A note to friends, on upcoming elections generally ... not a paid political announcement

Friends were wondering how to understand liberal thugs. They thought liberals couldn't be thugs, but recent events in Canada have shown that that is not correct.

I replied, ... to you and to all, I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s magisterial Liberal Fascism

Basically, the taxonomy of political movements with which I am familiar places New Leftism quite squarely in the fascist tradition.

Leftists, eager to confuse the issue, have insisted that fascist movements must, by definition, be right-wing.

But that is self-serving nonsense.

Fascism is a mood in politics, not a program – the mood of an aggrieved identity group that seeks salvation through government crackdowns on its perceived enemies.

Whether the grievance group is “Aryans” or “transgendered persons” or “The Sword of the Infidel Slayer”, the political mood is the same:

= Those other people have done us wrong and Government is going to put it right, and we want $millions – no, $billions! – plus a whole bunch of strict new laws against anything that makes us feel bad.

While we’re here, I am surprised that more Americans did not pick up on the Obaminator announcing that people must eat less.

It must be true that no one studies history any more.

Yes, lots of Americans are tubby. But so? What kind of a society do you think you’ll have when that becomes “a federal case”?

And the most common way governments put a stop to people eating too much is politically driven famines.

Because of the relative ease with which hunger can be alleviated today, essentially, all famines from the late nineteenth century onward have been politically driven – in the sense that it was possible to prevent the famine but no one wanted to. It was a choice.

But alas, no one studies history any more.

Canadian election nears ... a chance to vote for freedom?

As the election nears, here's one issue for Canadian Christians (and other theists) to talk about ... and another one for us to think about

Issue 1. To talk about: Anti-Christian bigotry at the highest levels of our government. Alberta civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant (threatened with further charges) posted his response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In that message, he states that it is hypocritical that Rev. Boissoin has been charged again, but that Levant himself has not been charged for reprinting Boissoin's words. Levant is Jewish, and the reason that is important will become clear from the following:

I republished the same words as Rev. Boissoin and yet you have recommended that the CHRC not proceed against me.

There is only one reason for this: the CHRC is anti-Christian, and thus you excuse in me what you condemned in Rev. Boissoin.

This is not the first indication of a deep-seated bigotry at the CHRC. You have mercilessly persecuted other Christians in Canada for merely expressing their faith, such as Fr. Alphonse de Valk of Catholic Insight magazine and Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to name just two others.

I note that the CHRC has never once prosecuted a "hate speech" complaint against any non-Christian, though there is plenty of non-Christian bigotry in Canada. No Muslim extremist, no Tamil extremist, no Sikh extremist has ever been prosecuted, though those communities are wracked with internecine hates between radical and moderate camps, that sometimes spill over into violence. But you'd rather pick on a seventy-something Catholic priest for publishing a newsletter.

That's why you're letting me go - I'm not a weak, penniless Christian clergyman.

Read the rest here.

Issue 2. To think about: An anti-Christian documentary "Religulous" will be coming to Canada. It preys on Christians who do not take their faith seriously enough to know much about it. Read more here:

One concern is that, in the present climate, a documentary like that (if accompanied by ritual praise from fashionable media) will make our situation worse.

But please, please,do NOT go to a creepy "human rights" commission if you feel dissed by an anti-Christian documentary.

Do us all a favour and know what you believe and why you believe it. Advocate it sensibly and peacefully, and help us banish the rapidly enlarging "human face" of fascism in Canada.

If you are a theist but not a Christian, remember that the reason that the people who hate order in the universe attack us first is that we have been here, arguably, longer and/or are more numerous than you.

You are next. Be good to yourselves. Fire. Them. All.

So is Sarah Palin, McCain's US Republican veep choice, a creationist?

Here's the gen I am hearing:

Shock waves:

Among other things, she has backed the teaching of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. “I am a proponent of teaching both [evolution and intelligent design," Palin said in a debate during her run for the governor’s office. "And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution."

Rats! The hassle for me is that I was going to write a formal essay rehabbing the term "creationist" but didn't want to link it to the US election. But I don't care. If I get time, I will write the short essay anyway ...

Many of my Canadian colleagues love her to pieces already. One of them said simply "God loves America."

Another said,

I've heard both American and Canadian commentators pan Mrs. Palin as too Conservative, too much of a 'mum' , and too 'young'. These are same pundits who are made comments about Mrs. Clinton being too old, too unfeminine and too radical. As a Canadian, it is not my place to make comments about who Americans elect to office. (Nor is the business of most of those pundits I heard on the CBC and the CTV.) But what gives? Having a woman with her background in politics seems like a breakthrough to me.

Another friend notes,

... the liberal bloggers are indeed going nuts over Palin. Just do a Google News search for "creationism" (August 31, 2008) and then sort it by date. The hits coming back on the issue of Palin are quite numerous and their making a big deal about it ...

Here's the view from Answers in Genesis, the young earth creationists. They are not sure where she stands with respect to their quarrel with NASA o nteh age of the Earth, but they say,

, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.

Another friend notes,

What we should keep in mind is that she is reported to be wildly popular in Alaska—and they have known her stance on teaching both sides since before she was elected, (her stance is a little more nuanced than the libs are afraid of). In spite of her stance (or perhaps in part because of it?), she’s reported to have an 80% approval rating in Alaska.

Here's what I wrote recently to a friend:

... what I find remarkable is the cluelessness of legacy Canadian media.

They think Palin a big risk.

Huh?

Why is it a big risk to choose as a running mate a woman who showed that she really believes what she fronts to the public, so to speak (I mean Trig*, of course. Who else could I mean?)

It's my experience that most people who are ambivalent about the pro-life message fear that it is, er, fronted by men who don't know what pregnancy means.

Now, people have a chance to say whether they accept the message from someone who has been there five times and - last time - under the most difficult circumstances.

The American election outcome will help us determine a lot of things, including the people's convictions about the nature of life itself.

*[her son, who copes with Down syndrome, whom she did not abort]

As it happens, I dedicated By Design or by Chance? to my childhood friend Johnny, who had Down syndrome.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy here: