The Monarchist 2.0

Contrary to popular assumption, "loyalty" is not a dead virtue. It may have evolved from the ancient feudal notion of fealty and homage towards kings, to the now well-established idea of a "loyal opposition", but it is still - and will always be - our most important virtue.

HOLINESS, THAT HIGHEST OF HIGH TEMPLE VIRTUES, is nothing without loyalty. If the very definition of loyalty is faithfulness and devotion to a cause or being, then what is holiness or sanctity if not loyalty to God, after all?

Truth is a high temple virtue too, so is honour. But truth only triumphs inasmuch as one is loyal to it; honour, inasmuch as one is loyal to the code. Loyalty is the cardinal virtue because it makes the other virtues possible. It is virtue enabling.

For example, what is love without fidelity? What is hope without faith? What is charity without fealty or obligation? What is respectfulness without deferance? What is duty or service without allegiance? What is perseverance if not faithfulness and devotion to the end? And what is responsibility if not loyalty to our families, our careers and our communities? Personal responsibility. Corporate responsibility. Civic responsibility. Duty and commitment. It all comes down to loyalty.

One could go on and on about the interconnectedness of loyalty with virtue. Is justice not just adherence to a common belief in fairness, is morality not just cultural allegiance to a virtuous set of principles, ethics and values? As the American philosopher Josiah Royce postulated in his Philosophy of Loyalty (1908), "Loyalty is the fulfillment of the whole moral law. You can truthfully centre your entire moral world about a rational conception to loyalty. Justice, charity, industry, wisdom, spirituality, are all definable in terms of enlightened loyalty." He called his grand ethical theory, "loyalty to loyalty", defending the unifying virtue as the supreme moral good.

Once you appreciate that loyalty is the greatest human virtue, you understand that betrayal is the greatest human vice. The old evils of blasphemy, venality, cowardice, avarice, gluttony and sloth were all interpreted as betrayals of one form or another. Self-treachery can lead to any number of personal follies, since betrayal can empower all matter of sins. In Shakespeare's own immortal words, that Colossus of English literature, "self-love my liege, is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting". Shakespeare understood that there is nothing beneath betrayal in the whole catalogue of sin.

And yet loyalty has often been misconstrued as a vice, and disloyalty sometimes misconstrued as a virtue. The "virtue of disloyalty" as put forward by Mark Twain and Grahame Green argued against giving in to the demands of loyalty in order to best protect the individual from those who exploit it, fearing it could potentially be used as a means to pursue unethical conduct on a grand scale. And indeed who could deny the idea has considerable resonance after bearing witness to history's murderous crimes under the fanatically loyal regimes of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

But as it is with any other virtue, loyalty does not ask for us to suspend our moral judgements. Conscientiousness and sincerity may be directed to unworthy objects, but conscientiousness and sincerity do not for that reason fail as virtues. Does the corruption of courage, by which we mean foolhardiness, prove then that courage is not a virtue? Obviously there is a point at which virtue becomes not a virtue at all, for confidence can be corrupted into vanity, generosity into extravagance and loyalty into complaisance and servility. The trust that tends to accompany loyalty need not encompass gullibility and credulity.

It was Aristotle who described every virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait. The point of greatest virtue lies not in the exact middle, but at a "golden mean" sometimes closer to one extreme than the other. Virtuous loyalty then is just the golden mean between fanatical disloyalty and fanatical loyalty. The mean between treachery and subserviance.

Society may be somewhat off its golden mean these days (we no longer worship virtue), because the needs of liberty have (over)entrenched the practice of limiting loyalty. The ancient fealty towards kings has progressed into the well-established idea of a "loyal opposition", since we have come to Whiggishly accept that for loyalty to be virtuous there must be openness to corrective criticism on the part of both the subject and object of loyalty. The "corrective" qualification is important, for not any opposition is permissible. A loyal opponent is not just an opponent, but one who remains loyal, and that entails the opposition to stay within bounds that are compatible with the well-being or best interests of the object of loyalty.

Predominantly speaking, a loyal opposition will not advocate rebellion or revolution or even radical change, for the latter would endanger the object of loyalty and perhaps replace it with an undesirable alternative. Perhaps it is the commitment to opposition within the prevailing structures that has led some radical critics of loyalty to see it negatively as a conservative virtue, or not to view it as a virtue at all. It is conservative because it involves a commitment to securing or preserving the interests of its object, an object that has come to be valued for its own sake.

Nevertheless, the existence of a loyal opposition does not preclude the possibility that a more radical opposition might and indeed should subsequently be mounted. If the loyal opposition proves incapable of "reforming" the object of loyalty, the exit option might be taken. In such cases it could be argued that the object of loyalty was no longer worthy of its claim to it. It is only if we mistakenly or misguidedly think of loyalty as making an absolute claim on us that a derogatory charge of conservatism (for those who see conservatism as derogatory) against a loyal opposition will have any traction.

We can limit loyalty but we cannot eliminate it altogether, nor should such a thing ever be desired, for that path leads to anarchy and destruction. Suffice it to say that no person, no profession, no culture and no country can survive long without it. Loyalty is the glue of society, the gospel of reason and the creed of nations. As part of the natural order, loyalty is the cardinal virtue and the whole cornerstone of Tory philosophy. It is absolutely critical to our existence.

It goes without saying that The Monarchist holds it in the highest possible regard.

Read the full article >>

A disloyal collection of 22 cross party MPs are launching a campaign to end the 500 year tradition of swearing allegiance to the Queen when entering parliament.

"I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD
THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE
TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH,
HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS,
ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD."
"This seems to me to be an attack upon the state itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the state which is outside the political, partisan process...The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels." - Lord Tebbit, Conservative Peer

"This is an act of uncomprehending constitutional vandalism. The Queen is the centre of the British constitution." - Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP

"This is a matter of democracy. I'm put here by my constituents and it's to them I owe my allegiance. Taking the oath to an unelected person is a nonsense."
- Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP and campaign leader

"We need to make the oath something that people are offered, rather than required to take...We should make provision for republicans or separatists..."I wouldn't drop the oath - I would make it optional. I am a subject of the Queen even more than I am a citizen of this country. I'd much prefer a bad monarchy to a good president...But people ought to be able to come to parliament and argue that they don't want the monarchy." - Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP

Update: The Low Tory Daniel Hannan (how low can you go and still call yourself one) says all the rights things, but qualifies the post by declaring himself a rather feeble monarchist. Read: MPs should pledge allegiance to the Crown

Read the full article >>

A respected historian of Loyalists, Mr. Robert L. Dallison is the author of the book Hope Restored: The American Revolution and the Founding of New Brunswick and the creator of the museum Loyalist exhibition Hope Restored. Mr. Dallison has now created the exhibition Fredericton's Loyalists, hosted by the York Sunbury Museum in Fredericton, New Brunswick in Her Majesty's Kingdom of Canada.

Mr. Dallison’s Fredericton Loyalists exhibit tells the story of the Loyalist experience from the American Revolution, their struggle to survive the conflict, defeat, exile and settlement in Fredericton, New Brunswick. About 100,000 people fled the United States and about 14,000 found themselves in New Brunswick.

Mr. Dallison took a closer look at two families in Fredericton. The first being the Ingraham family whose experiences were recorded in their teenage daughter’s personal diary and was the focus of a National Film Board film, “The World Turned Upside Down.” The second is the Robinson family whose Fredericton home was situated across the Saint John River from the Governor's House in Fredericton. Dallison's exhibit includes some of the archaeological findings from the Robinson home since it no longer exists.

The exhibit features a replica Loyalist New Jersey Volunteers uniform (courtesy of Marion Fleming, Shelburne NS) that guests can try on and have their picture taken next to two life sized soldier cut outs from the Maryland Loyalists (courtesy of re-enactors Robert and Brendon Dobyns).

Mr. Dallison also included a Union Flag. The Union Flag was carried by the British Army during the American Revolutionary War. This flag is easily confused with the Union Jack of the United Kingdom adopted in 1801 when the red cross of St. Patrick was incorporated.

Still in progress is the computer work station that is going to be in the centre of the room. It will include an interactive quiz game and a copy of the Atlantic Canada Virtual Archives Loyalist website.

Read the full article >>

On the shores of Lake Erie, in the Niagara Region of the Province of Ontario, lies the small town of Port Colborne.

In a ceremony this upcoming Saturday afternoon, a cemetery in Port Colborne will be officially designated a Loyalist cemetery.

Writes Derek Swartz of the Welland Tribune:

[Jerry Fisher's] poking around will also lead to the designation of a Loyalist cemetery in Port Colborne on Saturday afternoon, the first such designated cemetery in the city. Steele Cemetery on Concession 2 is the final resting place of Aaron Doan, who resisted the independence-minded American colonists during the Revolutionary War and took up arms against them in the War of 1812.

Read the full article >>

By David Byers (Convenor of ACM in Country, New South Wales)

The Australian Oath of Loyalty

I, Kevin Rudd, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and

successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD

If politicians have no respect for our Sovereign than why should Loyal Australians have any respect for their new "oaths". My idea is "The Australian Oath of Loyalty" it can be taken by loyal members of the New South Wales Parliament (they might even like to have their own ceremony) or new Australians who wish to make the true Oath or just anyone who would like to sign one and have it framed on the wall in their office or home. I am putting the idea to ACM and trying to have them prettied up. What do you all think?

We must honour the Sovereign. If we do not celebrate the Sovereign in images, than they are out of our sight. If we do not celebrate the Sovereign in song, than they are not in our hearts. If we do not honour our Sovereign in Oaths than we are not bound to them.

That is something I have felt for years and is why the republicans like to take down pictures of the Queen and remove Oath etc. People should at least have the option to make the true Oath. That is why that idea for "The Australian Oath of Loyalty" means so very much indeed to me.

Read the full article >>

by Ian Holloway, National Post

Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (until recently, Harold Kenny), a professor of physics at the Royal Military College and an officer in the Canadian Forces Reserves, has sued the government for what he alleges to be a "degrading" policy of requiring officers to stand during the loyal toast and salute during the playing of God Save the Queen. News reports suggest that Capt. Chainnigh has been fighting the policy for five years and has had his grievance denied by both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Capt. Chainnigh is now asking the federal court to declare the requirement to pay respect to the Crown as unlawful on the basis that it amounts to what he describes as "institutional harassment." In his public comments on the case, Capt. Chainnigh has repeatedly described Queen Elizabeth as a "foreign monarch." The news report says that his objection "is based on the premise that while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen."

It is clear what the federal court should do with respect to Capt. Chainnigh's suit. There are intellectually respectable reasons for arguing that Canada should become a republic. But to suggest that under current law the Queen is a foreign monarch is quite ridiculous. Even the most superficial reading of Canada's constitution makes this obvious. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 declares that executive authority over Canada is vested in the Queen. Section 17 provides that, along with the Senate and House of Commons, the Queen constitutes one of the three branches of Parliament. And, most pertinently of all, section 15 declares that the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

Capt. Chainnigh's mistake is to confuse the freedom of conscience with the freedom of action. The fact is that, like every Canadian, Capt. Chainnigh is entitled to his own belief system. He is free to exercise his conscience at the ballot box to vote for candidates who are in favour of Canada becoming a republic. He is free to make a statement by changing his name to its Irish version. He is even free to resign his commission and to seek elected office himself, in order to better make the case for a republic. But as long as he wants the privilege of being able to describe himself as an officer (in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, no less), it hardly seems harassment to expect him to acknowledge the plain terms of the constitution. It is not up to him, or to any member of the Canadian Forces for that matter, to pick and choose which provisions of the constitution he wants to uphold. As an old Chief Yeoman of mine once put it, once you take the Queen's shilling you have to take the rough with the smooth.

With the exception of the Monarchist League, many Canadian monarchists have fallen into the blunder of seeking to avoid confrontation by minimizing the constitutional centrality of the Crown in Canada. As much as Capt. Chainnigh might wish it otherwise, the bottom line is that ours is a thoroughly monarchical system of government. We are a constitutional monarchy to be sure, but we are a monarchy all the same. Those like him, who hold publicly-conferred office yet who deny or belittle our system of government, are themselves arguably behaving contemptuously of Canada and its institutions. Happily, both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and Gen. Hiller seem to have been robust in their denial of Capt. Chainnigh's grievance. Now it will be interesting to see how staunchly the government of Canada is willing to defend the constitution.

Read the full article >>

Two gentlemen who have commented on this blog in the past, go head to head in a debate on national television. Both obstinantly hold to their positions, but Rafael comes out on top in the end by emphasizing the shared aspect of the Crown, in marked contrast with the more narrow, independent and isolated view of our republican nationalist friend, who plays the national loyalty card aggressively enough, but puts no value on the higher loyalty based on the bonds of fraternity and collective allegiance to our shared heritage.

Beaverbrook

Read the full article >>

By Cyril Bagin

The Forgotten Milestone

This Monday, December 11 marks the 75th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, a milestone that is significant and yet forgotten. This law was passed by the Imperial Parliament at Westminster in 1931, forever changing our Empire into the Commonwealth. This is the day that Canada and the other Dominions became fully independent countries.

Most of us are aware of the national importance of the battle at Vimy Ridge and the maturing of Canada’s self-identity during World War I. But few are aware of the developments that occurred following this Great War, including both Canada’s welcome at the diplomatic table and the Imperial discussions which took place in the 1920s. These Imperial Conferences led to an organic development in the British Empire that was legally enacted by this Statute of Westminster. Though it was necessarily an act of the Parliament in the United Kingdom, it was actually a consensus agreed upon by the governments of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions existing at that time.

These Dominions within the Empire included the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland . Each of these, beginning with Canada , achieved internal self-government within the Empire. However, until 1931, the key word was “within”. Each Dominion was more than a mere colony and yet was still connected to the mother country. After 1931, each Dominion legally became an equal to the United Kingdom and fully independent in every way. The best example of the meaning of this change is with the declaration of war. At the start of the First World War, when the United Kingdom declared war automatically the whole Empire was engaged. But at the beginning of the Second World War, Canada independently declared war a week later.

This organic change within the Empire effectively created The Commonwealth that Canada still remains a key member of. These seven countries are thus the founding members of this international organization, which at that time was known as The British Commonwealth of Nations. Though each country was now fully independent, each state chose to remain a constitutional monarchy and to keep the unifying role of the Crown. Political power no longer united these realms; now only common allegiance united these free peoples. When she became our Queen, Elizabeth II also became Head of the Commonwealth and recognized that “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace.”

While recognizing the Crown, this Statute significantly changed the role of the monarch. Until 1931, King George V was Canada’s king because he was the King of the United Kingdom and he would take official advice in regard to Canada from both the Canadian and British governments. But, with this legislation, The King became our king independently and also became the first Canadian in international law. In other words, sixteen years before Canadian citizenship was created in 1947, the monarch was legally a Canadian and exercised a Canadian role independent of any other. At the next coronation in 1937, the Coronation Oath was changed and George VI swore to govern each realm according to our own laws and customs. He became King of Canada. This is why Canada would remain a monarchy now even if the United Kingdom ceased to be one.

The Statute of Westminster is one of Canada’s constitutional documents. It affected our parliamentary, governmental and foreign affairs. The Parliament of Canada’s powers were extended so that it had full power to make all laws necessary for state, including those that are extra-territorial. The powers of the British Parliament were limited, so that it could no longer affect the laws of a Dominion unless that Dominion requested and consented to that action. Therefore, because Canadian leaders could not agree on a new constitutional amendment formula, the British Parliament continued to pass amendments to Canada’s constitution until 1982, however only at the request of the Canadian government. This remained a formality, the real decision now being in Canadian hands.

As we prepare for the 140th anniversary of our confederation, all Canadians can pause to remember this 75th anniversary of the day we became fully independent. Hopefully this will also encourage us to further discover the history and identity of our country.

Cyril Bagin is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars and Canada’s National Historical Society resident in Windsor.

Read the full article >>

It doesn't happen every day, but when it does, we like to make special recognition of it here. "Loyal Subject of the Day" is in honour of those Knight Grand Scribes external to this blog, who have demonstrated a measure of defiance against the Cult of Progress, through traditional allegiance to the Crown.

All it takes is one book, one article or one post in defence of the British Monarchy and, if of a high enough quality, we will track it here. Not only the present ones, but all such worthies going back into the ancient mists of time. This growing compendium is therefore a massive undertaking that will require mountains of research, but a very useful resource when complete, if ever. Without further due therefore, from newest to oldest, previous loyal subjects of the day include:

