Justin Trudeau’s Mass Migration Scheme to Replace the Canadian Population (Exclusive Interview)

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau’s Mass Migration Scheme to Replace the Canadian Population (Exclusive Interview)

Madeline Weld, Ph.D.June 24, 20224 comments9 min read

Globalist Trudeau wants to add 1.3 million immigrants over the next three years to Canada, a country with a population of under 39 million. 

Erasing the Old Canada

According to Dan Murray, the creator of theImmigration Watch Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared war against his country, people, and culture. The World Economic Forum-controlled leader is welcoming an unprecedented level of immigrants that will have a massive and irreversible demographic impact on Canada. Trudeau had already increased his country’s excessive immigrant intake to stratospheric levels. Now the Globalist leader is setting an even higher target: 1.3 million over the next three years on a population of under 39 million. 

During an exclusive interview with Murray, RAIR Foundation USA suggests that Canada’s mass immigration policies are one of the means by which Canada’s history and culture are being erased. Trudeau called Canada the “first postnational country” with no “mainstream” or “core identity” shortly after he became prime minister in 2015. Both RAIR and Dan Murray think this was an aspirational statement by Trudeau, who does not miss an opportunity to disparage what is actually mainstream Canada. 

In 1990, one of Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s cabinet ministers (Barbara McDougall, minister of immigration) pushed for an increase in immigration to at least 250,000 each year. Prior to that, Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (father of the current PM) had actually decreased immigration levels to something in the 80,000s due to high unemployment. 

Dan considers the immigration targets of Justin Trudeau to be similar to the invasion of a country, even comparable to the invasion of Ukraine. Or the invasion on the US southern border, RAIR suggests, and Dan agrees. Dan notes that we are now up from the 250,000 that was considered ridiculously high back in 1990 to over 400,000 per year. Of Canada’s current population of 38 million, a considerable fraction are themselves immigrants. 

Dan reports that some immigrants have interests that conflict with Canada’s long-term interests. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has committed itself to destroying the society its adherents move into. And they are not a small minority, he notes. Trudeau, Dan says, is a supporter of Muslim immigration. 

Concerning the influence of China, RAIR points out that Canada’s culture has already changed dramatically, especially in British Columbia. Dan observes that certain parts of Canada, particularly in the lower mainland of BC, have become Chinese colonies. Some Chinese people there do not attempt to hide the fact that they are there as representatives of China. They will seek to undermine Canada’s interests versus China’s interests.  

Canadians kept in the dark by globalist media 

Dan does not think that most Canadians are aware of what’s happening. The media are responsible for the lack of awareness. For example, they do not connect the issue of the increasing unaffordability of housing to Canada’s policy of mass immigration (of which they are boosters). Dan mentions the 2010 book by David Ley, Millionaire Migrants, which describes the impact of the arrival of large numbers of wealthy Asians to Canada. These wealthy Asians were theoretically supposed to create jobs for Canadians. But many of them had no interest in doing that. Already wealthy, they were not seeking to make more money but came to Canada for “social capital,” such as university degrees for their children. Many also cheated on their income taxes, keeping two sets of books. Rather than creating jobs for Canadians, they parasitized the system and got away with it. There was not a lot of exposure in the media. David Ley concluded in his book that relentless immigration was the cause of unaffordable housing. However, while the media talk about unaffordable housing almost daily, neither they nor any politicians seem to be aware of David Ley’s research. While the current building spree cannot even keep up with the demand for housing, the media ignore that bringing 50,000 people a year to the Metro Vancouver area, for example, will create demand.

Dan states that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which receives about $1.3 billion annually in government funding) has a policy of suppressing negative comments about immigration.  RAIR suggests it is being directed by the United Nations and is part of the UN Compact on Migration, which Dan explains that Trudeau has signed on to. (Canada played a leading role in developing the UN Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration).   

RAIR mentions the Century Initiative, which advocates for a Canadian population of 100 million by 2100. Dan reports that one of the people behind it is an academic named Irvin Studin, who has devoted much effort to publicizing the idea. He has supporters in high places. (It is worth noting that both of the CI’s co-founders, Mark Wiseman, currently chairman of the board, and Dominic Barton, are associated with the globalist World Economic Forum.) Trudeau is also behind the idea. Dan explains that one does not have to look far to see the effects of mass immigration. He notes the loss of farmland that has been turned into housing. (Just over half of Canada’s best farmland is in southwestern Ontario, which is also the location of the megalopolis “Greater Toronto Area” or GTA. Ontario is losing 319 acres of farmland every day.) 

No evidence that Canadians benefit from mass immigration

Dan challenges the notion that we must import vast numbers of people so that we have workers to replace all the older people who are dying off. He points out that before Justin Trudeau became prime minister, the government had looked into whether immigration would offset the problems arising from an aging population. The answer was an emphatic No. (See, for example, this study.) He states the Science Council of Canada also told the federal government not to use immigration to increase the population. Its 1976 report pointed out that just because Canada has a large geographical area does not mean it has an infinite capacity to accommodate people. Dan surmises that Justin Trudeau has never even heard of that report. 

RAIR points out that most immigrants to Canada come from warmer countries and, therefore, will increase their greenhouse gas emissions when they move here. Would it not make sense NOT to bring people from hot countries to Canada, where they will have to increase their energy consumption? Dan notes that it will also increase pollution and points to the massive expansion of housing driven by high immigration, especially around Vancouver and in the GTA. British Columbia has an agricultural reserve, but although it is effective to a certain extent, it is being undermined by constant growth, which both major parties in BC support.  

Dan notes that the aforementioned report by the Science Council of Canada stated that few countries produced sufficient food to be exported, and it would be desirable for Canada to maintain its status as a food producer. The report also mentioned Australia and said both countries should be paying attention to the issue of immigration and not assume that they had an infinite capacity to absorb people. 

Clash of values

RAIR brings up the issue of law and culture, saying that law is the crystallization of culture and essentially just a set of codified values. When you bring large numbers of people with different cultures and values into the cities, and these people are not being encouraged to adopt Canadian values, what kind of effect will that have on Canada’s legal system and basic cultural rules, on things such as women’s rights? Dan is concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. They believe that if women are disobedient to the males in the family, they should be killed. That is what happened to the three teenage girls and first wife in the Shafia family. RAIR notes that the CBC reports edited the RCMP tapes about the murders such that the Islamic aspects were omitted.  

The Canadian media consistently try to hide the consequences of these policies, explains RAIR. What is happening with the Residential School issue is a good example of the dishonesty of the Canadian media, Dan says. The media, and especially the CBC, have demonized the Christian church. On the other hand, when it comes to Islam, the CBC promotes it. Trudeau is also very pro-Islam, and Dan suspects he has become a Muslim. While Trudeau seems to think that Islam is the religion of peace, Dan says he likely doesn’t realize that in Islam, “peace” means that Islam has completely taken over. (Non-Islamic parts of the world are called “dar al-Harb,” or house of war; there will be peace when they are part of Dar al-Islam or house of Islam.) 

Canadians are catching on that something’s not right

Given the policies of the Canadian government, which seem to place the interests of Canadians, the people it allegedly serves, well behind the interests of the globalists, it is perhaps not surprising that, based on a recent survey of 1500 Canadians by Abacus Data, more than one in three Canadians (37%) believe in the “white replacement theory,” the idea that there is “a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political views.” And one in five Canadians believes that it is definitely or probably true that the World Economic Forum is “a group of global elites with a secretive strategy to impose their ideas on the world.” Also, not surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between belief in “conspiracy theories” (as the National Post article calls these views) and distrust of media. 

It seems that what Trudeau dismissed as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views” might not be such a fringe after all. The question is, will this “fringe” be able to remove an increasingly unpopular prime minister from power under Canada’s “first past the post” electoral system with no proportional representation. 

