My Dominion Day (Canada Day) message to my fellow Canadians

 I drove past parliament today. As I came up Sussex and turned right onto Wellington to the Hill police were everywhere in preparation for the Freedom Protest which will take place on Canada Day. You know, even using the phrase “Canada Day” sticks in my craw. The official name of our country is the Dominion of Canada and therefore the day to me will always be Dominion Day. This is the name which celebrates our autonomy from Great Britain as an emergent nation. After all, no child should forget their parent, nor ignore their relationship to them even when they become an autonomous adult exercising their own judgement and freely making their own choices. The scriptures warn us about the hubris of the child who dishonours their parents and the fate that dishonour will bring upon the offspring.

So, when I drove past parliament and its magnificent buildings I was struck with an overwhelming realization, that the inhabitants of those august and beautiful buildings have become like hermit crabs. The outside appearance of the Hill remains little changed but those who inhabit those buildings have completely rejected the system of governance that served to create the government of the Dominion of Canada. 

"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin" might as well be written above the doors of its main entrance.

Here is what these words mean:

Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

From Brian Lilley in the Toronto Sun: “Tamara Lich nabbed for breach of bail while repeat violent offenders use revolving door of court system”

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-tamara-lich-nabbed-for-breach-of-bail-while-repeat-violent-offenders-use-revolving-door-of-court-system?fbclid=IwAR3I_72Wj7JPnOHL1it4p1efi8Np8d-dDN6qZIEW3NEf9h991C_ZQwr8yAk

“Without downplaying the impact of the freedom convoy on residents of Ottawa’s downtown core, those are hardly charges that would normally see this kind of action by police and prosecutors. Lich has no prior criminal record and has not been convicted of the charges she now faces.”, stated Brian Lilley. Of course not, because Ms. Lich is a political prisoner in jail purely due to her having the unmitigated gall to believe that the Dominion of Canada is a free country governed by the Rule of Law.

Our neo-totalitarian cadre of hermit crabs fear what will take place this Dominion Day here in Ottawa, hence the police presence I mentioned earlier. James Topp will arrive in Ottawa this Friday after marching on foot from Vancouver. Here is why he is marching and who he is if you have not heard of him and his incredible journey from our left coast, and I do mean left.

“James Topp is a current serving soldier who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for 28 years. James is in the process of being released and as such is a unique case of a current serving member engaging in peaceful protest openly. The Canada Marches team, and Canadians have come to know James as a man with great humility, integrity, drive, leadership, and a desire to serve. Canada is getting to know him as well along the road.

James is keen to protect his mindful integrity by questioning the orders he is being given. He believes in, and talks about, rising above the classification of thought. He is keen to avoid identity politics, talking in circles about how we got here, and wants to explore solutions as well as open dialogue. He is often heard saying some version of:

"Can't we all just have respect and compassion for each other, and call it a day?".

WHY IS JAMES TOPP MARCHING

This march exists for 3 reasons:

1. James is protesting federal government mandates that require, as a condition for employment or continued employment, vaccination, testing, quarantine, and/or isolation;

2. James has stepped forward to speak on behalf of those personnel employed by the federal government or otherwise who have been denied access to employment and services, who have lost income and have suffered from damaged relationships due to the imposition of a medical procedure;

3. James has also stepped forward to speak on behalf of those who have, through the introduction of false constructs surrounding choices and consequences, been pressured into taking part in medical procedures that they would not otherwise have accepted;

MISSION STATEMENT:

We rise to serve Canadians with honesty, respect, and compassion, for the purpose of reuniting our people. We do this, with the intention of ensuring our government upholds the laws that support Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

I both salute and honour Tamara and James, but what disgusts me is that a nation founded on the Rule of Law, and limited constitutional government with the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary has permitted the floor of parliament and our sacred institutions such as our courts to become inhabited by creatures who desecrate their offices. These elitists have no respect for this heritage and simply refuse to defend our sacred rights under proper and transparent parliamentary oversight. Our nation as an experiment in peace, order, and good government has failed under the mishandling by the filthy claws of a pack of hermit crabs who exist in mere pretence to what their high office has called them to be! And worse, we have placed them there! It is time to place them all in a crab bucket where they can be boiled, cracked, and consumed with garlic butter for at least then they will have served some purpose if only to satiate the nation’s appetite for shellfish. We must create legislation which will allow us to hold such treasonous oligarchs responsible to recall them for the malfeasance and corruption for which they have so often proven themselves to be guilty.

