Tuesday, June 28, 2005


Without any doubt, this has been and will continue to be the most contentious legislation we have ever encountered in my lifetime. Those in power who support Bill C-38 have declared the debate is over and have refused to address any of the concerns of those who oppose it

They have continually belittled and mocked their opponents, called them ‘bigots’ and ‘un-Canadian’ and in some cases (see Michael Coren’s column from a few weeks ago) threatened them with their lives. Of the bloggers we’ve read, Canadianna’s Place (http://canadianna.blogspot.com/) has easily done the best at describing the complexities of this issue. Journalistically, no one has done a better job than Michael Coren, the best journalist working in Canada today. We will address this issue from a point of view that has not yet been addressed: the philosophical origin of same-sex marriage. This topic is too large to address in one post, so over the next short while, we will deal exclusively with it. Assuming the bill passes we will then address the consequences, both short and long-term of Bill C-38.

The War Room is unabashedly against Bill C-38. Any conservative/libertarian who supports Bill C-38 clearly does not understand the content of the bill, its ramifications, what it seeks or most importantly, its origins.

I have been concerned with the content of this legislation for well over a decade and Jean Chrétien’s initial opposition to it was one of the few things I respected him for. The same-sex marriage debate is not one that has just started 2 years ago. The first case for it began in the late seventies during the rise and proliferation of the caucasian radical feminist movement that sought to eradicate gender roles. Eventually led by such radical feminists as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, the new feminist movement sought not just equality between the genders with respect to payment or respect, but instead it sought to declare no less than that there were no differences at all between the genders and that the very institution of marriage itself was a form of slavery akin to what the first African slaves endured over a century ago. MacKinnon also asserts in her writings that any form of heterosexual sex is a form of ‘rape’ even if it is consensual as the very act of the man entering the woman’s body is a form of direct violation that a human being could never willfully consent to. Both of these views are offensive and insulting, the first being indeed flat out racist, but we must deal with the truth.

Radical feminists believe that marriage is a form of patriarchal oppression that was conspired by a Judeo-Christian culture that was formed expressly to oppress women. This is what I was taught for years at Queen’s University and reflects the beliefs of most university graduates from the last 15 years.

How does this beget same-sex marriage?

The logic of these feminists (i.e. NOW) is that if they can convince the public and the broader culture that marriage is about nothing but property rights and has absolutely nothing to do with gender, children, family or complimentary roles between men and women…

if they can say that a gay or a lesbian couple can rear a child as much or better than a man and woman…

if they can make biological pregnancy in women irrelevant by replacing it culturally with scientific pregnancy…

then they can achieve their goal and eradicate the differences in genders and thus teach future generations of children pan-sexuality.

That sexual pleasure can be attained through any other living being and that gender differences are irrelevant. That all gender is a mere construct (i.e. nature vs. nurture) of an oppressive patriarchal Judeo-Christian culture and that the human beings true nature is to be attracted to the sex act itself. What gender this originates from is irrelevant and so too any act of sexuality that results in an organic human pregnancy is incidental. The logical conclusion of this is that human life itself becomes incidental to the sex-act. This is irrelevant to them though. The goal is the eradication of genders. Hence if society could be convinced that the traditional masculine male role model could be seen as not only irrelevant but false, and the true male had more of an effeminate nature, gender roles could be eradicated and equality as they saw it reached.

This is why the feminists of the seventies attached themselves so closely to gay rights causes and was the origin of the same-sex marriage movement philosophically and culturally. This is also why they will never allow polygamy as polygamists acknowledge gender roles. It is also why the eradication of the ‘patriarchal’ Evangelical Christian and Catholic Church is so high on their agendas and why they have been so vocal in declaring it. Nowhere is this more true than in the legal profession and in academia. The only reason they have not so vocally opposed the Orthodox Jewish faith, Islam or others is because to them, the numbers of these groups in the West are still not high enough for them to be a concern.

Now, not every one who supports same-sex marriage agrees with this or recognizes this
philosophical origin/logic and indeed there are many gay activists who also refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage. Noted Toronto gay icon and playwright Sky Gilbert has even questioned the need for homosexuals to marry and did so publicly in his column in eye weekly magazine.

However, make no mistake, to support same-sex marriage is to support no less than the eradication of the acknowledgement of gender differences itself and the primacy of the role of men and women in the proliferation of the species. Not only does this go against science, it goes against the very nature of humanity itself.

