The Growing Toll of Environmentalism

Save our people?

It occurs to me that the entire structure of Pharisaism—in modern times, the education system, the press, the legal system, and the government bureaucracy—is there to inculcate and sustain the shared delusions of the matrix.

A current and critical example is the rash of mass shooters in the US. To read the press and watch the mainstream media, you would think they are all white supremacists and Trump supporters. The manifesto of the Christchurch killer was even aggressively suppressed in order, it seems, to further this idea.

And this is a particularly pernicious example. It is sacrificing innocents to Moloch in order to preserve the power of the powerful. Unless we examine the true causes of these killings, they will no doubt continue and get worse.

None of these killers have been Trump supporters, and none of them have been white supremacists.

Looking at the most recent shootings, in Dayton, El Paso, and Gilroy, and also at Christchurch, what is the real common thread?

It is environmentalism.

All of these killers were animated primarily, it seems, by the idea that human beings are destroying the sacred earth. This gives implicit warrant to kill people.

And, of course, if overpopulation is strangling the planet, it is transparent madness to let all kinds of people into the country. We will then ultimately need to fight them over the last water hole. It is simple urgent survival to keep their numbers down by any means necessary. While it is still possible…

The second consistent thread of thought among these killers seems to be multiculturalism/cultural relativism. This links culture with race, as the Nazis did. If new immigrants flood in, there is no question under multiculturalism and the banning of “cultural appropriation” of their assimilating and becoming like the rest of us. Instead, any large migration is an invasion by a permanently alien entity. Allow enough of them in, then, and necessarily, by this logic, it will end the existing American culture. If you suppose America is even a little better than the average among nations, or have some sentimental attachment to things like Mom, democracy, equality before the law, and apple pie, this would seem to demand action in defense of the country. Sheer self-reservation again demands action before it is too late.

But this idea comes entirely from the left, not the right; at least in North America. The traditional doctrine on the North American right has always been that neither Canada nor America is an ethnic nation, but are founded on certain shared ideas or values—on common culture. This multiculturalism and cultural relativism rejects.

Next to this, a common thread for many of these cases—I do not know if this is true in these present cases—seems to be the effective absence of a father in the home of the killer.

And again, it is the left that is promoting the idea that fathers are unnecessary.

On Not Reading the Christchurch Killer's Manifesto

27 February, 1933.

“Democracy dies in darkness,” runs the new and much-mocked motto of the Washington Post.

Mocked not because it isn’t true, but because the Washington Post itself allegedly does not honour it.

In swift reaction to the shootings in Christchurch, the government of New Zealand has banned either distributing or possessing the killer’s manifesto. Offenders found with a copy face up to ten years in prison.

In the meantime, we read and see everywhere that the murderer was a “white supremacist.”

The problem is, he wasn’t, and the suppression of his manifesto serves to sustain this fiction and suppress this truth. I have myself criminally wordsearched his manifesto online for the term “white,” to confirm this. Nowhere does he express or endorse the idea that “whites” are, or ought to be treated as, superior.

Nor is the killer, as also often asserted, “right-wing,” let alone “far right”—according to his own statements. I wordsearched that one too. He says he is neither left nor right.

This government action in New Zealand begins to look sinister.

Imagine deliberately suppressing public knowledge of the causes of some deadly disease. Wouldn’t that ensure that the disease spreads, grows, and kills more?

Worse, falsely tagging this on the “far right” and on “white supremacists” seems likely to foment the very sort of tribal conflict and scapegoating that leads to more such massacres. Albeit presumably against “whites” and conservatives rather than Muslims.

Why would a government do this? Who benefits?

One possible reason is that such incidents are a convenient excuse for expanding government powers.

Misrepresentations of Godwin’s Law to the contrary, there is an obvious historical example of how this works: Hitler’s Reichstag fire. In the crisis atmosphere it evoked, he was able to seize absolute power. Without necessarily accusing Kiwi bureaucrats of ambition quite so naked, one can yet see how it all works to their advantage. As Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel reputedly once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

A second possible reason is that the killer’s argument has too much truth to it. This is almost necessarily the case when anyone tries censorship. Things that are obviously false are no threat. When you think you can win an argument, you positively want the argument to happen. You only want to suppress a view or opinion when you feel you cannot respond to it.