Joseph Quesnel: Honour Our Traditions, May 13, 2007
The Queen Triumphs in America | VIRGINIA'S ROYAL WELCOME May 10, 2007
Barbara Kay: A Question of Honour May 9, 2007
Andrew Cusack: The Queen in Williamsburg, May 8, 2007
The Daily Telegraph: The Queen's 81st Birthday, April 21, 2007
Geoffrey Wheatcroft: A union of crowns is the only remedy for devolution, Apr 11, 2007
Ian Halloway: Keep Saluting our Queen, Mar 20, 2007
Peter Hitchens: Monarchy in the Age of New Labour, Mar 13, 2007
David Flint: Fifty Five Years of Faithful Service, Feb 6, 2007.
Andrew Cusack: The Prince of Wales in Philadelphia, Jan 30, 2007.
Michael Coren: God save 'em, even when they're not so gracious, Jan 27, 2007.
Gordon Brown: We need a United Kingdom, Jan 13, 2007.
Tony Abbott: Monarchy is the tie that binds us together, Nov 29, 2006.
Andrew Cusack: Old Dominion Will Receive Her Majesty, Nov 16, 2006.
Andrew Cusack: The Duke of York in New York, Oct 21, 2006.
James Parker: What was that all about, Oct 1, 2006
Taki Theodoracopulos: The Princess and I, Sep 25, 2006
Rex Murphy: Adrienne Clarkson: the personal and the political, Sep 23, 2006
Niall Ferguson: Born to rule: monarchy puts the success into succession, Sep 10, 2006
Chilton Williamson Jr: Conservatism needs monarchy and heirarchy, Aug 28, 2006
Jørn K. Baltzersen: In Defense of Prince Charles, July 14, 2006.
Conrad Black: Reviving the Commonwealth, July 10, 2006
Gerald Warner: Queen of our time, Apr 23, 2006.
Mark Steyn: Jolly Good Show, The Queen at Eighty, Apr 21, 2006.
Tom Utley: Subtly and silently, the Queen has bound our society together, Apr 21, 2006.
"Deogowulf": Monarchy, Apr 21, 2006.
Andrew Cusack: Your Royal Highness, Cead Mile Failte, Mar 20, 2006.
Andrew Cusack: The Queen Mother in New York, 1954, Jan 25, 2006.
Peter Hitchens: Is it time to say goodbye? No, Dec 3, 2000
Melville Henry Massue: Legitimism in England, Sep 1897
Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790
Henry Bolingbroke: The Idea of a Patriot King, Dec 1, 1738.
Robert Filmer: The Natural Power of Kings, 1680.

Read the full article >>

We, the undersigned, unite together with burning concern for the future of our country, with firm loyalty to her institutions, and firm hope for our future.

With burning concern, we note the state into which our country has fallen. We see the breakdown of family life, the loss of confidence in our institutions, the decay of public and private virtue, and the attack by an ideologically driven and squalid oligarchy on the common good. We refuse to swim with the tide, taking our stand instead on the solid ground of the Permanent Things, to which we pledge ourselves, and from the foundation of which we defy and transform our culture.

We recognise the inate dignity of every human being, as God-given, from conception to natural death.

We strongly affirm the integral place of the natural family in our common life, affirming marriage and family life as the foundation of society. We consider that the natural family, and the marriage which binds it together, is entitled to the highest consideration and the protections of the civil government.

We declare our allegiance to custom, convention and continuity, even in reform, and joyfully receive the rights of free Englishmen guaranteed us by Her Majesty our Queen, under Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement. We affirm that the civil and religious rights guaranteed by them lie at the heart of our national life.

We deny the vapid utopianism of our political masters, recognising that human beings are imperfectible. We further recognise the variety of social conditions in human society, affirming that true equality is only possible before the Courts and before God. Thus, we oppose government-driven attempts at levelling, while affirming our desire to seek Justice.

We uphold the role of the pillars of social order; that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the other agents of the civil government in its proper, limited sphere. We uphold the institutions of civil society and moral order, such as the Church and the voluntary institutions which make up the Community, and deny the impulse of the collective.

We recognise our duty to each other, and reject moral and social individualism. We recognise the need for restraints upon power and passion, and therefore support the balanced Constitution and the rule of law.

We, who stand at the cusp of the Third Christian millennium, are the inheritors of the trust of our ancestors, who spilled their blood in defence of freedom and our Most holy faith. We who have received the burning torch from them, will not let it die, but will pass it stronger and brighter to those who will come after us. We will strive to be worthy of their trust.

In token of which, and with trust in God, we have this day set our names.