Next Up: How Same-Sex Marriage invalidates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Monday, June 27, 2005


NOTE: A different version of this essay by me first appeared as a letter published on the Los Angeles based website www.hollywood-elsewhere.com. Hollywood Elsewhere is written by film critic Jeffrey Wells. Wells’ politics are very different from most of the people who will read this blog, but I recommend him highly for an entertaining and knowledgeable read of how the film industry works and why. Understanding culture and film as it relates to political ideology will continue to be a major theme at The War Room.

Please be warned that some language in this essay is of a graphic or adult nature.

I do not know if anyone reading this has a passion for film but as this is the summer season, I spend a lot of time in a movie theatre. The main stories in the industry trades nowadays detail that the film industry is in the biggest slump it has been in for almost 20 years. Reasons for this vary from DVD, to the state of theatrical exhibition, to the quality of films being made. Last year The Passion of the Christ helped increase the spring/early summer box office average but without it, this years’ first quarter has been down. Not even Revenge of the Sith or Batman Begins has been able to reverse this trend.

As a film school graduate who has loved and devoured film history since a child, I can say that I am truly bored with a great majority of the stories being told through the mainstream of the American/Western film industry. Hollywood has been in an overtly left-wing ideological paradigm for almost 2 generations now and certainly all of my life-time. This is not a question of politics. It is a question of bad story telling. It makes films predictable.

Old fashioned to me is not a rigid evangelical going to church on Sunday. Old fashioned to me is wife-swapping, wicca and gay bath houses. Ideologically, for as long as I can remember, and with precious few exceptions priests, evangelicals, businessmen, corporations, conservative politicians, uptight white folk and (insert bad Hollywood stereotype here) are always the villains.

I did not need Michael Medved to tell me the ‘twist’ in Million Dollar Baby. As soon as I saw the religious imagery in the trailer released in November and read web-columns saying how shaken people were from the initial pre-screenings I had my suspicions. The day it went into limited release in mid-December, I waited until about 3:30 pm (after the first early matinees), went onto some Clint Eastwood fan chat rooms and had my thoughts confirmed. M$B would have been unpredictable had Clint NOT euthanized Hillary.

I saw M$B and The Sea Inside when they were called Brian’s Song with James Caan and Who’s Life Is It Anyway? with Richard Dreyfuss. Hearing Julia Roberts in Closer talk about ‘cum’ was about as shocking to someone my age as…hearing Julia Roberts talk about ‘cum’. ‘Prestige’ films like Vera Drake, Kinsey, Frida, The Motorcycle Diaries, The Hours, The Dreamers etc. do not titillate or offend…they bore. They do not speak to people of a younger generation because we have had their leftist ideology rammed down our throats culturally from birth.

These films are well-made but indulgent and poorly researched polemics made by people who still pine for an era that no longer exists…the sixties. The new generation of film fans are not shocked by Deep Throat. We are weaned on Trey Parker and yawn in the face of it. By contrast, Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man is a film that I could not recommend more highly with its inspiring tale of a man defending his family against all odds. By today’s standards, it’s positive view of a traditional family and the role of religion in it is positively refreshing.

As I said to an older, very left-wing reporter friend of the family after the American election who could not understand why I would support President Bush; I’ve never been silenced or censored by an evangelical, but I do have first hand experience of a raging, foaming at the mouth PC university student pointing his finger at me saying I am a “poor quality human being” because I ‘dared’ to make a short film with the phrase ‘chick’s ass’ in it. I know first hand of a film professor who found himself as the subject of a tribunal because he dared-DARED!- to show an excerpt of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet during a class on voyeurism. The more ‘enlightened progressive’ types decided that he was implicitly endorsing rape.

Hollywood now forsakes ideology for art and films that truly break new ground artistically (The Passion of the Christ, Fight Club, Hero) are derided or not rewarded because of their ideology. It says something about our times and the history of film that we are constantly told how shocking, daring and controversial left leaning films are/were (F911, Midnight Cowboy, Last Tango in Paris, Last Temptation of Christ), yet by any standard, the most controversial film since 1915’s Birth of a Nation was made by a conservative Catholic director who made an R-rated film about a man on a cross who died 2000 years ago.