The ever morphing Marxist agenda

 

I do my best work when irritated. Dr. Gad Saad who is an evolutionary psychologist and the author of “The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense”, a USA TODAY NATIONAL BESTSELLER, advises us to awaken our inner honey badger in order to motivate us to attack the ever-morphing inane ideological possession of the current prevalent social orthodoxy. Well today my inner honey badger woke up due to a remark someone left on my wife’s Facebook page. She was lamenting the lack of customer focus in modern business and indeed in the manner in which government services are provided to those who depend on them being delivered in a manner that accurately and efficiently addresses the needs of the client. Perhaps she might have worded her concerns better so I added the following comments to her post which would also address the smart-ass who told my wife communism is dead and therefore is no longer a societal concern.

His tone was patronizing and was intended to cow my wife into adopting his need for social consensus. What angers me about this is that here I have yet another example of someone manifesting a stereotype I absolutely loathe, namely that of someone who is undoubtedly a part of the prevalent social orthodoxy mocking someone who recognizes why this orthodoxy is both dysfunctional and dangerous. Communism may be dead in the form originally devised by Marx and Engels but that certainly does not mean it didn’t spawn a thousand offspring before it kicked the bucket. Therefore, I posted the following to address this undeniable reality.

I believe you may have meant to say why is there a lack of focus on the customer today? Of course, it has to do with social collectivism. After Alexander Solzhenitsyn published the Gulag Archipelago it became next to impossible for any but the most blatantly murderous to believe that Marxism wasn't ideologically unworkable. However, that only caused the faithful to invent new ideologies which trace their ideological DNA back to Marx and Engels. The Frankfurt School with its Critical Theory created a new victim versus victimizer doctrine that is alive and well in today's WOKE ideology which is practically universally accepted. It's been combined with the literary relativism and criticism of Foucault and Derrida who were leading literary critics in developing French Postmodernism. These two schools of ideological thought have virtually taken over the Academy today. Since these ideologies have created D.I.E. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) politics there can be no room for the individual since their ideology denies that we are an individual, but rather are mere extensions of the "intersectional identity group" to which we belong. Under these mind worms, for that is what they are, the end user, the customer, indeed the very idea of "I", must die under the knives of those whose aims are to create social consensus. This in a nutshell is the essence of thinking underpinning the modern welfare state with its Central Planning, whacky green ideology which isn’t actually renewable, the species of social engineering foisted by those who deny the binary nature of our sexuality, their cloying demand for censorship and uniformity, in other words, NORWAY AND CANADA. Yeah, Communism died but it's mutant children not only live on but have completely captured the Academy and our governments!

A better explanation of the left versus right political divide

The left versus right political spectrum is largely derived from the French Revolution. However, it fails to define in useful terms a political system which is based on individual liberty, personal autonomy, with a free market economy versus a system based upon central planning, social engineering, and the social collectivism of the welfare state as being the two extremes of political thought. Ultimately if the state comes to control all aspects of life itself the result will be totalitarian government.

The following excerpt is taken from an article entitled “What to Know About the Origins of 'Left' and 'Right' in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race” by Madeleine Carlisle originally published on Sept 12, 2019 

 https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/?fbclid=IwAR37C-Jc79kM8DAxDi1eNJTeDT1c-phLATfEoBXLhyK5XZe2krpj25wNOrg

What are the origins of the political terms ‘left’ and ‘right’?