I have not actually read the murderer’s long manifesto. The main reason is that I read copies available on the web have now been booby-trapped by someone with viruses. Not worth the risk. Also probably not worth the horrifying moral quandary of possibly having to agree to at least some extent with a mass murderer.

But you have to wonder. This has not happened with other manifestos from other mass murderers, which are generally pretty available online. No government ban, no booby-trapping. I recently read the long rant left by the 2014 “incel” killer. Mein Kampf, for that matter, is freely available, as it should be. So is The Communist Manifesto. The fact that either incites violence against an identifiable group is obviously not a vital issue. After all, awkwardly enough, so does the Quran.

There has to be something special here. Something smells wrong here.

Blowing in the Wind

A few days ago, I wrote about the slaughter in Christchurch, and that of course everybody is going to come out and say they are against murder and hate; but they always say that, and it does nothing.

Actually, this time, in Canada, not everyone has done so. And this looks significant.

Andrew Scheer’s initial statement seemed to avoid saying that the victims were Muslim.

“Freedom has come under attack in New Zealand as peaceful worshippers are targeted in a despicable act of evil. All people must be able to practice their faith freely and without fear.”

He was quickly criticized for this omission, and sent out a second statement that was more explicit. 

Maxime Bernier

Maxime Bernier did not. He first said nothing about the incident, and then, when challenged, responded that there was no call to issue a statement. He did not automatically issue statements whenever Christians or others were attacked either.

“Some journalists have no decency. Did this one harass me or anybody else when dozens of Christians were massacred in Nigeria and the Philippines weeks ago? Why not? As a rule I don’t comment on these horrible tragedies in other countries. Period.”

Bernier has a point. Islam has been given more consideration in Canada in recent years than Christianity or Judaism. Witness House of Commons resolutions consciously and deliberately condemning “Islamophobia,” without referring to other religions—religions that suffer more actual hate crimes.

But this reaction, by Scheer and Bernier, suggests that politicians are now no longer certain they gain politically by defending Muslims. Even at a time when one might expect natural sympathy. That’s chilling. They are making a careful calculation instead; fingers are to the wind. And the direction of the wind may be shifting.

Important moral for any minority in a democracy: do not trust government to protect you from a lynch mob. The same lynch mob elected them. 

There is a reason for the blindfold.

This is one of the great overlooked advantages of Empire. The authorities in London, and those they sent out to administer, were divorced from local factions and prejudices. They could view disputes with a disinterested eye, and so would dispense justice. Good news for minorities everywhere: Sikhs in India, Ibo in Nigeria, Hakka in Malaysia, French in Canada. This is always less probable in either a democracy or a local oligarchy.

Witness the very different experience of aboriginal people in Canada, under the Empire, and in the US. Thomas Darcy McGee found the same to be true for the Irish: Montreal treated them more fairly than Boston, where the signs went up that “no Irish need apply.” Witness the disparate treatment of Africans in the two countries. 

It was real.

In theory, liberal democracies also have checks and balances built in to restrain the mob. This is the point of the Senate, in either Canada or the US. This is the point of a constitution and a separate judiciary. To some extent, this is the point of a federation.

Unfortunately, we have increasingly politicized them.

While all the talk has been, for the past forty years or, about celebrating minorities, do not be misled. Our system is not set up for this, and this was never true. It looked true only so long as so-called “minorities” constituted a majority voting bloc, and some disliked minority—such as “cisgendered Anglo straight white males”—could be falsely presented as the majority. But the focus of the mob can just as easily, and abruptly, swing to another victim: the Jews, or white women, or the Muslims, and so forth. We are beginning to see this.

First they came for the cisgendered Anglo straight white males, and I said nothing, for I was not a cisgendered Anglo straight white male. Then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing, for I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Muslims …

The Christchurch Massacre

John Locke

Everyone is deeply shaken by the miniature holocaust that just happened in Christchurch, New Zealand. In part, no doubt, because this is a little bit like “man bites dog”; not the first time it has happened, but we are more accustomed to hearing of some Muslim shooting up Westerners than of some Westerner shooting up Muslims. This seems to take things to another, and an ominous, level. And the second shocking element is that it happened in little, peaceful, New Zealand. Middle Earth. Is nowhere safe any longer?