For a community that says it is so culturally curious about all walks of life where are the stories depicting the plight of the millions slaughtered under Joseph Stalin? For every ten Hollywood love songs to Marxism/communism, where is the director who dares tell the story of those brave students who died in Tiananmen Square? How about an Oscar caliber film detailing the slaughter of the three million Polish Catholics killed in the Holocaust? For every story about how repressed America was sexually in the fifties, how about a film detailing the pure intellectual repression caused by leftist speech codes on modern university campuses?

Most modern Hollywood/Western films don’t dare us to think, they ask us not to. I suggest that if Hollywood ‘artists’ want to become relevant again, perhaps they should quit calling everyone who disagrees with them ‘uncurious’ and become a little bit more curious themselves.

Sunday, June 26, 2005


I was recently out with some friends the other night. As I have stated before, being in the arts, most of my friends are very left (to use the word liberal here would be a misnomer). After talking to them about their views on many subjects (art, politics, film, relationships), I walked home and began thinking about the concept of ‘social conservatism’.

Now, most of my friend’s girlfriends are also very left. One of them also works for the Provincial Liberals. She is a very sweet person who also happens to be a ‘feminist’ by her own definition. She is staunchly pro-choice, staunchly pro-same-sex marriage and very much supports ‘gay pride’. She also has a very sensitive sense of humour that finds the slightest vulgarity offensive and has told my friend that if she ever caught him inside of a female strip-club their relationship would be over and she would consider him a misogynist. As a result, he is constantly submitting his own former ‘laddish’ outlook to her whims. I do not say this is a good or bad thing, just that my friend has told me this is the way it is.

I have another friend who lives in Ottawa that I have known since elementary school. He votes Conservative. He is philosophically pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage. He also has a fairly ribald sense of humour, loves staying out late at pubs well past his bed-time and has been known to frequent a strip-club or two especially when he was in his post-university days.

Question: Which one of these two people (the feminist or the friend in Ottawa) is the social conservative?

Social conservatism is yet another cultural misconception, myth and lie. The concept is one that has become a negative term that allows The New Left (NDP-Liberal) politicians and media types to negatively slander and stereo-type conservative politicians and their constituents. No one is that black and white. To some degree, we are either all social conservatives or none of us are. We all have limits. We all have a line where humour, sexuality or good taste is crossed into a realm where we just don’t want to tread. To allow The New Left to define social conservatism as being merely pro-life or pro-man/woman marriage is to continue to allow them to dictate the very rules by which we run our lives.

Are there any people who are more uptight, humourless and ‘socially conservative’ than the politically correct New Left? Political correctness-not being able to say what you see- is perhaps the greatest form of censorship my generation has know and yet this is not defined as social conservatism and The New Left continues to play victim and say they are ‘oppressed’.

Conservatives and libertarians must confront this issue head on and make the censorious nature of New Left-wing political correctness the new ‘social conservatism’. Refuse to identify yourself as a 'social' conservative if you have views that are deemed as such by The New Left. To do this is to allow them to define you and hence the playing field. Keep your views but don't allow them to label them.

A big part of this is cultural. We must call them on their hypocrisy and have the courage of our convictions. Changes like this happen at the grassroots level and work their way up. Until this happens, we will never have the truly conservative cultural government we deserve.

Friday, June 24, 2005


With the duplicitous passage last night of Bill C-48 and the imminent passage of Bill C-38, I thought it might be interesting to address the issue of the so-called conservative ‘Hidden Agenda’.

If we understand it correctly at The War Room, it seems that there are several things that the New Left is seriously concerned about should there ever be a Stephen Harper led Conservative Party of Canada government. These concerns, as routinely alluded to by such pristine institutions as our universities, media, neo-Marxist activists, artists, and musicians seem to be as follows:

1: immediate outlawing of abortion on the spot, and forcing of all women to undergo mandatory forced pregnancies like something out of a bad Margaret Atwood novel.

2: immediate outlawing of same-sex marriage on the spot and as a result, a ban on homosexuality thereby filling our jails with the billions and billions of gay men who populate the country.

