is still a rationalistic Enlightenment concept that is not founded on Scripture.

Chris, I’m not entirely sure where you are coming from, but let me give you a hint. Most paleos and hence many posters at Taki Mag are not overly enthusiastic about classical liberalism or any other manifestation of liberalism. They will not buy what I think you are selling, that classical liberalism is totally desirable, and that modern conservatism somehow equals classical liberalism. They certainly aren’t going to think being a Deist is a good thing.

If I am misreading you, then I’m sorry. What exactly are you arguing for?

BOUND & GAGGED: I call that abuse

In an Orwellian twist the Vics or victims are the
accused…

“The accused are Maclean’s magazine and author Mark
Steyn. The crime: In mocking and biting tones, they
wrote that Islam threatens Western values.” -Pat

Culture matters. Different Cultures have differing
values. We are conceptual creatures. We have evolved
as human critters to pause at the conceptual level;
wherein thanks to thousands upon thousands of years of
tradition = culture we can receive at the level of the
pause or the conceptual level cultural information to
help guide and instruct us in how we behave and what
our subsequent *activity will be.

Judaic paradigm and culture is DIFFERENT than Christian
paradigm and culture at the level of the conceptual pause
and thus culture. Islamic paradigm and culture is
DIFFERENT than christian and different as well than the
judaic paradigm and cultural information at the level of the
pause.

Is someone who doesn’t yet know or realize this stupid? That’s
why I call these obvious’ities, (greek for the obvious) the
repeatables.

I think all of the accused should be released and the accusers
executed for if not being of malign or disingenuous intent [in their
efforts to quash truth and sacred freedom of speech] with no doubt an
alterior motive or hidden agenda, then conversely exectued simply for
being STUPID.

The hanging judge can simply ask: ‘Morons, have you not by now at least
learned the ‘repeatables’? DEATH.’ Swine.

Hang’em high with a fist full of dollars stuffed in their mouths. That’s
what they love, MONEY. Hang’em high, and watch’em Swing. And put a sign
on’em : HE (or she) WAS STUPID.

Where did the libertarian atheist Grant Miller get the idea that the Salem trials had anything to do with the “persecution by christians of nonbelievers?” And does he think that the “obnoxious prudes” getting what they deserve include the 330,000 Christians who were slaughtered for their faith LAST YEAR?

Felipeb

“It should be remembered that the cartoons were a deliberate provocation concocted by Jewish extremists. The Danish editor, Rose, was a Ukranian born Jew who ran the cartoon contest after visiting his friend the notorious racist, Daniel Pipes. It was a cheap Zionist stunt.”

Those damn dirty Jews. How dare a Jewish editor bring attention to the dhimmitude of Danish artists in being to scared to illustrate a book on Mohammed. And how dare he then run a few cartoons, which are far less offensive than the anti-semetic artwork constatnly used to criticize Israel or the anti-Christian cartoons run an a normal basis in the European press.
Those Jews and Zionists should know their place. And as someone who lived under communist oppression, Rose had absolutely no business in reminding Europe about free speech because he is a dirty Zionist Jew.

Is that your Quisling opinion?
I suppose the Muslim gangs raping women in Scandinavia is also the fault of those damn Jews too?

Re RonL. Your assertion that a “dirty Zionist Jew,” Rose, was making a statement about free speech is risible. He was engaged in a malicious attempt to drive wedge between Western society and Islam for the perceived benefit of a racist, Likudnik agenda for Israel. Devotion to free speech had nothing to do with the cartoon contest.

The neocons are known as the Smear Bund because of such provocations, similar to your own hysterical rantings. You try to pass toxic venom off as luscious honey. It does not work. Your imtemperate vile slanders betray the all-consuming hatred in your heart for anyone who is not Jewish and Zionist.

“Chris, I’m not entirely sure where you are coming from...What exactly are you arguing for?”