Nowhere is.

Now we get the inevitable rote expressions of disgust and horror from all quarters. But what does it all accomplish? We have heard it all now so many times before. Very well; so everyone is publicly against murder. Everyone is against hate. What does it do to say so? Is this going to make these incidents stop? Why would it this time?

Some will of course call for practical measures. But we have heard these all before as well. Some will call for tougher gun laws in New Zealand. We know this will do nothing. These events have taken place everywhere, regardless of very different laws on gun ownership. They have been done using bombs or airplanes or boxcutters or kitchen knives.

Others will of course call for more mental health treatment. We know this will do nothing. These events have taken place everywhere, regardless too of very different mental health systems. Often, the perpetrators have already been under psychiatric treatment; obviously, it made no difference.

The problem is instead quite simply the complex of postmodernism and multiculturalism. As we have warned previously in this space, this carnage is their inevitable result. Unless we do something more than mouth platitudes, things are going to get much worse.

Postmodernism holds that there is no shared truth. Truth is constructed by each one of us, either alone or in our group. It is “our truth.” That means we have no shared notion of right and wrong, no ethical values. If we disagree, if our chosen “realities” collide, there is no basis on which to settle our differences but gunfire. And we have that intrinsic right. It is “our truth.”

Multiculturalism holds that people are defined by their culture. There is, moreover, no objective truth by which any culture can be judged right or wrong, better or worse. Cultures cannot, in principle, change or develop, because there is no reality outside themselves. They ought moreover not to mix—that’s “appropriation.” They are each self-contained, hermetically sealed, each with “their truths.”

Suttee: a colourful bit of traditional South Asian culture.

It follows inevitably from these two principles, if accepted, that all cultures are an intrinsic threat to all others. And the only intelligent response to immigration is violence. You have to kill them before they take over and kill you.

A few people have figured this out. More will over time.

The way, and the only way, to end the killing is to drive a stake through the heart of postmodernism and multiculturalism.

Before the Enlightenment, social cohesion depended on shared religion; this was the shared set of truths on which disagreements could be resolved fairly and amicably. This, and not blind prejudice, was why everyone was required in those days to hold to the same faith, and religious minorities were considered a danger to the state. The Enlightenment substituted the principles of liberalism. We held certain truths to be sacred and inviolable: that all man were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Locke had this last as “the enjoyment of property.”

Given this set of shared truths, religious liberty was now possible. And on them, America was able to build a thriving society assimilating people from diverse backgrounds.

Postmodernism and multiculturalism now directly oppose these liberal principles and seek to destroy them. Without either them, or their religious precursors, all is lost. We are beginning to see just what Enoch Powell predicted many years ago: rivers of blood in our streets. Only a fool should be surprised.

The unjustly much-maligned Enoch Powell.

If we want to end the slaughter, a first step would be to require, as many have recently called for, a values test for all new immigrants. The values to be tested for must be those in the US Declaration of Independence or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone new must sign on to this social contract.

The curriculum in all public schools and all publicly funded universities must then be overtly based on these core principles. Including mandatory courses in civics. Demonstrated failure to support and promote liberal principles like free speech and freedom of conscience should result in immediate loss of funding.

Nor is this in itself any infringement on free speech. There is a vital public interest involved here, and anyone would still be free to set up their own private school or university on any other basis, sans public funding.

Note that this means multiculturalism and postmodernism must be officially rejected. No courses in them; cited only to be dismissed.

There are yet more controversial issues involved: this is a big reason why we have strayed so far into postmodernism and multiculturalism in the first place. It has been to avoid a few big controversies.

Most notably, liberalism requires an acceptance of the right to life. That means abortion cannot be legal, and cannot be advocated in the school or university system.

Properly, too, all “affirmative action” measures are in direct violation of the principle of human equality.

And notice that reference in the Declaration of Independence to a Creator. The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, similarly, is the phrase “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

There is a reason for this. Locke relies on it as well. Without the assumption of a Creator, human equality and human rights are not, in fact, self-evident or sacred. Without God, everything, as Nietzsche rightly realized, is then permissible. Any liberal social and educational regime which permits Canada or civilization to survive must be based on bedrock theism. Atheism might be tolerated, but it must receive no official recognition or sanction. It is not morally neutral.