3: the immediate formation of a theocracy whereby every man, woman and child would be forced to attend either an Evangelical or Roman Catholic Church once a week and adhere to its tenets

4: immediate dismantling of that great bastion ‘truth’, the CBC

5: not allowing radical feminists and gay rights activists to dictate all family and social policy in the country

Now, if anyone is loopy enough to believe any of these would actually occur under a Conservative government, I surely cannot dispel your views at this point nor will I try. I am tired of being on the defensive. But, perhaps instead, using Bills C-38 and C-48 as a stepping stone, maybe we can analyze the potential ‘Hidden Agenda’ of the neo-Marxist NDP-Liberals. I came up with the following list based on hearing versions of these views expressed in various forms over the past years by university professors, students, government officials, newspaper columnists, artists and friends.

Could these be in the ‘Hidden Agenda’ of the NDP-Liberal alliance given a long enough timeline?

1- all churches will eventually lose their tax-free charitable status due to passage of Bill C-38

2- all church run charities and battered women’s shelter’s will eventually be shut down as a result of the above;

3- within 2 years of passage of the National Child Day Care plan, all private daycare facilities will be ordered shut down

4- within 4 years all children aged three and up will be forced to enter National Child Day Care

5- all Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim parents will officially not allowed to adopt children due to their ‘intolerant’ and ‘hateful’ views on SSM and morality, which is not sanctioned by the government

6- The Separate School Board will be shut down as a bastion of ‘hatred, intolerance and bigotry’ incompatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All other private schools are then necessarily closed down after this move in the name of fostering a system of ‘inclusiveness’

7- all children in the public school system will be forced to undergo mandatory ‘morality’ interviews twice per annum. The child's parents are not allowed to be present. Any child that holds views that are deemed ‘intolerant’ or ‘immoral’(i.e. Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish or Muslim) will be taken away from their parents as ‘victims of abuse and oppression’ and forced to be reared and raised in state run National Child Day Care facilities

8- The Canadian military will continue to be depleted and more soldiers die due to sub-standard equipment.

9- Cigarettes will be seen as the moral equivalent of heroin and heroin will be seen as the moral equivalent of a sugar high thanks to a government ‘educational campaign’

10- Young women and men on welfare are forced to become prostitutes as this will now be seen as a legitimate occupation by the Canadian NDP-Liberal government (they will not be allowed to choose homo or hetero-sexual as to do such would be ‘discriminatory and bigoted’)

11- To give your child a gender specific name will be seen as a form of ‘child abuse’ and ‘bad parenting’. A government ‘educational campaign’ will foster this notion

12- The Holy Bible will be banned as a form of ‘hate literature’ that threatens democracy. Mein Kampf and The Marx-Engels Reader will still be readily taught and available.

13- Canada will continue to shirk its moral responsibility in alleviating 3rd World Debt but will continue to smugly say it is the most moral and superior nation on earth because of passage of Bill C-38 and unlimited abortion.

14- Canadians will have to learn to accommodate the fact that 78% of their salaries are now taxed to pay for increased government programs. To question this will be said to be ‘unpatriotic’ and a new government ‘ad campaign’ will be launched to make you ‘proud to pay my share’.

15- The NDP-Liberal alliance will decree that Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals and Muslims are a threat to democracy and as a result will be denied the right to vote. The argument is that if their allegiance is really to the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ and not Canada, allowing them to vote violates the democratic nature of the separation of Church and State.

16- The NDP-Liberal alliance will decree that since Canadians overwhelmingly approve of their governance, any other form of government is a threat to freedom and Canadian democracy. As a result, all other parties and ideologies will be outlawed and Canadians will be denied the right to vote in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’. Torontonians will recognize this as true freedom and smugly laugh at the ‘stupid, naïve’ Americans who still trot out every four years to general elections.

17- Standard Time in the West will be eradicated as a form of ‘divisive Christianity’ in favour of a more 'inclusive' New Age-centric measurement (ie. that the year is Two Moons Past the Earth Sun of Gaia). Rick Mercer will lead a government ‘educational campaign’ to encourage Canadians to ‘get with the times’.

18- Canada will become the first Western democracy to devolve into a neo-communist state with the full will and consent of its populace. It will not be called this however; it will be called a ‘New Democracy’.

Now, we here at The War Room do not believe all of these will or could happen, but we do firmly believe some of these will occur in the next decade and most certainly in our lifetime. Before you think we are ourselves devolving into a state of hyperbole and rhetoric, please note that some of these are already being threatened (take a guess which), while variations on others are already happening in ‘democracies’ around Europe and in America (I leave you to research which ones but you might be surprised). Similarly, I can only stress enough, all of these ideas I have heard expressed by people on the left in some form over the past few years.