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Posted on by

                                                  Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, July 1, 2022

New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of talk here in Winnipeg about the announcement that today’s big party at the Forks would be called “New Day” instead of “Canada Day”, would be a whole bunch of pissing and moaning about wrongs real and imagined inflicted upon the Indians instead of a celebration of our country, and would not include the usual fireworks celebration.   Interestingly, Sunday evening, while enjoying a coffee at Tim Horton’s and trying to read a chapter out of the book of Isaiah, I overheard snatches of conversation from a couple at a nearby table with regards to all of this.  The man was boisterously objecting to all of these changes, especially the cancelling of the fireworks.   The woman was defending the changes, toeing the progressive party line on the subject.  For what it’s worth, the man was an Indian and the woman was lily white.

Among the more prominent of the local critics of these changes – I add the modifier “local” because it has attracted commentary from across the Dominion, including Toronto’s Anthony Furey and Edmonton’s Lorne Gunter – are Lloyd Axworthy and Jenny Motkaluk.    The former, who from 1979 to 2000 was the MP for Winnipeg – Fort Garry then Winnipeg South Centre when the former was dissolved and the latter reconstituted in 1988, during which time he served as Minister for various portfolios in Liberal governments under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and later became president of the University of Winnipeg, the furthest to the left of the city’s academic institutions, expressed his criticism in the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, a Liberal party propaganda rag that likes to think of itself as a newspaper.   The latter is one of the candidates for the office about to be vacated by Mayor Duckie whom she had previously but sadly unsuccessfully attempted to unseat in the 2018 mayoral election.   Ryan Stelter responded to Motkaluk with a column that appeared in the Winnipeg Sun – the local neoconservative tabloid – in which he defended the decision by the powers that be at the Forks, their reasons for the change, and basically argued that while the biggest party in the city has been re-named and re-imagined this does not prevent anyone else from celebrating the holiday as they like.

While I suspect Stelter of disingenuity – his argument is technically correct but does not address the real problems with the thinking behind the changes likely because he doesn’t want to be seen as dissenting from that thinking – I shall, nevertheless, be doing as he suggests and celebrating the holiday the way I like.     This means that like the crowd at the Forks, I will not be celebrating “Canada Day”.   Unlike the crowd at the Forks, however, I shall not be celebrating the atrociously progressive “New Day” either – perhaps they should have called it “New DIE” from the appropriate acronym for Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity – but shall be celebrating, as I do every first of July, Dominion Day.  This is Canada’s true national holiday and the first of July bore this name until the Liberals changed it in 1982.   Since the Liberals did not do so honestly and constitutionally – only thirteen members, less than a quorum, were sitting at the time that the private member’s bill changing the name was rushed through all the readings without debate in less than five minutes, hence the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s description of this as “something very close to sneak-thievery” – I think that continuing to celebrate Dominion Day rather than Canada Day is appropriate.   I am in good company in this.  The great Canadian man of letters Robertson Davies called Dominion Day “splendid” and Canada Day “wet” in reference to its being “only one letter removed from the name of a soft drink”.  

I will say this about Canada Day, however.   Like Dominion Day it is a celebration of our country as a whole.  Indeed, Dominion Day and Canada Day, are two different celebrations of Canada based on two different visions of what ought to celebrated about the country.   I will elaborate on that momentarily.   First I will point out the contrast.   Attempts at a post-Canada Day holiday, as this New Day would appear to be, seem to be attempts at having a celebration on the country’s anniversary without celebrating the country at all but rather celebrating progressive ideals and the group identities of groups within Canada who are favoured by the left while allotting shame and dishonour to the country (and to groups within it who are not favoured by the left).   Ironically, considering that the sort of people who think up this sort of thing are always going on about “inclusivity”, this is incredibly divisive.   It is also insane.

Canada Day is a celebration of the Canada of the Liberal vision.   That Canada is best described by the title of a 1935 history by John Wesley Dafoe, the Liberal Party promoter who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, Canada: An American Nation.   By deliberately omitting the word “North” Dafoe expressed his idea that Canada is essentially American – possessing the same culture and values as the United States, and on the same political trajectory historically, away from the British Empire and towards democratic republican nationalism, albeit pursuing that path through means other than war.   Those who share this vision of Canada have historically regarded the Liberal Party as the guardians of Canada’s journey down this path or, as it has often been stated, “the natural ruling party of Canada”.    This is what the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton derisively called the “Authorized Version”, the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History that was, before the Cultural Marxist version in which the history of Canada, the United, States, and Western Civilization is treated as nothing but racism, sexism, and other such isms, permeated academe, authoritatively taught in Liberal-leaning history classrooms, which were most of them.   What critics of the left-wing of the Liberal Party – the branch of the party most associated with the two Trudeaus and Jean Chretien – and particularly the neoconservatives who look for inspiration and ideas primarily if not solely to the American “conservative” movement, often fail to grasp is that this is the Liberal vision of Canada even when the party’s left-wing, which spouts the same sort of anti-American rhetoric as the American Cold War era New Left, is controlling the party, and perhaps especially so.   The symbols associated with Canada Day, such as the flag introduced by Lester Pearson in 1965, like the name of the holiday itself, are symbols that point to Canada while saying nothing about her history and traditions, symbols that were introduced by Liberals to replace older ones that also pointed to Canada but did speak about her history and traditions.   The historical events highlighted in this vision of Canada are events in which the Liberal Party led the country.   In recent decades the main one of these was the repatriation of the British North America Act of 1867 in 1982 and the addition to it of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   In repatriating the British North America Act, it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867.   Everything asserted a few sentences earlier about the symbols associated with Canada Day is true of this change as well and the new name reflects the American understanding of the word “constitution”, i.e., a piece of paper telling the government what to do, rather than the traditional British-Canadian understanding of the word as meaning the institutions of the state as they actually exist and operate in a living tradition that is largely unwritten.   Similarly, it was the American Bill of Rights that the authors of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had in mind when they added this to the repatriated BNA, although, many of us have been warning for years and as is painfully obvious after the medical tyranny of the last two and a half years, and especially the harsh fascist crackdown on those peacefully protesting against this tyranny in Ottawa earlier this year, the Charter simply does not provide the same level of protection as the American Bill.     The Charter did not provide us with anything worth having that we did not already have by right of the Common Law and the long tradition of protected rights and freedoms associated with it including such highlights as the Magna Carta.    Furthermore, it weakened the most important rights and freedoms mentioned in it – the fundamental freedoms of Section 2 and the legal rights of Sections 7 to 14, institutionalized the injustice of reverse de jure discrimination – Section 15 b), and provided no protection whatsoever to property rights which in the older tradition which both we and the Americans inherited occupy the spot where the Americans put “the pursuit of happiness” in one of the founding documents of their tradition as it branched off from the older.  Perhaps the most significant single effect of the Charter was to transform our Supreme Court into an American-style activist Court which it had not been up unto that point.   The American Supreme Court has been activist so long that now, when it has finally reversed one of its most notorious activist rulings – Roe  v Wade – and returned the right to legislate protection for the lives of the unborn to the lawmaking assemblies from which it stole it in 1973, the American progressives whose causes have benefited from the vast majority of judicial activism have seen this as illegitimate judicial activism and have been behaving like extremely spoiled children who have finally received long-overdue discipline.   The point, however, is that these changes, arguably the most Americanizing of any the Liberal Party has ever made, were introduced by a Liberal government when the party was controlled by its left-wing, despite that left-wing’s Communist-sympathizing anti-American rhetoric.