I’m not a dogmatic Christian, but an advocate of Western civilization and its Christian nature, and a critic of its primary internal enemies: left-liberals, Zionists, Neolibs and Neocons. It’s external enemies are well-know, well-documented and widely recognized, so deserve less scrutiny.

“I live in a country where the public orthodoxies of equality and multiculturalism have literally been written into our constitution.  We accepted it, and now must live with the perfectly logical outcome.”

Well, not exactly. The current Canadian constitution was imposed without a referendum. There was a vote in the House of Commons, and most of the MPs who voted for it went down to defeat in the subsequent election.

But you’re essentially right. Canadians aren’t Americans. We have a long tradition of deference to authority, on top of a culture of self-control and willingness to accept short-term pain for long-term gain.

But what do we do when ‘authority’ has become parasitized by people who are no longer committed to our long-term cultural and demographic survival? What do we do when they lose confidence in us and decide “to elect a new people”?

We have no idea what to do. We have never had to face this kind of situation before. God help us.

This part of the “no platform” strategy that so-called antifascists use to protect their pet allies.  It’s a disgrace and insult to any freedom loving people to have the indignity of thought crimes to be law of the land.

For revolution,
BANA

What do we do when they lose confidence in us and decide ‘to elect a new people’?

They have confidence in us? Well… only to the extent a spider has confidence in his trapped fly.

We haven’t disappointed the multiculturalists - waiting in the wings to slit our throats. We’ve delighted them. We latch onto all their trendy memes and shortlived fantasies, their distorted history and guilt trips. We puff out our chests with delusional self-righteousness: At least we’re more-evolved than rednecks! Like good little suckers, we’re sold on the counterintuitive idea that any crap-smeared, stone-age tom-tom posse is better and more desireable than our own culture. After all, we stole the ability to walk on the moon from somebody… right</i>?…

We deserve to be enslaved.

Chris Moore wrote, “Ever heard of a little Christian concept called Free Will?”

Yes, but that has nothing to do with classical liberalism, Lockean theory, or the state of nature.  Ever heard of a little Christian concept called Divine Providence and paternal authority ?

“Didn’t the Founders epitomize classical liberalism?”

Yes, I would say the most certainly did.

“Weren’t they all raised as Christians, and weren’t most of them in fact Christian Deists?”

No and no.  For the first, they were raised strange sects of liberal Protestant or Anglican, the former caused by the irrational sentimentalism of the First Great Awakening and the latter being caused by pure, proud avarice.  They were not Christian Deists because there is no such thing; the term contradicts itself.  Christians believe in Christ; Deists believe in an impersonal God separate from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Weren’t they following Jesus’ example on down the line through Luther and rebelling against the abuses, corruption and debauchery of Europe and its elites?”

No.  Christ’s example manifested itself in the various Saints, Holy Popes, and pious laymen throughout the ages.  The abuses, corruption, and debauchery of Europe never did match the horrors of the revolutions nor their subsequent excesses.  Nor were these so-called ‘abuses’ systematic in such a way that merited armed uprising.  They were an exception to the rule, probably far less in proportion to the ugliness of today.  I would say that these alleged abuses were invented to justify the greedy impulse to savage theft that typified the revolutionaries post facto.

And Martin Luther was not a follower of Christ.  Martin Luther, like his ideological children, refused obedience from lawful Authority like a coward.  You are correct to identify him and his ideas with other traitors, however.  I adore Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther and friends.

“From where does Jefferson’s concept of God-given inalienable rights emerge?”

John Locke’s sophistries in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, which crowned yet another pernicious Revolution, that of the Calvinist levellers, who also desired the destruction of the traditions, customs, and laws of a once great land.  Locke and Jefferson did not mean God as He really is, but some Clockmaker who did not demand homage.

“Wasn’t, even, Rousseau and the French tradition at war with the corrupt, moneyed aristocracy?”