“The story begins in France, in the summer of 1789, explains Patrice Higonnet, a professor emeritus of French history at Harvard University. As the French Revolution gained steam, an angry mob had just stormed the Bastille. The National Assembly assembled to act as the revolution’s government. 

And the assembly had a principal goal: writing a new constitution. One of the main issues the assembly debated was how much power the king should have, says David A. Bell, a professor of early modern France at Princeton University. Would he have the right to an absolute veto? As the debate continued, those who thought the king should have an absolute veto sat on the right of the president of the assembly, and those who thought he should not — the more radical view — sat on the left of the president of the assembly. In other words, those who wanted to hew closer to tradition were on the right, and those who wanted more change were on the left.

“So, these groupings became known as the left and the right, and that’s where we trace the origins,” Bell tells TIME.

The seating pattern repeated itself in subsequent legislatures and parliaments. “It entered popular vernacular quite quickly,” he says. “These terms were used in the newspapers reporting on the national assembly.”

How did ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ spread?

The whole world was watching the French Revolution, and its jargon eventually began to make its way around the world — but not overnight. According to French historian Marcel Gauchet’s essay “Right and Left,” the process of right and left becoming primary categories of political identity was “a long drawn-out process that lasted more than three quarters of a century, until the first decade of the 20th century.”

The prevalence of left and right in Bolshevik Russia and in the early years of the Soviet Union exemplifies the terms’ reach.

“The Bolsheviks were fascinated by the French Revolution. They were intensely conscious about carrying out its legacy — and raising it to a higher level,” Marci Shore, a professor of European cultural and intellectual history at Yale University, told TIME in an email. They viewed it as a necessary step in the historical process that would eventually lead to communism.

For them, left and right took on newly specific meanings. People who broke from the Communist party line were described by opponents as left-wing or right-wing deviationists, especially during the Stalinist era. Leaning toward the left generally meant embracing a radical international workers revolution, and leaning to the right generally meant adopting some sort of national sentiment. But the definitions were fluid, always shifting in relation to the ever-changing party line.” end quote.

The problem with the French model is that it places the desire to give the executive branch of government absolute power over legislation on the right of the spectrum and limited, constitutional government on the left. It should be noted that within the Anglosphere limited constitutional government translates into the opposite of this paradigm because it is the left which wishes to increase the centralized authoritarian power of the executive branch of government. 

But why is this uniquely so within the Anglosphere? 

"The Bloodless Revolution: What We Need to Learn from John Wesley and the Great Awakening" by David Beidel

https://tristatevoice.com/2020/08/04/the-bloodless-revolution-what-we-need-to-learn-from-john-wesley-and-the-great-awakening/

“In the 18th Century, most of Europe was on fire. Bloody civil wars and revolutions were decimating nation after nation. Unrestrained injustice, government and Church corruption, slave trade and the oppression of the poor created a powder keg for violence. Miraculously, Great Britain escaped the horrors of civil war and the brutal savagery that revolutionary anarchy engenders.

Few ancient monarchies are still in place today. The mystery of the UK’s capacity to honor the old guard, while raising up a more democratic system without a revolution, is a sociological wonder. Many credit the Great Awakening, in particular the Methodist movement, launched by John Wesley, for this extraordinary and peaceful transition.

Methodism unleashed an army of “little Christ’s” all over Europe. They cared for the poor, took in unwanted and abused children, fought unjust laws and labor conditions, visited prisoners, and battled against slavery; They joined hands with the Apostles and “turned the world upside down.” Eventually compassion became fashionable.

The very concept of having concern for suffering people outside the basic family structure, never mind other countries, was unheard of before Methodism brought to Europe this attitude of benevolence. Over two centuries later, there is still a powerful sense that to be compassionate is an American virtue. The virtue is not American, it is purely Christian, and we have the Great Evangelical Revival of the 18th Century to thank for it.