Dominion Day is a celebration of the Canada that was formally established as a country when the British North America Act came into effect on 1 July, 1867.    The country was given the name Canada, which name, originally the Iroquois word for “village”, was mistaken by Jacques Cartier for the St. Lawrence region, then applied to the society of French settlers established there, then, after this French society and its territory were ceded to the British Crown by the French Crown after the Seven Years War, and the Americans seceded from the British Crown to establish their Modern, liberal, republic, became the name of two provinces of the British Empire, one French Catholic and the other English Protestant, located in this territory, the latter populated by the Loyalists who had fled persecution in the American republic.   These provinces were united into one in 1841, which proved almost immediately to be a mistake, and the search for a solution to the problems this fusion generated was one of the main reasons for Confederation in which the two provinces were separated once again, but made part of a larger federation of British North American provinces that was given the name common to both.   Dominion was the title the Fathers of Confederation gave the country that would bear the name country.   The title of a country, as distinct from its name, is supposed to tell you what kind of a country it is, that is to say, the nature of the constitution of the state.   If a country has “People’s Republic” as its title, for example, that tells us that it is a Communist, totalitarian, hellhole.   The “Dominion” in Canada’s title tells us that she is a parliamentary monarchy, a kingdom or realm under the reign of the monarch we share with the United Kingdom, governed by her own Parliament.   When the Liberals were waging war against the title “Dominion” from the 1960s to the 1980s, they maintained that it was a synonym for “colony” and was imposed upon Canada from London in the nineteenth century, but none of that was true.  The most charitable interpretation of the Liberals making these claims is that they were ignorant of history, an interpretation that would seem to be supported by the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s account, in his memoirs, of his attempts to educate his Liberal colleagues in the Senate about these things during this period, although a less charitable interpretation might be more appropriate for the top leaders of the party.   The reality is that the Fathers of Confederation had “Kingdom of Canada” as their first choice, were advised by London to pick something less provocative to our neighbours to the South, and chose “Dominion” as a synonym for “Kingdom” from Psalm 72:8.

Dominion Day, as a celebration of this Canada, is a celebration of a vision of Canada that is pretty much the opposite of the Liberal vision of Canada, and an interpretation of her history that is the opposite of the “Authorized Version”.   To call it the Conservative vision and interpretation of Canada would be very misleading, I am afraid, because, those who currently use the moniker Conservative are generally light years removed from Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier   Whatever you want to call it, however, it is the truer vision and interpretation of Canada.    The Confederation Project was not an attempt to do what the Americans had done in 1776 albeit without bloodshed.   It was an attempt to do the opposite of what the Americans had done – to take the provinces of the British Empire in North America, and build out of them a new country without severing ties with the United Kingdom and the Empire, using the Westminster Parliament as its model rather than devising a new constitution from scratch.   For the Fathers of Confederation in 1864 to 1867, as with the English and French Canadians who fought alongside the British Imperial army and its Indian allies from 1812 to 1815, and the ancestors of the same during the American Revolution four decades earlier, the threat to their freedom came from the American Republic, with its “Manifest Destiny”, cloaking its dreams of conquest in the rhetoric of “liberation”.   The British Crown and Empire were not tyrannical forces from which the Canadians needed to be “liberated” (1) but the guardian forces that protected Canadian freedom from American conquest.    The threat of American conquest did not just magically go away on 1 July, 1867.  The efforts of Sir John’s government in the decades that followed, to bring the rest of British North America into Confederation, to settle the prairies, and to build the transcontinental railroad that would unite the country economically, were all carried out with the threat of a United States hoping and wishing for him to fail so that they might swoop in and gobble up Canada looming over head.   Aiding and abetting the would-be American conquerors were their fifth column in Canada, the Liberals.   In Sir John’s last Dominion election, held in March 1891 only a couple of months prior to the stroke that incapacitated him shortly before his death, he faced a Liberal opponent, Sir Wilfred Laurier, who campaigned on a platform of “unrestricted reciprocity”, which is more commonly called “free trade”, with the United States.   Sir John called this treason, pointing out that free trade would create an economic union that would be the wedge in the door for cultural and political union with the United Sates.   That very year Liberal intellectual Goldwin Smith published a book, Canada and the Canada Question, that argued that Confederation was a mistake, that economics is everything, that trade in North America is naturally north-south rather than east-west – this was effectively rebutted by Harold Innis in The Fur Trade in Canada (1930) and Donald Creighton in The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence (1937) – and that union with the United States was both desirable and inevitable.   Sir John won another majority government in his last Dominion election by vigorously opposing all of this.

Sir John’s victory over Laurier in 1891 demonstrated that his vision of Canada, rather than the Liberal vision, was shared not just by the other Fathers of Confederation but by most Canadians.  That this remained true well into the Twentieth Century was evident in how the Liberals were the most likely to lose elections in which they most stressed the free trade plank of their platform and in the Loyalist spirit demonstrated by the Canadians who rallied to the call of King, Country, and Empire in two World Wars.   Even the Grit Prime Minister during the Second World War, who had mocked the Imperial war effort during the First World War, who was the very embodiment of the Liberal continentalist free trader, and who was actually an admirer of the dictator who led the other side – following his brief interview with Hitler in 1937, Mackenzie King wrote a gushing entry about him in his diary, in which he described the German tyrant in almost Messianic terms, comparing him to Joan of Arc, and employing language that would have sounded just as creepy had Hitler turned out to be the man of peace he thought him to be – had enough of that spirit to do his duty and lead Canada into the war alongside Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth.   Unfortunately, one of the consequences of that conflict was that the United States became the leading power in Western Civilization and immediately began to reshape the West into its own image.   To make matters worse around this same time mass communications technology, especially the television, became ubiquitous both a) facilitating the permeation of English Canadian culture with the mass pop culture produced in the culture factories of Los Angeles, and b) greatly increasing the influence of the newsmedia, which had been heavily slanted towards the Liberals since even before Confederation when George Brown edited the Globe, which evolved into today’s Globe and Mail.   These are among the foremost of the factors which produced the shift in popular thinking away from the truer, founding, vision of Canada celebrated in Dominion Day to the Liberal vision celebrated in Canada Day.   They are also among the factors that led George Grant, Canada’s greatest philosopher, traditionalist, and critic of technology, to pen his jeremiad for our country, Lament for a Nation, in 1965.

If the exponential growth in media power due to the development of mass communications technology and the post-World War II Americanization of Western Civilization as a whole are responsible for the shift in popular thought to the Liberal vision, how then do we explain this subsequent shift to the new, “woke” Left view, in which Canada, and everything that traditional Canadians celebrated about her in Dominion Day and Liberals in Canada Day, are regarded as cause for weeping and gnashing of teeth rather than celebration?

While the media certainly had a role in this as well – they were the ones, last year, remember, who, when various Indian bands began announcing that they had found ground disturbances – and this is all that they have found, to this date – on the grounds of former residential schools or in unmarked sections of cemeteries, irresponsibly reported this as “proof” of a conspiracy theory about the residential schools having been death camps where priests murdered kids by the thousands – it is our educational system that must bear the blame for the fact that so many people were stupid and ignorant enough to believe this stercus tauri.  It has been sixty-nine years since Hilda Neatby wrote and published So Little for the Mind: An Indictment of Canadian Education in which she lambasted the education bureaucrats who in most if not all Canadian provinces had decided in the decade or so prior to her writing to impose the educational “reforms” proposed by wacko, environmentalist (in the sense of taking the nurture side in the nature/nurture debate rather than the sense of being a tree-hugging, save-the-planet, do-gooder, although he may have been that too), atheist, secular humanist, Yankee philosopher John Dewey upon Canadian public schools.    This meant out with a curriculum focused on giving children facts to learn, expecting them to learn them, and acquainting them with the literary canon of the Great Conversation so that by exposing them to the Swiftian “sweetness and light” of Matthew Arnold’s “best which has been thought and said” they might be inspired to rise above their natural barbarism or philistinism and learn to think and ask questions and strive for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.  It meant in with a curriculum that was “child-centred”, which in practice meant dumbed down so as to minimize or eliminate content of which the child cannot immediately recognize its pragmatic utility to himself, although Dewey and his followers, who were decades ahead of everyone else in terms of solipsistic, narcissistic, psycho-babble, dressed it up in terms of helping the child maximize his potential.   Those sympathetic to the methods of Dewey et al. thought of these reforms as a positive shift from a passive education in which the teacher gives the student the content to be learned and the student receives it to an active education in which the student is trained to learn by self-discovery.   Neatby recognized these methods for what they really were – the means of transforming schools from institutions that provide their students with the intellectual tools necessary to live in control of their own lives as free people into institutions that train people to be docile, unquestioning, members of a more planned, more controlled, and more collectivist sort of society.   Her warnings largely went ignored, although she was commemorated with a stamp twenty-two years ago.   Even though the environmentalist presuppositions underlying Dewey’s system have been thoroughly debunked in the intervening decades, his theories survive as the dominant educational philosophy, albeit having been periodically translated into the latest forms of newspeak.      Meanwhile university level academics have mostly stopped criticizing the way the schools under the new system are failing to prepare students for a university education, but have instead accommodated the universities to the situation by transforming them into indoctrination centres in which their unquestioning and docile but also navel-gazingly narcissistic “student” bodies have their heads stuffed with every conceivable form of left-wing group identity politics – there are entire divisions of universities now dedicated to specific forms of this – and the deranged post-Marxist crackpot left-wing theories – intersectionality, Critical Theory (Race and otherwise), etc. – that support them.   The subversion and perversion of our educational system just described is the reason so many were quick to unthinkingly and unquestioningly accept the media’s irresponsible claims that the discovery of soil disturbances by ground-penetrating radar constitutes proof of the conspiracy theory that government-funded, church-operated, schools were murdering their students in some giant plot involving the highest officials of church, state, and a host of other institutions, that a defrocked United Church minister (2) pulled out of his rear end decades ago.    It is the reason so many were willing to commit the chronological snobbery of judging ex post facto our country’s past leaders by the left-wing standards of today’s progressives, the injustice of accepting a condemnation of our country in which only the accuser has been allowed to be heard and the defence has been denied the right of cross-examination and of making a defence by the mob shouting “disrespect” and “denial” every time anyone raised a question or pointed out contra-narrative facts, and the impiety of thinking the worst of the generations that went before us.   Note how the words “colonialism” and “imperialism” are constantly on the lips of such people, being used negatively in precisely the manner described by Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century in which he concluded that this usage, so different from how these terms are used by real historians, has reduced these words to “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers”.   This bespeaks the failure of the educational system.