Every time my France is associated with Rousseau, she is defamed.  Some feverishly ideological scoundrels tossed aside all restraint and became drunk to insanity on the blood of martyrs.  Rousseau and Voltaire were their comrades-in-arms.  These are not part of any grand French tradition; they are the enemies of all tradition, order, and peace.  And why must you rashly insist that they spoke of corruption among the aristocracy based on evidence and reason ?  According to the French revolutionaries, the aristocrats are corrupt by virtue of their being aristocrats; the King is guilty of treason for simply being a King.  There was never a good reason for their animosity.  The biggest mistake Louis XV and Louis XVI made was not being far more severe in their punishments of these mad and murderous fiends.  Since 1760, Paris was relatively irreligious and liberal, whereas before it was fanatically Catholic and royalist.  Who was to blame for this spiritual attrition but an over-indulgent King who allowed the heathen attacks of these repulsive villains to go unchecked ?

“In fact, what noteworthy Western intellectuals haven’t been inspired by the Christian example?”

Locke.  Rousseau.  Voltaire.  Kant.  Luther.  Calvin.  Leibnitz.  Heidegger.  Nietszche.  Marx.  Jaurès.  Paine.  Jefferson.  Franklin.  Evola.  Guenon.  Mussolini.  Hitler.  Hume.  De Staël.  Cranmer.  Rabelais.  Diderot.  Crowley.  Mill.  Bentham.  Spinoza.  Descartes.  Hobbes.  Berkeley.  Gibbon.  Kant.  Machiavelli.  Erasmus.  Hegel.  Darwin.  Freud.

“And from whence did liberalism itself emerge?”

From Satan, plotting wickedly in the very bowels of Hell, dismantling Christian civilisation in parts, one proposition at a time, over centuries, through such means as the passing irreverent joke to the touching romantic tale; from the dry philosophical textbook to terrible incidents of wars and murder producing seas of hot blood.

“This should be Civilization 101, and would be, if the State-centered neo-totalitarians hadn’t been waging an ideological war against Christianity since Marx, and distorting (when not stealing the credit outright for) its many accomplishments.”

It is.  Impious liberals good and open and free, intolerant Christian fanatics dark and scary and joyless—this is the lie that subverted society and manifested itself in the horrors of divers revolutions.  They betray the legacy of the human race.

“Americans and the West are being scammed by anti-Christian Marxists and their left-liberal, Neocon/Neolib intellectual heirs, and have been for decades.”

Not decades; centuries.

“It’s not Christianity’s fault there are so many useful idiots warped by lift-liberalism about these days; the Marxists systematically planned it that way, and have been carrying out their plan since.”

Sadly, if Christians loved God more, it could have all been defeated.

Charles,

Good points and I appreciate your perspective, even if I don’t entirely agree.

On the issue of rebellion, wasn’t that what Christ Himself was doing, rebelling against the corrupted religious order of his time, and demanding that the greedy, hypocritical master con-artist Pharisees who had taken control of Jewish religious institutions be exposed and rejected? Is the Church incapable of corruption, as the Pharisees in their hubris and narcissism believed themselves to be? Sometimes moral corruption runs so deep, reform is impossible; blind allegiance to temporal institutions, which even the Church becomes when corruptions sets in, runs counter to God’s order as revealed through both the history of Christianity and of human civilization.

The End of History is a Neocon tract. Moral rot always sets in when We the People let institutions do all of our thinking for us with little or no scrutiny, and make Gods of men.

What Pat writes is sadly all too true about the state of freedom in Canada.  The Steyn and Levant cases are the most publicized ones:  cases of Christian pastors being punished for having orthodox views on gay rights receive far less media attention.  While every polity has an orthodoxy which prevents a perfectly open society, the new orthodoxy of political correctness is subject to the wiles of ideological mandarins, not established tradition or the democratic majority.  Thanks, by the way, for popularizing the term “Canuckistan,” which I have used in my own fulminations against human rights apparatchiks.  Ideally this term will shame enough Canadians into de-Sovietizing their once free nation before it is too late.