William Pitt the Younger (originally posted by Pitt here)

Read the full article >>

News to swell Loyal hearts this morning. The celebrity-driven beat-up which is the campaign to change the NZ flag has been abandoned. The lares, penates and relics of our sacred ancestors have been spared the impious axe of Jacobin tyranny. The "NZ Flag campaign" has stopped its campaign to collect signatures for a referendum on the issue, aimed at removing the Union Flag from our own, and eradicating "hangovers of colonialism".

Gilray's Rights of Man, 1791

I am sure the millionaire gentleman who bankrolled this attack on the national heritage must be disappointed, and likewise, republicans of goodwill, such as Lewis Holden.

I'm sure Robespierre was a lovely man too - Indeed, he kept ranting about virtue, and was called Sea-green incorruptible. But the personal motives of those funding this bankrupt raid on the family silver are irrelevant to the shocking lack of pietas shown by the haters and wreckers.

Let us thank the gracious mercies of Providence that our flag has been spared for another day, and that our ancestors may lie quiet in their graves in the knowledge we have kept their trust.

For now, at least.

Posted by Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read the full article >>

As our readers will by now clearly understand, the Monarchist and I are devoted Anglophiles and supporters of the Commonwealth, and loyal subjects of Her Majesty. But we are also – like most others of our ilk – intense admirers of the United States. This twin devotion may appear paradoxical to those with a weaker grasp of history, but of course there lies therein neither contradiction nor riddle.

As William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, insisted at the height of the American Revolution, the Americans were not traitors to England; rather, they revealed England’s betrayal of herself. It was the Americans who demanded the continuance in fact, and refused the relegation to the theoretical, of the fundamental principles of liberty and parliamentary democracy that Britain had so painfully brought into the world. For the Americans, liberty was not a buzz word or a punch line. It was not something that they would see diluted or bought off with creature comforts or temporary personal advantages. It was the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis of how they intended to live their lives and to structure their government and their society. Give me liberty or give me death, they said – and they meant it. They say it, and mean it, to this day.

With the events of the past two weeks, I have finally come to understand why the American people, whom I so admire, are so despised by so many in Canada. It is because people of principle and courage are bound to be despised by those who can claim neither. I have also come to understand, on a visceral level, what I have so far appreciated only on an intellectual, theoretical basis. I have always marveled at how the great Americans of their revolution – men like Washington and Adams, who were men of the greatest integrity, and possessed of the most irreproachable personal virtue; men for whom loyalty was a core quality – came so precipitously and violently to shift their allegiances. I now understand that it was because they encountered what exists in all things: a tipping point; a point of no return. It is precisely those of the greatest character, whose very integrity and loyalty most retard their progress toward it, who cross the chasm most abruptly. Adams and Washington had attempted as far as possible to reform the nature of British dominion over America. They had resisted as long as possible the idea that such reform would never happen. But, as if on cue, they recognized all at once that they had been wrong: that reform would never, ever come; that radical measures were, in fact, required; that continued prevarication was futile and only demeaned them; that to overthrow that which had evolved to become the opposite of what it claimed and ought to be would be virtue, not sin.

I am not so arrogant as to set my personal qualities, and my thoughts and actions, on a plane with those of Washington and Adams. But I will say this: with Thursday’s votes in the House of Commons, capping what are surely the two most disgraceful weeks in the history of the Canadian Parliament, I have reached my own, personal tipping point. I have abruptly come to see – with the force and clarity of a thunderclap – that the Canada that I have defended and loved no longer exists, and cannot be retrieved. And with that realization, I say that as of now, I believe this: what Canada has become not only is not worth perpetuating; it should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity.

What exactly have we witnessed over the past two weeks? We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.

As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.

The Liberals believe that they have saved Canada. It is stupefying that they cannot see, that they cannot even imagine; that saving Canada and saving themselves are not the same thing. Because they can be bought and sold, they cannot conceive that a Canada that is anything other than a hollow and worthless shell might not be. But above all, they suffer from that greatest of delusions: they imagine that the universe is static. This is Canada, they think; this is how it works. Elections are decided in Ontario and Quebec. Quebecers are sleazy and stupid: just throw them some bones, and try not to get caught. And no one else matters. Those westerners are crazy; they are dangerous; they are not reading the script. So just take their money and ignore them. Things have always been thus, and always will be. The Liberals, and with them much of Ontario, just cannot conceive that all this could ever change; that this grand order of theirs might one day soon be turned on its head, and cease to be.

But it could – just ask George III. And unless I am much mistaken, the events of the past two weeks have virtually ensured that it will.