So no, I will not be participating in any “New Day” that is the product of what passes for thinking in the minds of those whose acceptance of the left-wing narrative that our country is something to be mourned rather than celebrated testifies to the ruin of our educational system.    Nor, as an unreconstructed old Tory, will I be celebrating the Liberal vision for our country on “Canada Day”.   I shall once again raise my glass – or rather cup of coffee – to Sir John A. Macdonald and celebrate Canada’s true holiday, Dominion Day. — Gerry T. Neal 

Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the Queen!

(1)     For all of Jefferson’s Lockean rhetoric about natural law, unalienable rights, and the consent of the governed his 1776 accusations of “absolute tyranny” against George III and Parliament were nonsensical propaganda of the most risible sort, considering that the British government was one of the least intrusive governments in the world both at that time and in all of history up to that point.   

(2)     This is actually, in a twisted way, rather impressive.   It is far easier to be ordained in the United Church of Canada than to be defrocked.  

The Great Replacement — That Means YOU!

Posted on by

HEAR PAUL FROMM — THE GREAT REPLACEMENT — THAT MEANS YOU! — TORONTO, JUNE 24, 2022. VERY SUCCESSFUL MEETING TONIGHT

The Alternative Forum Proudly Presents

Paul Fromm

Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994

The Great Replacement — That Means YOU!

* More people are waking up. A May Abacus Data poll found 37 % agree: “There is a group of people … who are trying to replace native-born Canadians with immigrants.”

* Establishment figures like Michelle Rempel Garner denounce it as a “conspiracy theory” and “hate”

* What is the Great Replacement? Is it just a theory?

CANADA’S REAL OPPOSITION: Maxime Bernier “Moving the Overton Window” — Expanding What Can Be Discussed in Politics

Posted on by

CANADA’S REAL OPPOSITION: Maxime Bernier “Moving the Overton Window” — Expanding What Can Be Discussed in Politics

There can be no change in politics unless more Canadians want it.

More Canadians need to be aware of the threats to our freedoms and way of life from the Liberals and their woke allies.

More Canadians must see through the lies and propaganda in our mainstream media.

That’s why what we do at the People’s Party is so important.

Since the party was founded almost four years ago, we’ve been informing Canadians and raising issues that others are too afraid to raise, such as reducing immigration numbers, opposing the radical trans ideology, or reforming the equalization program.

We’ve been protesting, alone, when others were supporting authoritarian covid measures. Without us, there would have been NO OPPOSITION WHATSOEVER during two years at the federal level.

We’ve been moving the “Overton Window” – the window of what is considered acceptable public discourse – in the right direction so that we can finally have meaningful debates in Canada despite the political correctness and the censorship.

The fact that we have as yet no seat in Parliament is irrelevant.

We’re changing minds and preparing the ground to have seats and more influence in the future, and be able to bring about meaningful reforms.

Reforms that the establishment parties will never be able to implement, because they’re too afraid to oppose the fake elite consensus.

Frederick, if you agree that what we do at the PPC is crucially important for Canada’s future, please donate $5 today to help our work!

Thank you,
-Max


PS: I thank you if you recently donated or if you’ve already donated the maximum amount for this year. You can still help us by following the PPC on social media (see links below) and by sharing our content with your friends. Or by inviting them to subscribe to our free newsletter.

Share

________________________
People’s Party of Canada
Follow the PPC on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Rumble, Odysee, Gab, and Telegram. Follow Max on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Rumble, Gettr, and Telegram.
To make a donation with a cheque, please use this address: Suite 700, 1 Nicholas St, Ottawa, Canada, K1N 7B7. The cheque must be made payable to People’s Party of Canada. To make an online donation, please visit our website: www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca. Thank you!
This email was sent to paul@paulfromm.com. To stop receiving emails, click here.
Vous voulez plutôt recevoir nos messages en français? SVP envoyer un courriel à messages@partipopulaireducanada.ca en écrivant « Français » dans l’objet.

The United States has stage four cancer

Posted on by

The United States has stage four cancer

Has the US lost its national soul through the unintended integration of its culture with more “barbaric cultures”?
“The United States has stage four cancer and it hopelessly and tragically morally and spiritually bankrupt.”


Beaver Cole ~ former owner & publisher of The American Observer Newspaper and The Oil Patch Newspaper

Over 100 Years Ago, a Fictional Book Predicted the Fall of America Through Weaponized Immigration | The Common Sense Show

Over 100 Years Ago, a Fictional Book Predicted the Fall of America Through Weaponized Immigration

Submitted by Dave Hodges on Wednesday, June 22, 2022 – 21:38.

IMM

The Chesterton Prophecies

 Over 80% of the country opposing amnesty, the bill is finally dead, once and for all.

I would not count on it.

You can bet that this attack on American sovereignty, culture and economics will culminate in the total loss of culture. It will ensure the Democratic Marxist Party will remain in charge in perpetuity.   

Despite being over a century old, G. K. Chesterton’s, The Flying Inn (1914), provides present day Americans with an opportunity to understand what is happening to their loss of culture and of national sovereignty. The book consists of a “fictional” account of how England had been stripped of its cultural identity. The book was written at the end of the British imperialistic period of dominance in which England had collapsed under the sheer weight of attempting to maintain its vast empire.

What is described in the book, is exactly what is happening today. In the book, Chesterton maintained that England lost far more than its preeminent position as the world’s sole super power. He postulated that England had lost its national soul through the unintended integration of its culture with more “barbaric cultures” that it had previously conquered.

The protagonist in The Flying Inn, Dalroy, proclaimed that great nations have frequently followed a similar paradigm of progressive self-destruction:

  1. The great nation declares victory over the barbarians.
  2. The great nation begins to enjoy the fruits of cheap labor by employing the barbarians that it had conquered.
  3. The barbarians become so enmeshed into the great nation, that an alliance with barbarians is formed (e.g., de facto amnesty).  
  4. Assimilation is followed with the barbarians becoming a privileged class. Thus, the great nation is conquered.

Near the end of the book, almost every virtuous cultural tradition, of the great nation, comes under sharp criticism, while every cultural tradition emanating from the barbarians’ place of origin became praiseworthy. See the list below, this is exactly what is happening today.  

Certainly the relationship between the United States and various countries south of our border; parallels Chesterton’s stunningly accurate prophecies by describing what has happened to present day America . Consider the following parallels which strikingly correspond to Dalroy’s view of how empires crumble:

  1. The United States fulfills its “Manifest Destiny” mandate by provoking and winning a war with Mexico in order to gain a southern railroad route to California in1848. 
    The great nation was victorious. Dalroy’s first principle is fulfilled.

The economies of the two countries bifurcate and the United States begins to enjoy the fruits of its imperialistic labors. The conquered people provides nearly 170 years of cheap labor which helps to fuel the economic growth of the United States . Guest workers and illegal immigrants trickle into the United States . Despite the comparatively low wages, more immigrants come north to experience the bountiful leftovers of their former conquerors. This trend continues to the point in which the original trickle of guest workers and illegal immigrants becomes a raging tsunami of humanity most of whom are seeking to experience the

American dream at the expense of their former conquerors. The great nation employed those that it had conquered. Dalroy’s second principle is fulfilled.

Average American citizens begin to note the loss of economic standing, culture and traditions. “Special privilege” programs, such as Totalization, free medical and free education, serve to fully integrate the former illegal aliens into the mainstream of American society. To frame the desired paradigm shift, legal terms such as “illegal alien” become likened to racial epitaphs uttered during the worst days of the old “Jim Crow” laws. The PC Police (i.e., the corporate media and
BigTech) label all Americans who desire to secure their borders, in this age of terrorism, as white nationalists, white supremacists, blatant Jim-Crow-supporting -racists and xenophobic. The alliance has been formed. In modern day America, the alliance is so complete that the borders have been collapsed by
Biden and and cartel drugs, on behalf of their CHICOM benefactors and child-sex-trafficking is proliferating on the southern border. I did not even
mention the newest version of the Hitler Youth Movement through the teaching of Critical Race Theory and everyone’s live matters except white
people, patriots and Christians.  
Dalroy’s third principle has been fulfilled.

Illegal immigrant subgroups (e.g., Reconquista de Atzalan, MECHA) begin to proclaim that the takeover of America is moving forward and if the present occupants of this country do not like it; then these “Euros” can “go back to Europe .” (In this scenario, it’s not certain where American citizens whose historical roots lie in Africa,
the Middle East, South America, Mexico, Panama, Canada, Asia, the Pacific Rim, the Caribbean, and most of all, Native Americans, are supposed to return to).


The DemocraticParty Marxists have taken over the MECHA movement with a definitive move towards amnesty and special entitlement programs. While millions of
American citizens are being forced to vaccinate or lost their jobs, illegal aliens, many of whom are infected with covid, are crossing our border, settling in our cities
and remain untested and untreated for covid. This is the ultimate in entitlement and special treatment for illegal immigrants versus the treatment of the American public. 


At what point do we admit that the great nation of America has been conquered and is in the process of being successfully occupied? America is an
occupied country.

The United States has stage four cancer and it hopelessly and tragically morally and spiritually bankrupt.  .

The Name of the Month of June http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/?p=2394

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, June 10, 2022

The Name of the Month of June

 It is the sixth month of the year.   The common name for this month is June, a name derived from Juno, the Queen of the Olympians in Roman mythology corresponding to the Greek Hera.   While occasionally one encounters a Christian who has a problem with the month’s name on the basis of this pagan origin, most of us are sensible enough to recognize that words take on new meanings, that “June” now simply means “the sixth month of the year”, and that one is in no way evoking the pagan goddess by calling the month after its common name.   The more educated among us will also recognize that the kind of reasoning used to condemn those who call the month by its common name would also condemn the writers of the New Testament who employ the word “Hades” to refer to the place the Old Testament calls “Sheol” because of the similar concept – a dark, shadowy, underworld, inhabited by the spirits of the dead – even though “Hades” as a name for the underworld is borrowed from that of the god who ruled it in Greek mythology, the god the Romans called Pluto.   A good rule to follow when trying to determine whether you are taking a principled stand for Christ or just being a nut is that if you are doing something that the Puritans, Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Maoists liked doing, such as renaming everything, then you are probably just being a nut.

At any rate, June is certainly a better name than the alternative name that so many now use for this month.   The sort of people who identify themselves by one of the letters in the alphabet soup – LGBTTQAEIOUandsometimesY – and others, businesses and politicians mostly, who wish to be seen as supportive of the alphabet soup gang, refer to it as Pride month.   It was not that long ago that it was Pride Week.   Now it has grown into a whole month.   Originally there was a Gay before the Pride but at some point this was dropped presumably because the other letters in the alphabet soup had grown jealous of the G.   

The irony of this, for orthodox Christians, of course, is that of the two terms, Pride is by far the most objectionable.   Gay, which in this context does not have its older and, until well into the twentieth-century primary, meaning of light-hearted, cheerful, and happy, but rather its more recent and as of late sole sense of homosexual, denotes something that violates the standards of orthodox moral theology on the basis of both explicit Scriptural passages against it (Genesis 19, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, and Jude being the most obvious examples) and its deviation from the exemplary pattern of a man leaving his father and mother, being joined to his wife, and the two being one flesh.   Pride, however, is the name of the worst of all sins.

While the ancient Greeks did not have the same view of Pride as orthodox Christianity they did, in a way, anticipate the Christian point of view in their concept of hubris, which was a form of Pride.    It had various connotations depending upon context.   In early Greek literature it frequently designated words and acts by which men insulted and offended the gods with arrogant boasting.   Cassiopeia, queen of Ethiopia, boasted that she and her daughter Andromeda were more beautiful than the sea nymphs the Nereids, which brought upon her and her kingdom the wrath of Poseidon.   This was an example of this sense of hubris.   Numerous similar examples could be given, in each of which the person who offended the gods with his or her arrogance met with swift punishment, sometimes fatal, sometimes non-fatal but permanent, often involving a transformation.   The myth of Arachne whom Athena transformed into a spider for boasting that she was a superior weaver is an example of the latter sort.  So, for that matter, is basically every example of hubris related by Ovid in his Metamorphoses.  Occasionally the punishment was thwarted, at least in part, by another agent.   In the aforementioned example of Cassiopeia, Andromeda was as much an object of Neptune’s wrath as her mother and to spare Ethiopia, Cassiopeia was told she would have to sacrifice Andromeda to a sea-monster.  The hero Perseus intervened and rescued the princess whom he then married.   In Greek mythology, both hubris and the divine wrath that punished it, like most abstract concepts were personified as divinities, Hubris and Nemesis.   A more general version of this same basic concept, that arrogance brings about one’s downfall, also appears in Greek mythology and literature of equal vintage.   Think of the myth of Icarus, the son of Daedelus, architect of the Labyrinth.   Daedelus, having offended his king, Minos of Crete, was imprisoned and escaped the prison with his son, on wings he constructed of wax and feathers.  Icarus, ignoring his father’s warnings, flew too high, the sun melted the wax, and he plummeted to his death.    It can also be found illustrated, along with other themes, in “The Tortoise and the Hare”, from Aesop’s Fables.   Aesop lived the century after Homer and Hesiod – he is believed to have been born only a few decades after the latter died – and this particular of his fables is of unquestionable antiquity, having been famously referenced, albeit with the details altered and with an entirely different point, by Zeno of Elea in one of those delightful paradoxes “proving” motion to be impossible.   

The Greek poets and storytellers who related the above myths stressed the offensiveness of mortal hubris to those above men, the gods.   One of the most well-known definitions of hubris to come down to us from ancient times is that of Aristotle.   It comes from the second book of his Rhetoric, a work that both defines the principles and rules and instructs in the art of persuasive speech.      This is the section in which Aristotle is exploring the usefulness of pathos – emotion – both on the part of the speaker and the audience, in making an argument.   His definition of hubris – which is generally rendered “insult” in English translation of Rhetoric – emphasizes its offensiveness in the opposite direction to that stressed by the ancient myths, i.e., to its human victims.   As translated by J. H. Freese it says that hubris “consists in causing injury or annoyance whereby the sufferer is disgraced, not to obtain any other advantage for oneself besides the performance of the act, but for one’s own pleasure”.   At first glance, it seems almost as if Aristotle were discussing something completely different from the hubris of Greek mythology and, indeed, he obviously had the laws of his city-state Athens in mind here.   In Greek law in general, hubris denoted a wide category of crimes.   The Athenian lawmakers had put more effort into defining the category than most and in Athenian law hubris consisted of crimes that deliberately inflicted shame upon their victims.   Some recent classical scholars have argued on the basis of this definition that our entire traditional understanding of the Greek concept of hubris is mistaken, an anachronistic reading of English usage and Christian concepts back into ancient thought.    This, however, reads too much into this one passage of Aristotle.   It is understandable that the legal connotations of hubris, in which its effects on human victims would be stressed, would be foremost in Aristotle’s mind in Rhetoric – consult Plato’s dialogues that feature Socrates interacting with the Sophists, or for that matter Aristophanes’ lampooning of Socrates himself in the Clouds, and it will quickly become obvious, as in fact, it is self-evident, that the main reason rhetoric teachers were in demand was because people wanted to win lawsuits in court.   

