This is why I can’t vote for Canada’s Tories, even though I like them far better than the alternatives:
Harper said his government had no intention of opening up either the abortion or gay marriage issues, but…
… he lied; his government has moved to close the legal loopholes that prevented gays married here from other countries from divorcing.
So, IOW, his government, which refuses to scrap gay marriage (passed by the Liberals previously), now actively endorses it, to the point of caring about it so much that it wants to ensure that foreigners who came here just to marry, can legally divorce. (And why the fuck should we give a damn about foreigners who came up here to take advantage of our laws? I didn’t realize our government’s responsibility was the rest of the world; I thought governing Canada, for Canadians, was its responsibility. How hopelessly naive of me.)
Fucking lying hypocrites.
Until they become decidedly honest, non-lying (redundant, I know) Red Pill, socially conservative, paleo-conservative / old-school Red Tories and/or High Tories, they’ll never get my vote, despite how much I prefer them to the Grits or NDP (who are in disarray, anyway, and unlikely to take power for some time, since Harper’s socially leftward moves have undercut them, and they have vision / leadership troubles).
Will S.
February 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I suppose an objection that could be raised, against my being annoyed at the Tories over this, is that they’re actually undermining gay marriage by allowing gay divorce. But they’re not; after all, you can’t get legally divorced unless you are legally married in the first place – if gay marriage was scrapped, and all gay marriages performed hitherto declared null and void (it’s not like they’re sacred like real, church marriages; if the State can giveth, it can taketh away), that would solve the ‘problem’ of the sodomites who wish to ‘divorce’. If the Tories were truly socially conservative, as in decades past, they once were, long ago, they could just not give a fuck about ‘married’ gay foreigners who want to divorce – same as I don’t! But the fact they do, shows their commitment to ‘gay marriage’, to the zeitgeist on social issues. They’re morally bankrupt; they sold out. Any Christian who votes for them due to thinking they have an ounce of social conservatism in them (rather than simply preferring them to the alternatives), is an idiot and a dupe.
Gerry T. Neal
February 17, 2012 at 5:56 pm
This is why when I tell people I am a Tory, I frequently add “a true Tory, I revere our Queen and royalty in general, and despise politicians, including, perhaps especially, those of my own party”.
This is not the only matter where Harper’s government has betrayed its support base. Why is it that the bill to abolish Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which exists for the purpose of persecuting straight, white, Christian, males, is a private member’s bill and not priority legislation introduced by Harper himself? Why is it that the government cannot seem to propose any sort of sensible anti-crime legislation without including some proviso which removes the protection of the prescriptive rights and freedoms which protect subjects of Her Majesty from arbitrary investigation and prosecution by the government?
Svar
February 17, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Same deal with America as both of you gentlemen certainly know. The Republican Party is capitalist, not conservative by any means. I refer to myself as a “paleoconservative”, but no one I know even knows what that means.
Svar
February 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Gerry and Will, I remember an article by Srdja Trifkovic talking about how Canada refused to allow him to enter your country because the ragheaded camel-rapists bitched. Any thoughts? Is this connected to Section 13?
I looked the section up. Apparently it is being challenged by two white supremacists, James Scott Richardson and Alex Kulbashian(this guy’s a Leb, lol). Well, either way, it has to go.
Will S.
February 17, 2012 at 8:16 pm
@ Gerry: Indeed. The federal and the various provincial “Human Rights Commissions” (or “Inhuman Wrongs Commissions” as I think of them) ought to be abolished – but the Harper government has no intention of doing so. What’s worse, they’re also funding the soon-to-be-built new ‘Human Rights Museum’ in Winnipeg. Disgraceful.
@ Svar: Indeed, hence the accurate term ‘RINOs’, who have now pretty much taken over the entire leadership of the GOP…
@ Svar: Dr. Trifkovic was banned under another, similar act, he was evidently deemed “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.” Same shit; different pile…
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/02/25/banned-from-canadistan/#printpreview
Svar
February 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm
LOL. So Dr. Trifkovic is a war criminal according to Canadistan. Same shit, different pile, indeed.
The lies about Serbia is astounding and Amerika is still aiding Albanian and Bosnian terrorists against Christian Serbs.
Re: the GOP
I’d say the GOP was always corrupt. It’s the party of Lincoln after all.