Please remember, history is always in flux and what seems improbable to one generation is reality to the next. Ask yourself, a scant ten years ago did you believe that two men could ever be called ‘husband and husband’? Did you foresee that you would be called a 'bigot' or 'unenlightened' for teaching your children that there are differences between the sexes? Could you have foreseen that the Pope would be seen as an extreme controversial figure of morality while the likes of the Dalai Lama and New Age Guru’s are seen as sane, relevant and mainstream?

We all have friends that call themselves progressive. The next time you are with them, ask them this: What exactly are you progressing towards? Start asking questions to these people and make them go on the defensive.

I invite you all to take a guess as to which one of the above are most probable to happen in Canada in our lifetime and invite you to make your own suggestions as to what the NDP-Liberal 'Hidden 'Agenda' might be.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005


It was with very little amazement or shock I suspect, that most of us saw the acquittal of Michael Jackson of all charges that he was tried on. Most concluded that he did something (not all of those witnesses were lying), and thought due to a combination of money, fame, wealth and political correctness he would get off. Most people expressed nonchalance about the decision and then got on with their lives. The lives of all of the young males (can we say that?) whose lives he may have ruined were mere collateral damage to the fact that Mr. Jackson, once self-declared King of Pop, beat the rap.

In Canada, we have seen similar reactions to The Liberal Party of Canada. With the Gomery testimonies and the public as judge and jury, there can be little doubt that at best, The Liberal Party of Canada is, at its highest echelons, quite probably fronting criminal activity that threatens our very democracy. Breaking any constitutional law it sees fit; redefining charter rights to the detriment of groups that disagree with it and using bribes, graft and pay-offs of public money to ensure it can continually out-spend, out-advertise and out-campaign any other party during election cycles this 'Party' and its supporters/propagandists in the media (CTV, G&M, Toronto Star, CBC etc.) consciously and consistently feed the public misinformation, half-truths and lies that ultimately threaten the very democratic principles upon which this great country was founded.

At worst the NDP-LIBERALS are a New Left Neo-Marxist party that foster divisions between the citizens of Canada based on class, race, gender and sexual orientation under the guise of partisan sloganeering like 'diversity' and 'tolerance' while they do nothing but foster a lack of diversity and intolerance to those groups who might disagree with them on serious issues (ie. free market entrepreneurs, the military, Roman Catholics, free speech advocates, Orthodox Jews, medical practitioners, Muslims etc.). Yet, they continue to enjoy popular support in the polls. This has shocked and appalled many conservatives, libertarians and average Canadians alike, who cannot understand the situation.

Enter Stephen Harper. For a short period of time, so brief you could be forgiven for having missed it, it looked certain to many that Mr. Harper would be the next Prime Minister of Canada, displacing the obviously incompetent, visionless, dishonest and old school back room boy, Paul Martin. And yet at every turn since that brief window two months ago, Mr. Harper has been plagued by accusations of being either too cold and sterile or too emotional; of being either simply out for power or not being willing to do what it takes to win; of either not doing enough to silence dissenters in his caucus or of muzzling their views. Since recently, much of the criticism has actually come from within his own party and one could easily forgive him and many conservatives for wondering why we have such a schizophrenic populace.

The answer is cultural. This is the true reason why conservatives have not been able to get any traction since Gomery. This is the giant behemoth they are up against. Here I use the term conservative with respect to ideology because some will say that Brian Mulroney succeeded. Mr. Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada were not an ideologically conservative party. They were merely a populist party that swayed with the wind, or to paraphrase what the great Maggie Thatcher once said of them; they put too much emphasis on the adjective and not enough on the noun part of the name.

As I have mentioned before, the West and especially Canada has been in a progressive leftist mode for nearly 3 generations now. Things that were liberal yesterday are seen as conservative and backward today. An example; how would you feel if I said one of the left's idol's was for the creation of the military-industrial complex; hated communism with a vehement passion; decried the reliance on the welfare state and believed war should be started if it could remove tyrannical regimes. Odd choice for a 'lefty' icon? I just described President John F. Kennedy. By today's standards, his ideology would be to the right of President Bush. But because he comes with the 'Democrat' label, his memory is accepted where someone like Brian Mulroney who was much more liberal than JFK, but comes with the 'Conservative' label is vilified.

The point is this. Conservatism in the West and Canada is up against much more than just the spin of the liberal media machine or the big money of the Liberal Party of Canada. No. Stephen Harper is up against every movie made during the last 45 years that has shown conservatives or conservative ideology as the 'villain'. He is up against every university professor that has told his students that capitalism is evil and America has done nothing but exploit poor third world nations. He is up against every rock star that sports a 'Che' t-shirt and says the 'Pope is a Nazi'. He is running against the memory of the corruption of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and every All in the Family rerun that shows conservatives as stereotypical bigots, racists and misogynists with an IQ less than the average basement gimp in a Tarantino film.

In short, he is running against the culture of the Baby Boomer generation that saw everything with the 'liberal' or 'left' label as good and liberating and anything with the 'conservative' or 'Christian' label as oppressive, fanatical, bigoted and intolerant. The great Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan understood that we are in unprecedented times in human history. The great power of controlling minds, opinions and morality lies with those who control the media...not government.

Nevertheless, this is why Harper must stay and he must be supported. Because the mythology of the popular media culture (film, music, magazines, reality TV, beat novels) is a lie. It is a hedonistic fantasy that will not allow humanity to sustain itself and Stephen Harper is, by any definition, good, decent, hard working and honest. In short, he is the best kind of leader. He is the kind that people can rally behind because we know he is true and right. Conservatives should realize this and defend him at every turn. The War Room is proud to support a man for leader who is not fleet of foot and silver tongued with the media.

Modern liberals and leftists (both the NDP and Liberals are synonymous in our view) are people weaned on the pop-culture of the sixties baby boom generation who have no understanding of humanity and how the human species functions. They loathe the thought of putting a chemically grown tomato into their body but have no problem growing a human being chemically in a lab. They confuse boorish behavior with free speech and questioning with censorship. They think love is lust and helping the poor means making them dependent on others. In short, the New Left is morally bankrupt in every way and conservatives should quit defining themselves and their leader by these progressively lowering standards. We, the human race are better than that.

As Canadians and conservatives we must first define ourselves by our own standards. Not by the standards of those with whom we philosophically disagree. In short, Stephen Harper must stay and be supported because he is simply, a good and decent man who is not a relativist and believes in what is right and true. That is enough for me and should be for The Conservative Party of Canada. My vote counts. It says something about who I am. I would rather vote for
Mr. Harper and lose than a lesser, media friendly candidate and win.

The defense rests.

Friday, June 10, 2005


Too many conservatives get flummoxed and defensive when attacked with words like “Nazi”, “fascist”, “racist”, “Klansmen”, “homophobe” or other vitriolic names. They seek to take the high road; convinced that their left-wing opponents are merely playing lowball. If you understand one thing in my writings, understand this and understand it clearly- they mean it.

As we will demonstrate in The War Room on a regular basis, The New Left equates all that the average Canadian stands for (democracy, free markets, family, free speech, freedom of religion, the nation state, empirical morality and truth) with evil. Far from seeing the world with a more nuanced or grey view, The New Left has the most black and white view of all. They confuse liberalism (a good thing) with leftism. The reasons for this are indeed cultural and go back to the counter culture of the 60’s where the left, fed up with traditional infrastructures of human society (politicians, religion, military, family) instead became inspired by the arts and emotion and individual morality and sexuality, allowing any semblance of rational or logical thinking to be thrown to the wayside. They became influenced by the leftist politics of individuals like Che Guevera, Mao and even Joseph Stalin (who slaughtered millions and whom Guevera admired immensely). The writings of Derrida and Foucault also contributed to The New Left’s world view of relative morality. In other words…if it made them feel good, it was worth doing. Responsibility to others was not a factor.

Nevertheless, because many went on to become people of high influence in academia (as a way to avoid the drafts of the 60’s-70’s), they confuse this illogical, agit-prop politico thinking with intelligence. Indeed, given my own experiences in university 10 years ago, attacking The New Left’s empire and stranglehold on higher education will be a recurrent theme here at The War Room. David Horowitz is a former self described ‘communist’ and a modern conservative who fully realizes this. We recommend his writings whole heartedly. Most Canadians do not have any idea what their children are being taught nor what the ideological beliefs of most journalists, artists and academics are. Given my own experiences with members of all three groups, The War Room will seek to enlighten them.