Aristotle was also the author of Poetics, the work that established the framework in which theoretical discussion of drama, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Aristotle – and everything he wrote, from the basic unities to catharsis has been subjected to rigorous debate – has been conducted ever since.   While other forms of poetry such as Epic, and of drama such as Comedy, are discussed, the bulk of Poetics, which is not a long work, pertains to tragedy.    Aristotle, remember, lived in the period immediately after tragedy had come to dominate the Greek theatre.   Two of the great Athenian tragedians, Sophocles and Euripides, had been contemporaries of Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, and of Socrates, Plato’s teacher, while Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, had lived into Socrates’ youth.   Tragedy, according to Aristotle, was a form of dramatic poetry that like Epic but in contrast with Comedy, involved an imitation (Gk. Mimesis) of the higher sort of character in serious events or actions, the purpose of which was to achieve a cleansing or purging (Gk. Catharsis) of the emotions, particularly of the fear and pity that the play was supposed to produce in the audience through empathy with the characters.   It had six parts – Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, and Song – and of these, the Plot, the most important of the six parts, had to involve a Reversal (Gk. Peripeteia) of fortune and circumstance from good to bad, brought about not by vice or depravity, but by a great error, weakness or failing (Gk. Hamartia) of the hero.    Hubris was the most common example of this Hamartia.  Hubris, as an Aristotelean tragic hero’s “fatal flaw”, is more recognizable as the hubris of Greek mythology than the legal hubris of the Rhetoric.   The tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides were, for the most part, retellings – in the case of Euripides often radical re-interpretations – of the older Greek myths.  

The Greek view, as I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion, anticipated the Christian view but was not identical to it.   This is evident in Aristotle.   By contrasting Hamartia, the general category to which hubris belonged, with vice and depravity, he spoke of it in terms that had a less harsh moral tone to them, although, interestingly, about a century after Aristotle, the Jewish scribes who translated the LXX for Ptolemy II Philadelphus would use it to render Chata, the basic Hebrew word for “sin” in the Old Testament, which led to it becoming the main word for “sin” in the New Testament.     Hamartiology is the designation of the study of the doctrine of sin in Christian theology.  It was the natural translation choice – both Chata and Hamartia have the same root meaning of an archer missing the mark he is aiming for – but when it comes to usage, Chata in the Old Testament has the same general connotations and tone that “sin” does in English, which is not true of Hamartia in Greek literature prior to the LXX and New Testament.   Thus Aristotle, using Hamartia, “missing the mark”, to mean the “mistake” “error” or “flaw” that brings about the Peripetia of his tragic hero – someone, whom he says, should be depicted as neither exceptionally virtuous or villainous – contrasts it with moral depravity and vice, whereas St. Paul, also alluding to the basic meaning of the word when he writes that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), does so after making the point with a series of Old Testament quotations that emphasize the depravity of the sinner (“their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth if full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood:” etc.).

Neither Aristotle nor the ancient Greeks in general thought of Pride in general in the same terms in which they thought of Hubris.   The former they thought of as a good thing, the latter as Pride taken to excess.   Excess, of course, was fundamental to Aristotle’s entire concept of Vice, just as moderation was to his view of Virtue.   A Virtue was the middle path of moderation between two Vices of excess.   Indeed, in Book IV of his Nicomachean Ethics, he speaks of Pride as the Virtue (Gk. Arete) that falls between a false humility and excessive Pride.   Spoken of in these terms, it means the acknowledgement of one’s own strengths, accomplishments, etc. as they actually are, as opposed to speaking of them as if they were less than they are in reality (false humility) or laying claim to greater strengths and accomplishments than one actually possesses (excessive Pride).   From this perspective, since people’s strengths etc. can be ranked in terms of best, various degrees of better, good, bad, various degrees of worse, and worst, for the person who actually belongs to the top rank of best to acknowledge such is ordinary Pride and not Hubris.

The Holy Scriptures, by contrast, never speak of Pride positively, in either Testament.   Nor do they ever speak negatively of humility.   To be fair to Aristotle, it should be noted that they never use these words with precisely the same sense that he gave them either and that the Scriptures do indeed place a high premium on speaking of things as they are.   The closest thing to even a neutral use of the word “Pride” in the Bible that I could find is Job 41:15, which describes the scales of Leviathan as his pride, although, since the sea-serpent discussed in that chapter almost certainly represents Satan, this may not be as neutral a usage as it seems.   Pride is the sin that brought about the devil’s fall.   This is explicitly stated by St. Paul in the New Testament (I Tim. 3:6), and if the traditional interpretation of Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 as God speaking to the devil through the human representatives of the kings of Babylon and Tyre and describing his fall is accurate (1), it is found in the Old Testament as well.   The Isaiah passage does not use the word Pride, but it is clearly the motive of the actions described.   The expression “thine heart was lifted up” in Ezekiel 28:17 essentially means “you became proud”.   Just as Pride led to Satan’s own downfall, it was the means he used to bring about the Fall of Man as well.  He tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit by telling her that the only reason God had forbidden it to her and Adam was because it would open their eyes, giving them the God-like knowledge of good and evil, leading her to distrust God and to desire the forbidden God-like knowledge.   The Temptation worked by stoking and appealing to Pride.  When later, Satan unsuccessfully tempted Jesus, each of the three Temptations was an enticement to act based on Pride in one form or another.  

The Bible uses the word Pride to characterize the wicked (Job. 35:12, Ps. 10:2) and the foolish (Prov. 14:13).   It leads, like hubris in Greek thought, to a fall and to destruction (Prov. 16:8) and brings God’s judgement both upon Israel (Is. 9:8-12, Jer. 13:9)and the nations around her, (Ez. 30:6, Zech. 9:6) including or perhaps especially the powerful ones that she relies upon instead of God and which He uses as a scourge against her (Zech. 10:11).  It deceives (Obad. 1:3) and prevents the wicked from seeking God (Ps. 10:4).   To fear the Lord is to hate Pride (Prov. 8:13).   Interestingly, it is said to lead to shame and being brought low in contrast with humility and (voluntary) lowliness leading to wisdom and honour (Prov. 11:2, 29:23), which may be where Greek and Biblical thought on the subject were the furthest removed from each other.   Very interestingly, considering the occasion of this essay, is that Ezekiel gave it as the first example in his list of the iniquities that brought judgement upon Sodom (Ez. 16:49).   Jesus spoke of Pride as one of the things that comes from out of the heart and defiles a man (Mk. 7:22).   The cognate adjective proud is used less frequently and no differently.  