I am not a Quebecer. I have not spent much time in Quebec, nor do I identify personally with Quebec’s culture and history. In short, I do not readily identify with Quebecers; I do not naturally walk in their shoes. But over the past several months, as Gomery has dropped bombshell after bombshell, I have found myself quietly and steadily becoming outraged on their behalf. And I have been inspired to behold the rise of their quite righteous indignation. I have been encouraged by the resolution and grit of Gilles Duceppe and his party, as they have stepped up to refuse, on behalf of all Quebecers, to be tarred by the Liberal manure. And I was proud to see the Conservatives join with them in an attempt to bring this disgrace of a government to the ground. Belinda Stronach accuses Stephen Harper of siding with separatists. I would say, rather, that the Conservatives chose to side with men and women of integrity and honour, against those who lack both, and that Belinda went where she belongs. Duceppe and the Bloc represent their people faithfully. Martin and the Liberals represent only themselves, and a view of how a country should function that no decent person can share. So from now on I say: Quebecers, save yourselves; take your birthright, take your beautiful land and heritage, take your pride and your self-respect, and go. I will be cheering you from the other side: cheering your courage and character, and cheering the death blow you will be delivering to the rotten structure that Canada has become.

To Albertans, and indeed to all Western Canadians, I now say: what are you waiting for? Can you now doubt that Ontario will never, ever, give you a seat at the table? Your money is taken from you, year after year, and not only have you no say in the matter, but under the current order, you never will. Make no mistake: with the new precedents of irresponsible government just set, what has been true in the past will be even truer in the future. And dissecting the events of the past two weeks, this has become clear to me: that the Stephen Harper who so closely represents you, your beliefs, and your aspirations for your future in Canada, is hated in Ontario precisely because he represents you, your beliefs and your aspirations. What does that tell you? This is the outcome of your twenty years of work in building a party, a platform, a cause that would bring you into Canada. This is the answer to “the West wants in”. So I now truly hope that the West will want out. Really, what is there here for you? Do you really want to continue to be taxed without representation, especially when so much of what you pay is handed over to others? Do you really want to continue to be despised and mocked? Do you really want to continue to elect senators who will go nowhere while Ontario Liberals send hacks of their own to the red chamber to “represent” you, and laugh in your face?

The Americans speak of “the spirit of ‘76”. This is the spirit of righteous indignation, the spirit of self-respect. It is the spirit that made the gentle and loyal farmers of the colonies conceive as their banner a coiled rattlesnake over the words: don’t tread on me. It is the spirit that brought ordinary men from their hearths and homes into the fields of Lexington and Concord, to stand against the soldiers of the greatest armed power on earth. It is the spirit that led the great men of an age to cast aside everything they had known and served, to build something better, something greater, something that they could reconcile with their beliefs, their integrity and their dignity. Will a “spirit of ‘05” now arise here? I believe it is already stirring. The Liberals, with much of Ontario in dumb connivance, have sown the seeds. They do not understand what they have set irretrievably in motion. It is far beyond their sphere of recognition to see that far from saving Canada, they have destroyed it. A Canada worth preserving might just have been revived had this government fallen. But the very factors and forces that prevented that fall have now pointed the future in a very different direction. And I say: so be it. The chasm has been crossed. The tipping point has been reached.

Walsingham (originally posted here, along with over 100 comments. Was described as "seminal" in the Ottawa Citizen)

Read the full article >>

WHEREAS the longstanding tradition of representative monarchy as constitutionally practiced by the independent peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Realms of the Crown Commonwealth is continuously threatened by the unrelenting regressive forces around them, that left unchallenged will cause the venerable institution of our shared monarchy, the most splendid form of constitutional government to have evolved on this Earth, to degenerate into a pathetic shadow of its former glory and inevitably or suddenly wither away;

AND WHEREAS a defeat for monarchy and for the people in any one Realm, is a defeat for monarchy and for all our peoples in all our Realms, we do hereby mutually proclaim therefore that any further acts of disloyalty carried out against our peoples as represented by their Sovereign, or any further encroachment by the political elite on their residual powers of State, or any further attempts to undermine the legitimacy, independence and dignity of their office, shall no longer be tolerated with gradualist abandonment, but fought vigilantly and honourably with dutiful obligation, bound by our undying affection, loyal devotion and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

(Originally posted here)

Read the full article >>