Will S.
February 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Re: the GOP: Indeed, true enough. At least at one time, though, it was committed to some degree of social conservatism. Unlike today… They were the Stupid Party; now they’re the Stupid-and-Slightly-Less-Evil-Than-The-Democrats Party…
Svar
February 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm
@ Will and Gerry
Ahh, checking the comment thread, I see that both of you commented.
@ Will
“At least at one time, though, it was committed to some degree of social conservatism.”
Eh… I’m not too sure, considering what Clyde Wilson has said. Economic conservatism, yes. Social conservatism, no.
Will S.
February 17, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Ah. Not even, say, fifty years back?
Will S.
February 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Oh yeah! I forgot about commenting on that. I remembered seeing it, but not commenting, lol.
idrian
February 18, 2012 at 4:27 am
Hello Mr Will S! I just want to ask if you’ve visited the Dred Tory and Aeneas the Younger blogs? They label themselves Red Tories, or the Tories George Grant would like.
Will S.
February 18, 2012 at 9:04 am
Hi idrian! I’ve indeed visited and even commented at Dred Tory’s blog, though I must say, he’s a bit further left than me, though we share disdain for Stephen Harper, but I more so from the right. I like George Grant, but I seem to be more socially conservative than many modern-day fans of him, even though I am sure he would have been, on social issues, had those been political issues in his day.
I’ve been to Aeneas the Younger’s blog, but I don’t recall if I’ve ever commented there.
I’m more like Kevin Michael Grace, the former journalist for Alberta Report, whom I’ve met, and who I like very much – whom I see you’re linked to, along with Dred Tory and Aeneas the Younger. Kevin Michael Grace is also a ‘Red Tory’ of sorts, albeit, like me, a more rightist one.
If either KMG or Dred Tory were posting regularly, I’d likely have linked them. Sadly, neither of them is actively blogging much any more. I’m really sorry KMG pulled most of his archive.
Gerry T. Neal
February 18, 2012 at 6:32 pm
@Svar – Chronicles Magazine, the flagship paleoconservative magazine is, in my opinion, the best conservative print publication in North America today.
After Jason Kenney banned Dr. Trifkovic from Canada I sent him an e-mail telling him what I thought of that decision. I never received an answer.
Also note that in much of the mainstream media in Canada today “white supremacist” means “anyone to the right of Karl Marx”. All paleoconservatives and other traditionalist conservatives, including you and myself, would be considered “white supremacists by most liberal journalists in Canada. Therefore it is wise to take it with a grain of salt when you see that label applied to anyone whose views you have not investigated for yourself.
@ Will S. I live within twenty minutes walking distance of that abomination and eyesore, although mercifully it is not within view from my window.
In George Grant and Kevin Michael Grace you have mentioned two of my favorite writers. Grant is the person most of the “Red Tories” claim to derive their ideas from, although he rejected the label himself. I have pointed out a number of times that the colour of Toryism is not revolutionary red but royal blue. I disagree with his idea that socialism is more conservative than capitalism, but admire his Canadian nationalism, his moral stand against euthanasia and abortion, and his general philosophical conservatism which draws inspiration from and seeks to incorporate the older, broader and richer, pre-modern and pre-progressive Western tradition. My 2010 Dominion Day essay “Canada, Past, Present, Future” is largely about Grant and I have quoted him in several of my other essays. Grant, like myself, was raised in the United Church of Canada and later joined the Anglican Church (I took a path through the Baptist Church to get there).
Kevin Michael Grace was my favorite writer in the Alberta Report, which my materal grandmother, uncle, and myself all read. I would always read his Eclectica and whatever else he might have contributed to an issue before turning anywhere else. I have “The Ambler” in my blogroll and I keep hoping it will indicate a new post one of these days. He still occasionally contributes to VDare.
idrian
February 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Hello again, Mr Will. Given your response, how would you describe your own Toryism? As for linking to The Ambler, I have to admit I did so only for the links there.
Have you ever heard of Ron Dart? He is one of the few who still publish on Red Toryism or High Toryism as he also calls it. From what I do know, his books are only available in BC, so it might be difficult for you to get his books if you live outside the West Coast.
Will S.