It is only when it comes to the conceptually related verbs “boast” and “glory” that we find references that are positive and these generally speak of a “boasting” or “glorying” that is fundamentally the opposite of the kind that would be associated with Pride.   Here are a few examples:

My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. (Ps.  34:2)

In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name forever. Selah. (Ps. 44:8)

God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world. (Gal. 6:14)

While Greek thought with regards to hubris approached Biblical thought regarding Pride, it fell short.   The Greeks worshipped gods whom they thought of as being superior to mortal men in terms of strength and power but generally not in terms of righteousness and justice.   Indeed, it could be argued that Greek mythology generally presented the gods as men’s moral inferiors.   There are some exceptions to this among the ancient writers, but it was noticeable enough to attract attention, comment, and attempts at reform from Plato and Euripides among others.   Something like hubris that offended such deities, therefore, simply could not be thought of in the same terms as that which offends the True and Living God of the Bible, Who is man’s superior in every way, in the superlative and not just the comparative degree.   Since the Scriptures tell us that men were created Innocent by the True and Living God, but fell into sin which offends against Him Who is Supremely Perfect in His Holiness, Righteousness, and Justice, it can hardly be surprising that the same Scriptures universally condemn human Pride, and counsel sinful men to adopt an attitude of brokenness, contrition, and humility, warning them that if they lift themselves up in Pride He will bring them low, but promising that if they humble themselves in the sight of the LORD, He will lift them up (Jas. 4:10).    The Church’s traditional identification of Superbia – Pride – as the source of all other sin, the worst and deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins, represents Scriptural thought faithfully.   In this as in many other areas, ancient Greek thought demonstrates how far human philosophy can go relying upon General Revelation, but also how far it falls short of the Special Revelation of the Scriptures and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.  This is the Hamartia of human philosophy.

When it comes to the Pride that is contemporarily celebrated on the sixth month of the year, however, ancient Greek thought would condemn it as much as Christian thought.   This might seem paradoxical, in that the ancient Greeks were famously tolerant of some of the sexual conduct associated with Pride month, but as noted earlier the modifier which once qualified Pride was dropped years ago, the reference to the lesser sin which the Greeks tolerated being eliminated leaving only the name of the worst of all sins.   The arrogance of the current demands of the intolerant Left that everybody pay homage to the celebration or face “cancellation” is such than any of the ancient Greeks would have recognized it as hubris.  

It is best that we stick to using the name of Jupiter’s wife for this month.   Pagan in origin, thought it undoubtedly be, it is far less objectionable than the other alternative.

(1))   In my opinion the traditional interpretation is correct.   Although the early Reformers rejected it, it has strong Patristic support, going back at least as far as Tertullian and Origin in the second century.   That this interpretation may have dated back to the intertestamental period cannot be ruled out – there is insufficient evidence from the period itself.    The Church Fathers, however, relied upon a handful of New Testament passages that speak of the fall of Satan using language that suggests allusion to the Isaiah passage. The two passages in question use language that obviously does not apply literally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre and which it would be rather a stretch to apply to them in any metaphorical sense. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:59 AM Labels:

Canada Naive in the Face of China’s Infiltration and Disinformation Campaigns: Expert

Posted on by
The downtown Vancouver skyline is seen at sunset, as houses line a hillside in Burnaby, B.C., on April 17, 2021. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)

The downtown Vancouver skyline is seen at sunset, as houses line a hillside in Burnaby, B.C., on April 17, 2021. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press) Canada

Canada Naive in the Face of China’s Infiltration and Disinformation Campaigns: Expert

By Andrew Chen June 8, 2022 Updated: June 9, 2022 biggersmallerPrint 0:007:33

Canada has been naive about communist China its continued espionage and foreign interference campaigns, and as politicians willfully turn a blind eye to the threat, the country is also losing credibility among its democratic allies, an expert said at a panel discussion on June 7.

Sam Cooper, also an award-winning investigative journalist, said he was told by Canadian intelligence officials that Beijing had its spies collect information about him after his book, published last summer, exposed how corrupt politicians in the communist regime have been using gangs and casinos in Canada to launder dirty money made through the illicit drug trade, among other international criminal activities.

“Beijing wanted to know how the public was reacting to my book and whether it could damage the Chinese Communist Party,” Cooper said during the panel discussion, held on the occasion of the launch of the second edition of his book.

The event was hosted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and featured panelists including Conservative MP Adam Chambers and James Cohen, executive director of Transparency International Canada, a Toronto-based global anti-corruption non-government coalition.

Cooper said he was shocked to learn that he was targeted by the Chinese Communist Party’s espionage activities, but “wasn’t surprised” that the regime’s United Front Work Department found his book a threat.

The book, titled “Wilful Blindness: How a Network of Narcos, Tycoons, and CCP Agents Infiltrated the West,” draws links between senior CCP officials and underground money-laundering suspects in British Columbia and shows how their criminal proceedings fuelled an opioid crisis in Canada while driving up real estate costs. It also reveals that Chinese state-backed companies donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s family foundation.

“Every parliamentarian and regulator should have the book, should read it,” said Chambers, who previously worked as a senior adviser to former finance minister Jim Flaherty.

The book also received praise on Twitter from Tory MP Garnett Genuis, who has been vocal against the CCP’s human rights abuses and violations of international law.

Misinformation in Canada’s 2021 Federal Election

A top priority of the CCP’s foreign infiltration campaign is to eliminate dissenting voices against the authoritarian regime and its questionable conduct, particularly those in overseas Chinese communities.

Cooper said one of his sources, who managed to get into some of Vancouver’s Chinese elite circles that are involved with the United Front, warned him about a CCP agent’s scheme to run a donation campaign to fund a lawsuit against critics of the regime based on claims that they are racially discriminatory against Asian Canadians.

“My source told me they want to make it an influential Chinese group to lobby and pressure governments, politicians, reporters, institutions, and incite national sentiment among Chinese Canadians,” Cooper said. “They want to promote lawsuits against anyone who dares to criticize China and elect more puppets into Canadian governments.”

He said the warnings became a reality during Canada’s 2021 federal election, when the same social media groups that had attacked him in 2020 for his previous reports on the United Front’s misconduct began to “amplify disinformation operations” against Conservative candidate Kenny Chiu, who was the incumbent MP seeking re-election.

Chiu, known for his pro-Chinese democracy stance and an outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party, lost his seat in the B.C. riding of Steveston–Richmond East in the 2021 election. He told The Epoch Times in a previous interview that while he had been a target of misinformation before, what happened last year was “exceptional.”

Through his private member’s bill, Bill C-282, Chiu sought to increase political transparency by compelling those working on behalf of foreign entities to register as foreign agents. But he said that bill was “deliberately” misrepresented to mislead people in the Chinese community to believe it was against their interests.

“Chiu didn’t even name China in his bill,” Cooper said. “Yet he was smeared and labelled anti-Chinese.”

“Any defender of Canada is an enemy of Beijing. These forces succeeded in taking Chiu out.”

Cooper noted similar misinformation campaigns also targeted Alice Wong, Tory MP for Richmond Centre, Ontario. In total, the CCP interference network had targeted 12 ridings in the 2021 election, mostly in Vancouver and Toronto, he said.

Targeting Elites

Cooper said the CCP’s cash-for-access influence over Western political elites, or what is known as “elite capture,” as seen in Vancouver and Toronto is also carried out in other democratic societies.

He pointed to a report in early 2022 from the United Kingdom’s intelligence agency MI5, which showed how a Chinese agent, Christine Ching Kui Lee, established ties with a number of British parliamentarians on behalf of the CCP through political donations.

However, unlike the MI5, Canadian intelligence agencies cannot make public alerts about infiltration from foreign agents from China, Russia, and Iran, due to the country’s “strict privacy laws and the mysterious political shackles that Canadian intelligence operates under,” even when the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has incredible intelligence showing the CCP’s United Front has targeted Trudeau and politicians in all Canadian parties, Cooper said.

“This isn’t a failure of the agency’s task with gathering intelligence. They ultimately report to their political masters. And if those political masters don’t want to heed the blaring alarms, the agencies have little recourse—reports will be buried, … and ultimately the intelligence agencies will stop producing these reports altogether,” Cooper said, citing an intelligence source.

“Bureaucrats don’t want to end their careers by delivering unwanted medicine to uncooperative patients.”

He said that according to Chiu, in Greater Vancouver, with its “three-dimensional control” of political candidates, culture, and businesses, China has gained sway over even the traditional pillars of society.

“People that are supposed to speak the truth, China has brought them down to their knees,” Cooper said.

As for politicians in Ottawa, they have been “naive at best about the threat China poses,” and many parliamentarians are near-sighted, focusing on microscopic concerns, while still others who do see the big picture “enrich themselves through sweet insider deals with Beijing,” he said, citing Chiu and his intelligence sources.

“Canada is faltering as a middle power,” Cooper said. “The nation isn’t taken seriously in the Five Eyes anymore. Canada isn’t a leader in the growing battle between democracy and authoritarianism.”

Issac Teo contributed to this article.

Indian Mass Graves: Another Lie in the Defamation War Against Whites

Posted on by

Indian Mass Graves: Another Lie in the Defamation War Against Whites

The Myth of the Native American Mass Graves

Did you know that the children of the nomadic Siberian Nenets tribe are sent to boarding school for nine months each year to learn the basics of civilization?

Many of them don’t tolerate it and literally freeze to death trying to return to the tundra to join their tribe. It’s hard to change worlds, to go from freedom to confinement from one day to the next. We know something about that, don’t we?

Does this mean they are coerced? Of course not. It’s not the evil civilized White people forcing them. Like all responsible parents, Nenet parents who want the best for their children, know very well that they need to learn how to live in the modern world.

After their education which lasts several years, most of them do not want to return to the tundra. The most gifted become lawyers, doctors, or researchers, the others find a job of some kind and integrate themselves into the society that raised them. Nobody forces them. They themselves choose where they want to live and how. And that’s a good thing.

Russians have great respect for the hundreds of ethnic groups that have lived on their territory since time immemorial. They want things to go well and everyone to be happy.

And so did the Missionaries who taught the Aboriginals in residential schools. By vocation they were also sincerely concerned about their students who just like the Nenets were to be civilized for their own good.

Since their parents lived in the wilderness sometimes far from the boarding schools, they could not be sent back to their families on weekends as they would today. There were no roads or buses. In order to adapt them as well as possible, it made more sense to keep these children in boarding school for several months.

But despite this long stay away from their parents, many of them like the prominent Aboriginal playwright Tomson Highway and the late band chief Cece Hodgson-McCauley greatly enjoyed their time at their schools. “Nine of the happiest years of my life were spent at that school…some people have been badmouthing residential schools for money,” the chief told the Huffington Post and CBC. (1)

At the time of the so-called mass graves, the child mortality rate was close to 40%. Aboriginal people were less resistant to disease than Europeans. Residential schools were overcrowded and hygiene was sometimes poor. Malnutrition, tuberculosis, typhus, Spanish flu (1917-1921) and several other infectious diseases were rampant. There were no antibiotics to treat them. Is it any wonder that many died? Of course not!

But since the deaths were not of criminal origin, there was never a “mass grave” and “genocide” as Justin Trudeau has falsely claimed. The Canadian Residential School Mass Graves myth was thoroughly debunked by Jared Taylor (See Kamloops: Greatest Hate Hoax Ever?)

It is very much Hollywood, and the media, that has destroyed the image of the Church, and led astray people like our Prime Minister. “On television and in the movies,” writes French writer Hervé Ryssen in his DVD book documentary, Satan in Hollywood. Christianophobia in the movies, Christians, especially Catholics, are most often portrayed as bigoted, narrow-minded and intolerant, even as rapists or murderers. As for the Catholic clergy, they are most often portrayed as a bunch of sadists.”

But it is also Whites who are targeted through Catholics who are never Black, for example. Thus, in films and television series, Whites are often bastards and losers, while men of other races are always nice, intelligent, and resourceful, the darlings of white women who only have eyes for them.

It was also Hollywood that portrayed the Native Americans as innocent victims of the evil Whites. You’ve probably seen the movie, Dances with Wolves, with the handsome Kevin Costner, but did you know it’s pure fiction? Truth be told, before their evangelization and education in boarding schools by missionaries, Native Americans were not noble, good, kind, or innocent as portrayed in the movie. They were savages of unprecedented cruelty; primitives who practiced cannibalism and slavery; warriors who spent their time fighting over territory. (2) Hollywood glorifies them only to smear Christians and Whites.

You can easily see this hatred of White Catholics and Whites in general almost on a daily basis in the media and in the movies. (3) Hollywood, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, to name only the best known, have only one goal in mind: to sully Christians, demonize the White race and turn against it the minority groups and the White liberals like Justin Trudeau who, by dint of being told in schools and everywhere that their race is rotten, hate it more than the minorities themselves. (4)

References

  1. Lifesitenews staff, “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools“. (Jun 28, 2021).
  2. Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance. Indian Warfare on the High Plains 1865-1879, Stackpole Books, 1996.
  3. Thomas Dalton, Confronting the Judeocracy. The Six Stages of Enlightenment, The Unz Review (23 April 2021).
  4. Arthur Kempt, The War Against Whites. The Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West, Ostara Publications, 2020, p. 82.

Here Are the “Nutcases” Who Believe in “Replacement”

Posted on by

Here Are the “Nutcases” Who Believe in “Replacement”

May 19, 2022/61 Comments/in Featured Articles, Immigration /by Ann Coulter

HERE ARE THE NUTCASES WHO BELIEVE IN “REPLACEMENT”

The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) has taken the media by storm! It seems that the White racist who shot up a grocery store full of Black people last weekend cited GRT in his 180-page “manifesto.”

First of all, journalists need to understand that GRT is only a theory taught in advanced law school seminars. It is not something designed for indoctrination of mass audiences of young people.

So what is GRT? The New York Times describes it thus:

“[T]he notion that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to ‘replace’ and disempower white Americans.” (You want a conspiracy theory about a secretive cabal of Jews? Check out the Times’ series of articles on “neoconservatives” back in the early 2000s.)

But then — just as every argument about abortion suddenly becomes an argument about contraception — a few paragraphs later, the crackpot theory jumps from a Jewish cabal replacing whites with blacks … to the idea that Democrats are using immigration “for electoral gains.”

Wow, that is nuts! Where’d anybody get that idea?

Oh yeah — from liberals.

Here’s Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

(Well, sure, if you want to totally overlook skirt-chasing and pill-popping.)

Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote — African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

A year later, the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein began touting the “Coalition of the Ascendant,” gloating that Democrats didn’t need blue-collar whites anymore. Woo hoo! Obama “lost more than three-fifths of noncollege whites and whites older than 45.” But who cares? He crushed with “minorities (a combined 80%).”

“Adios, Reagan Democrats,” he says gleefully.

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, “RIP GOP,” explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of … sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse … more immigrant and foreign born.”

And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning White voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

On MSNBC, they’re constantly sneering about “old white men” and celebrating the “browning of America.” A group called Battleground Texas boasts about flipping that deep red state to the Democrats — simply by getting more Hispanics to vote. Blogs are giddily titled, “The Irrelevant South” (“the traditional white South — socially and economically conservative — is no longer relevant in national politics”). MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid tweets that she is “giddy” watching “all the bitter old white guys” as Ketanji Brown Jackson “makes history.”

This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the White “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in The New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

“For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.
“And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …
“Because your time is limited.
“Real damned limited.”

Guess why! Wise explained:

“It is math.”

Wait, isn’t math racist? But moving on …

“Because you’re on the endangered list.
“And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
“In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

Have you ever noticed how obsessed liberals are with “Leave It to Beaver”?

“It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
“Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

After several more paragraphs of mocking White people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

“We just have to be patient.
“And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …
“Do you hear it?
“The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
“Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

To Wise, the best way to kill the antisemitic trope of Jewish elites waging war against whites is to be a Jewish elite waging war against Whites.

I don’t know about the Jewish cabal version of GRT, but as for liberals using immigration to bring in more Democratic voters, as Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

Speaking of theories involving Jewish cabals …

The New York Times on neoconservatives, Aug. 4, 2003:

“For the past few weeks, U.S. President George W. Bush has been surrounded by a secretive circle of advisers and public relations experts, giving rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and debates. It’s been said that the group’s idol is German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

How Advertizers Defame & Demean White People & How We Can Give White People Back Their Pride & Hope

Posted on by

How Advertizers Defame & Demean White People & How We Can Give White People Back Their Pride & Hope with Charles Edward Lincoln, William Johnson of the American Freedom Party & Paul Fromm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JetkL3qTrMY&t=4s