Sadly, The New Left’s animosity and contempt (that is being kind) for Roman Catholicism and Evangelicals is also very real. We are now seeing this emerge in a very real way in Canada. Seeing personal relative egoism and hedonism as the height of human accomplishment, and with no belief in an outer empirical God philosophically, The New Left believes that the Orthodox Christian religions that have defined the West for the past 2000 years as oppressing and enslaving mankind from his true goals and see this as responsible for many if not all of history’s pain and suffering causing wars, famines and racism, misogyny and homophobia.

The War Room will demonstrate the hypocrisy in this line of thinking to show how it is indeed The New Left which currently employs edicts of racism and misogyny to get what it wants while completely negating the horrors of parts of the world where The New Left’s prejudices are not fed (China, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba).

Finally, how does this relate to the Canadian political scene. It will ultimately be the obligation of the War Room to dispel the myth that the Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist political party any more. In a true democracy the center party is the party which aligns itself most accurately with the overall will of the majority of the population. The Liberal Party of Canada has been increasingly moving further to the left throughout the past decade with accompaniment from the media machines of many in the mainstream Canadian media (CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail) and especially through its own literal propaganda arm, the CBC. As someone who voted Liberal in his first election, it is important to note, this has happened gradually but deliberately. During the past 3 years and finally with Paul Martin’s embrace of both The New Left fiscal and social platform of the NDP, it is safe to say the Liberal Party of Canada is now a Party that represents the most extreme views of The New Left. Now there are some Classical Liberals left in the Liberal Party (Dan McTeague for example) but these people have virtually no power or say over the party and their influence will only wane more in the coming years.

This blog, while not a member or beholden to any party, clearly endorses the Conservative Party of Canada under Stephen Harper. In the opinion of The War Room he is decent, honest and hardworking. Many of his detractors say he is not a natural politician like Jack Layton or Paul Martin. The War Room says good. That means he’s more like you and me.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005


Welcome. The War Room was conceived as a means to give support to ideological conservatism with a splash of libertarianism thrown in for good measure. As I have studied the political landscape over the past decade it has become more and more apparent that conservatism in the West is having a more difficult time achieving power. With the possible exception of the United States, other Western countries are finding it difficult to implement governments that reflect conservative philosophies. With respect to Canada, this has been exacerbated ten-fold.

Part of the problem goes back to those age old concepts that are studied in the art of all war-fare-(and it is that)-be it political or physical. The first step to defeating one’s enemy is to understand one’s enemy. Thoroughly. This is where the Americans have succeeded and Canadian conservatives have failed. Our goal at The War Room is to look at the philosophy of the New Left several times a week with an eye on the current issues of the day.

Too many Canadian conservatives simply do not understand the New Left’s political philosophies and how they relate to culture or the future of our democracy. Canadian conservatives have a hard time getting traction with ideas and too often seek political favour with the left to the chagrin of the right. Primarily, our goal here will be to help Canadian conservatives by deconstructing the New Left and helping those involved understand what they are up against in a better attempt to defeat it. It will ultimately be the obligation of The War Room to dispel the myth that the Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist political party any more.

Too many confuse the New Left with classical liberalism. As a contemporary conservative/libertarian, I am a classical liberal. The New Left, however, that generation with its genesis in the counter culture of the sixties baby boomer generation, has its origins in something very different. These are not the typical ‘chicken in every pot’ Liberal/Democrats of the WWII generation. Indeed, the New Left’s ideology has it roots in Marxism. It has a veritable neo-‘communist’ philosophy if you will, that migrated through the west at the beginning of the depression. Not content with just the mere economics of Marx however, they seek to impose Marxist philosophies on issues of gender, race and sexuality in order to erase the human being of any individuality whatsoever. To them, this brings complete equality.

The New Left’s goals are indeed very different than that of which they say and as we will continue to demonstrate on a regular basis, virtually every malady that they accuse conservatives of doing, is exactly what they practice, right down to exploitation and fostering of class divisions (the wealthiest in both America and Canada are Liberals and Democrats), tolerance of high crime amidst poorer communities and racism. They see it as means to an end. The War Room will seek to present a cohesive argument that these are in fact the values represented by the modern New Left and as such the Liberal Party of Canada and its philosophical partner, the NDP.