February 18, 2012 at 9:14 pm
@ Gerry: I’m thinking I’m probably closer to you than I am to any of the people who still identify as Red Tory. But I do embrace the British collectivist strain of Toryism that Grant held to.
Yeah, I like KMG. I had the pleasure of meeting him once in Victoria, and corresponding several times with him. Notwithstanding his Western separatist tendencies, and association with the likes of Doug Christie, I like him, very much, and am much in agreement otherwise with his POV.
And yeah, KMG was my favourite writer for AR, which I read religiously. I partly credit him with preventing me from going down the neo-con road the Byfields held to, or the libertarianism of Colby Cosh.
I read VDARE from time to time, and always am happy to see a KMG article there.
I also like Mark Wegierski, and, though he has some neo-con tendencies, William Gairdner.
I thought Grant was raised Presbyterian? I know his forebears were. At any rate, I knew about his conversion to Anglicanism, same as you hold to.
I, too, was raised United Church, then later became evangelical, finally becoming a confessing Reformed Protestant.
@ idrian: I consider myself an old-school, George Grant Red Tory, with some degree of High Tory as well, I’d probably say.
Yes, I have heard of Ron Dart. I also know who Shadia Drury is. And David Orchard.
The problem, of course, with the term ‘Red Tory’, is that it has come to stand for the socially progressive, Joe Clark / Hugh Segal way of thinking, which I’m sure isn’t what George Grant had in mind, at all. And even some more decidedly neo-conservative in economics, but still socially progressive, use the term to describe themselves. I reject those ways of thinking, categorically.
idrian
February 18, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Mr Will, won’t you mind me adding you in my links list? Have you also visited the Red Tory blog? If you won’t mind me asking, what is your opinion of Dart, Drury, and Orchard?
Will S.
February 19, 2012 at 12:07 am
Go ahead, idrian. I have visited there, yes. My opinions of them are the same as my opinions of Dred Tory.
idrian
February 19, 2012 at 12:16 am
Thanks for the permission and reply, Mr Will. I hope I didn’t bother you with that message.
Will S.
February 19, 2012 at 12:30 am
Not at all! Cheers.
Gerry T. Neal
February 19, 2012 at 1:06 am
Will, Grant was seven years old when the Presbyterian Church joined the Methodists to form the United Church of Canada. So technically he was raised Presbyterian and United Church. I don’t recall there being much discussion of the church union in William Christian’s excellent biography of Grant but then when Christian is talking about Grant as a Christian he tends to focus on his WWII conversion experience and his spiritual life after.
I hold to the old Tory view that society is organic in its fundamental nature rather than contractual and have argued for this view in several essays. This could be viewed as a form of “collectivism” because it is opposed to the classical liberal view of the primacy of the individual. I would hesitate to use the word “collectivist” to describe it however because of the economic connotations of that word. My economic views are quite simple – families, individuals, organizations and other institutions have private economic interests and choices to make which affect those interests, societies also have collective economic interests, such as the need for domestic production of essential goods. Government is incapable and incompetent with regards to the former, but it is an essential task of government to look after the latter, which is a much smaller sphere than the former.
I too disagree with Western separatism, but I respect Doug Christie nonetheless, for his fight against the oppression of Trudeau’s hate speech laws.
Will S.
February 19, 2012 at 1:13 am
Oh, for certain, Doug Christie’s work as a lawyer in defending the likes of Ernst Zundel is invaluable in that regard. But he himself shares such leanings as Zundel, and Paul Fromm, and to put it mildly, I have little sympathies for such perspectives, even though I don’t think those who hold to them should be jailed / punished under the law.
I think our views on economics aren’t all that different, though I do believe in the State taking some interest in the well-being of its less-well-off citizenry; I support some aspects of the welfare state, while wishing it would be shrunk significantly from what it is now. But I believe more in the free market, and in allowing people to make their own life choices; I’m no fan of government paternalism, believe me.
My grandmother’s people were Presbyterian before Church Union, while my grandfather’s were Methodist; they were the perfect United Church couple, I suppose.
Svar
February 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
@ Gerry T. Neal
Ahh! I didn’t know that Canada was that bad. I did think that it was strange for a Leb to be a white supremacist. Lebs are Caucasoid, yes, but not European Caucasoid(white).
However, I got that piece of information from Wikipedia. It’s not completely reliable, but it’s fairly decent. I remember when it placed AltRight as a paleoconservative site, so it obviously has problems.
Svar
February 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm
@ Will
“And yeah, KMG was my favourite writer for AR, which I read religiously.”
AR? Alternative Right?
Will S.
February 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm
No, Alberta Report, a long-defunct Western Canadian conservative magazine.
Gerry T. Neal
February 19, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Will – Re: Doug Christie and Paul Fromm.
Do you remember back when Pat Buchanan began his first run for the presidency? Liberal and neo-conservative commentators accused him of being a white supremacist, an anti-semite, a Hitler supporter, and a holocaust denier. They have kept up these accusations ever since and, as you can see from Buchanan’s column last Friday, Buchanan has been fired from MSNBC over these charges.
At the same time all of this started, the neoconservatives were writing letters to William F. Buckley Jr. asking him to fire Joseph Sobran, accusing him of anti-semitism over his stance on Israel. Buckley eventually did just that.
Then a few years later Samuel T. Francis was fired by the Washington Times over remarks he made at an American Renaissance conference, again after neoconservatives complained to the newspaper.
A couple of years after that Peter Brimelow and John O’Sullivan were fired from National Review over their stand on immigration.
Just recently, CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) has come under heavy criticism for a panel discussion, organized by ProEnglish.org, organized by Robert Vandervoort and including as participants John Derbyshire, Rosalie Porter, Peter Brimelow, and Srdja Trifkovic. Liberals have denounced these all as “white nationalists” (see Derbyshire’s latest article at Takimag), and over at American Spectator one supposedly conservative writer just demanded that Vandervoort repent of his past associations with Jared Taylor of American Renaissance.
Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Srdja Trifkovic, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, John Derbyshire and the others – all of these are true blue paleoconservatives, who have been denounced as “racists”, “white supremacists” and in some cases “neo-nazis” and “holocaust deniers”.
This should cause us to take these kind of accusations with a grain of salt, especially when we run into them in the liberal and neoconservative dominated mainstream media.
Ernst Zundel was treated horribly by our country for his views. I don’t agree with his views on the Holocaust – but unlike most I have taken the time to learn what they actually are, and to read what he has to say for himself. From what I have read of him I do not see him as a man motivated by racial hatred and bigotry or a belief in National Socialist style oppression but as a man motivated to respond to the ongoing vilification of his people and his country of birth. I have never met him, but one unusually fair mainstream media liberal journalist, the late John Sack met him at the meeting of the Institute for Historical Review in 2000. In an article for the February 2001 issue of Esquire, later included in Best American Essays 2002, Sack argued that Zundel and the other holocaust revisionists were not the villainous haters the press usually depicts them as being, but were motivated by the reason I explained above.
I have never met Doug Christie, but I have known Paul Fromm for many years, and have had many discussions with him about political and other matters. In my opinion, he is far closer to the Pat Buchanan/Joe Sobran/Sam Francis/Peter Brimelow/Srdja Trifkovic kind of paleoconservatism than to the George Lincoln Rockwell/William L. Pierce views the media accuse him of having. The only evidence the left offers to the contrary is his associations. I’ve watched online videos, however, of the speeches he has given at David Duke meetings, and listened occasionally to the talks he has given on Stormfront. The things he says in these forums which I, like you, have qualms about, are no different than in the talks he gives to CAFE/C-FAR supporters which consist mostly of old Alberta Report readers.
Re: Your grandparents. It sounds like your grandmother would have believed that they were a match, pre-ordained in Heaven, whereas your grandfather would have been pleased with his choice of a wife.
Will S.
February 19, 2012 at 10:14 pm
@ Gerry: I see. I certainly agree about the vilification of Pat Buchanan. I was indeed thinking of some of the people Paul Fromm associates himself with, and those who champion Ernst Zundel… Ah well. Like I say, I think in a free country, people ought to be able to believe whatever they wish and be free to proclaim it. I’m a paleo-con, and a questioner of egalitarianist orthodoxy, certainly, myself. But I may be personally wary of some people liked by Stormfront.
Re: my grandparents: Ha!
Svar
February 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm
The way they slander Pat Buchanan and Thomas Fleming especially angers me.
Will S.
February 20, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Agreed, Svar. Me, too.