In these troubling days, there is much we can learn from John Wesley and the Methodists. He positively impacted England and most of the Western world mainly because of these three things:

He persistently and passionately preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Although his ministry may have brought about more positive social reform than any in his millennium, he never strayed from preaching the glorious story of salvation in Jesus’ name. He travelled over 250,000 miles, mostly on horseback throughout the United Kingdom, sharing the good news to the poorest of the poor in fields and outside coal mines. He did not plan to launch a social reform movement but years later realized that these transformed souls forged a transformed world. 

He gave his converts dignity by teaching them the truth; that they were a chosen people and a royal priesthood. The poor of England were spiralling out of control. Gin, prostitution, violence, slave trade and appalling corruption in the church and government, created one of the worst urban environments Europe had ever seen. Nevertheless, Wesley gave the lowest class in England dignity, honoring them as the children of God. He quickly conferred leadership over the rapidly forming small groups of new converts. They were unified in their desire to: “avoid evil, do good, and grow spiritually by the grace of God.” Soon this movement became known as ”Methodism” because as quickly as it grew, Wesley began organizing and inspiring his followers to be spiritually self-disciplined and to perform charitable good works.

He taught that faith without works – of compassion and justice – were dead. He never fell into the trap of separating preaching the Gospel and doing good for society. The cumulative effect of this grass roots movement accomplished peaceable reform by providing a vehicle for nonviolent change through the multiplication of humanitarian services to the old, the poor, children and the disabled.

The biblical teaching of Wesley flourished, launching a compassion revolution that pushed a nation—that should have erupted in flames—off the cliff of revolution and onto a robust course of meaningful reformation. Mercy and social justice became popular. “Kindness became the new cool.” Between the passionate work of the people of God and the good will of the populace, the government was forced to enact vital reforms that eventually set the standard for all civil and just nations.

His peers and protégés abolished slave trade, passed labor laws for children and adults, and radically served the desperately poor, helping them to transition into a healthy, noble middle class with political influence that accelerated proper reform.

Thus, the only horrific bloodshed of this revolution was the blood of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who, with His blood, reconciled ALL.”, end quote.

In Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” published in 1835 de Tocqueville cited that the chief reason for America’s democratic successes were due to the radical faith of its citizens. The French had murdered its protestants with impunity. The French Revolution ultimately replaced the authority of the Catholic Church and the King for an autocratic authoritarian centrally controlled government which culminated under the tyranny of that emperor and tyrant Napoleon. We can see a similar story being repeated in Quebec where the authoritarian control of the Catholic Church has been replaced by a secular authority which exercises enormous influence over the Quebecois with them being utterly dependant on handouts from the State. 

And so, we find this problem manifested federally under the government of Justin Trudeau who sees himself as a little Napoleon believing he has the authority to govern without parliamentary oversight while granting himself the power of vetoing legislation put forth by anyone but himself even suspending parliament when it suits him. He is the one who today metaphorically sits to the right of the “President of the Assembly” believing himself to have absolute authority. The man throws a tantrum if he doesn’t get his way and has demonstrated this often by storming off the floor of parliament while uttering obscenities. History may not repeat itself, but it does regurgitate the same themes over and over again. 

I hope this has provided a more realistic understanding of the left versus right political spectrum since the French model does little to explain it with clarity. What we need to recognize is the difference between those who seek to establish the moral, spiritual, and philosophical framework which can support limited, constitutional government under the rule of law where our Divine rights are recognized and protected versus those who favour absolutism and centralised, authoritarian government where the executive branch of government has become a law unto itself. 

The Postmodern left has an inherent loathing of mankind's desire to live freely. They despise the human capacity to strive against life's vicissitudes because these social collectivist types reject their own humanity by ignoring their spiritual life. Today we see radicals literally seeking to create a government which will insulate people from reality itself! Of course, their incessant promises of creating equity invariably result in ensuring an equal sharing of nihilism since they reduce every issue to a material problem. Yet the authors of the materialistic system they hope to create never themselves do without. Simply look at the ostentation and opulence of the Besserwissers attending Davos who demand that we forgo life’s small pleasures, like our automobiles, while they continue to live in obscene wealth driven about in chauffeured limousines. Whatever we are to call them and wherever we are to place them on the political divide, their goal is to use their secular power to control the distribution and production of material goods and services because they reject the need to undergo the moral, spiritual and philosophical transformation that would allow them to permit others to be free from their arbitrary overlordship. 

This is an invitation to all of us to become an army of little Christs preaching freedom to those who exist under such authoritarian bondage. I find it interesting that I am descended from radical dissenters and Methodists who had no use whatsoever for High Church mummery and religious superstition. My ancestors' churches were expressions of the people themselves where the people governed the church and not the church the people. Let us return to the inheritance they left us of limited, constitutional government under the Rule of Law where our Divinely given rights are not granted to us by our government but rather respected by it!

Putting politics into perspective in our Godless and Postmodern era

 

Many of us long for deliverance from a political class which has come to owe its allegiance not to the nation it governs but rather to unelected extranational interests. We see unelected global players such as NATO, the WHO, the WEF in Davos, the World Bank, the UN and EU, and other multinational conglomerates which are both indebted to and controlled by these extranational interests dictating to us how we ought to govern ourselves. We are also witnessing government constantly pandering to ideologies so bizarre and foreign to us that we must conclude that they are antithetical to our very way of life. Inevitably we may come to feel disassociated from a system of government which no longer resembles representative democracy under parliamentary oversite. Here in Canada the executive branch of government now deliberately hinders and impedes the work of parliament while undermining the Rule of Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, we must ask, who or what can deliver us from such powerful international forces since our own elected leaders not only have not stopped this erosion of our national sovereignty and representative democracy but have actively cooperated with its demise? I often talk about the Grand Narrative and look to the history of how that narrative has played out in the past. The Jews thought that Christ had come to deliver them from Roman rule. Their own king was a mere puppet leader, a Quisling if you will, whose real loyalty was to Rome. The Jewish Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees had failed to defend the actual Spirit of the Torah and the Talmud. The people of Israel were in desperate need of a deliverer. But they weren’t willing to change their carnal ways for God to deliver them and so they were given over to tyranny. All tyranny is the result of our own moral failures, mine, and yours.

From https://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-reject-Jesus.html

“Why do most Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah?

ANSWER:

The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do—destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 describe a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but the Jews chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discuss His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The commentaries in the Talmud, written before the onset of Christianity, clearly discuss the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and puzzle over how these would be fulfilled with the glorious setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah. After the church used these prophecies to prove the claims of Christ, the Jews took the position that the prophecies did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do and called out, “Hosanna, save us,” when He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then, when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried, and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note that Paul tells the church that the spiritual blindness of Israel is a “mystery” that had not previously been revealed (Romans chapters 9–11). For thousands of years, Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheism—one God who was personally interested in mankind’s destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments. Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed. A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews, who previously were the most spiritually discerning people. As Paul explained, this hardening on the part of Israel led to the blessing of the Gentiles who would believe in Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior.”

So, if we long for deliverance in our hour of need we must first look to ourselves. We need to understand that hoping that elections will solve our moral, spiritual, and philosophical crisis without confronting our own failings is to do as the Jews did in the time of Christ. They rejected their Messiah because they thought He would put an end to Roman rule without them dealing first with their own failures to live as they were commanded by God. If we are to put an end to this globalist takedown of the West, we must first repent and turn away from our own sin before we will ever see the Kingdom of God here on earth. And that is a word of warning I know few will receive and many will laugh at. So be it, I write these things knowing that my words are not winning friends or influencing people, rather I write them because they are true.

And, to add clarity, I have stated these things not because I am a paragon of virtue but because I am equally guilty and therefore must look to myself to ensure that I am living rightly in an age driven mad by Postmodern relativism where nothing is deemed to be true.