Despite a huge police presence, Saturday marked a fifth night of violence in the Val d’Oise district after the death of Adama Traoré in police custody on Tuesday. During demonstrations against Mr. Traoré’s death, protesters, some wielding baseball bats, torched cars, petrol pumps, bins, and piles of rubbish. Buildings were also set alight, including a large warehouse in Persan, near Beaumont-sur-Oise.
|CBC = Canadian Blue-Piller Corporation|
Leftist John Grierson, the first Commissioner of the National Film Board of Canada — later dismissed for his communist sympathies — once said something to the effect that successful manipulation of public opinion largely consists not in slanting the news, but choosing it. The real power of a news outlet lies in its ability to determine what is and what is not newsworthy. Thus, the public is not so much victimized by the “lying press” as by what patriotic Germans have recently dubbed the “Lückenpresse” — the “gaps” press. Leaving out crucially relevant information is as effective as misrepresenting it. The silent lie is as potent — and morally reprehensible — as the uttered lie.
Of course, this technique is not confined to the print media, but to television and radio as well. None employ it better than CBC Pravda, Canada’s state broadcaster, which may be described as the conversion of conscripted taxpayer money into thinly veiled ideologically partisan bullshit. Its apparent mandate is to manufacture consent by using journalism as a mechanism of social engineering. For the “Friends of the CBC,” the CBC is the appointed gatekeeper of information that can be trusted not to let inconvenient truths to slip by and red-pill the public. The objective is not to just keep disturbing ideas out, but to keep the masses in. Inside the CBC matrix. Canadians must not be let out of their sheep pen, or radical campus feminists would put it, their ‘safe zone’.
As I have long said, the CBC is an infallible guide as to what is not happening in the world. Perhaps then CBC “Pravda” is not an appropriate appellation, for “Pravda” is the Russian word for “truth.” A more apt description of the CBC and its mission would be “The Omission of Truth.”
There are several ways that Mother Corp pulls this off. One, the standard way, is to simply neglect to mention inconvenient facts and events — or acknowledge them only after competing media have forced their hand. If, for example, a TV viewer wanted to know anything about the Rotherham scandal, or the sexual harassment and assault of women in Cologne by swarms of largely male Muslim migrants, he wouldn’t turn to CBC National News. Not unless he wanted to wait until the story was cold.
Therein lies the irony. The broadcaster that is blatantly aligned to political forces whose clarion call is “inclusion” is noteworthy for its exclusion. When the CBC says that it has an “exclusive,” one’s instinctive reaction might be, “This is news?” The CBC is consistently exclusive of ‘hate’ facts, that is, facts that the political class and its flock hate to hear.
The other classic CBC technique of news omission is the presentation of a discussion panel which implies that a full range of perspectives will be brought to bear on the topic in question. Typically, there is a panellist who is thought to be on the Left, and one thought to be on the Right — as the CBC defines it — and another with his or her feet planted on both sides of the issue. In truth however, all three are more or less on the same page. All are mired in the muck of the centre-left moral consensus. If you lie outside that consensus, you are not of the Right, but the “far Right,” a moral leper beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.
The funny thing is that this “far Right” upon closer scrutiny looks a lot like the Old Left looked like. A cause that favours job protection for indigenous workers, opposes unfettered free trade, globalism, and austerity and upholds the welfare state by defending it from the crippling claims made upon it by cheap imported labour and an endless stream of refugees. Oh, and like the Old Left, the new Right, the “alt-Right, or the “far” Right as they are variously called are dedicated to the preservation of freedom of expression. How quaint.
CBC panel discussions go essentially like this, “Hands up. Which panellist here believes that the official policy of Multiculturalism has been a disaster for this country? No hands? Then are there any panellists here who believe that the federal government should substantially reduce immigration intakes? No one? Then I thereby declare mass immigration and multiculturalism is the winner by acclamation and good for the country.”
The tag team of Mesley and Mansbridge cannot be likened to referees trying to break up two adversaries locked in mortal verbal combat, but to moderators of a pantomime, a mock duel between puppets who argue over various nuances of a common world view. The debates may be spirited, but they are not markedly polarized. In fact, when voices become strident, it is usually a reflection of trivial differences. It’s what Freud called the narcissism of small differences. People who resent each others’ similarity go to great pains to seize on trivial points of departure and inflate them so as to stake out what they believe is their distinctive identity.
That is what characterizes campaign rhetoric in Canada. Political parties do their best to magnify their differences in order to foster the illusion that they offer starkly different pathways, an illusion dispelled when the opposition forms the government. They campaign on the Left and govern from the Right — or vice versa. Eventually some voters get wise. They come to understand that there is no Left or Right, but merely the “ins” and the “outs.” Most however, never learn. They can be persuaded to run lemming-like over the cliff on cue in pursuit of the ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’ boogeyman of the day. Meanwhile, the CBC wants to sell tickets to a fight, a real “horse race” with everything allegedly on the line. Everything, that is, except the policies that matter. The bipartisan policies that guide the nation, the policies of mindless immigration-driven population growth and continued cultural fragmentation, dressed up in the trendy jargon of economic development, sustainability and diversity.
|CBC health warning logo. The broadcasting station is liable for a heavy overdose of establishment propaganda.|
But that is all as it should be for a state broadcaster whose mission is to manage dissent by limiting it to its handpicked ‘dissenters’. As the maestro of media propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, observed,
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
Noam Chomsky said much the same thing in his book, The Common Good:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. This gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate.
Canada`s minority-favouring Courts are out of control They are drunk on multiculturalism and bereft of common sense. The absolute folly of admitting as immigrants people with weird customs who just don`t fit in or people who, even after being here for years, cannot function in our language was demonstrated in two recent cases in Peel County. Two drunk driving cases against Sikhs — doesn`t their faith forbid them to drink? — were tossed because cops weren`t quite solicitous enough of Sikh peculiarities.
The Mississauga News (July 1, 2016) reported: `A Mississauga man has been found not guilty of driving with excess blood alcohol because a judge found police violated his rights by withholding his turban for more than three hours after his arrest. Not only did the officers involved not comply with Peel Regional Police’s own policy on individuals wearing turbans in custody, but one officer wasn’t even aware of it, wrote Ontario Court Justice Jill Copeland in a decision released this week Sardul Singh, an observant Sikh, was arrested following a RIDE spot check in December 2014. As he was being placed in the back of a police cruiser, his turban accidentally fell off. But it was not returned to him for several hours, including while he was giving breath samples at the Brampton police division, leaving him feeling vulnerable, the judge wrote. Copeland threw out the breath samples and dismissed the case, finding Singh’s right to freedom of religion had been infringed.`What Sardul Singh`s turban had to do with `feeling vulnerable`is hard to understand. Would a European Canadian been allowed to keep his baseball cap on in custody? We wonder.
And another likely impaired driver goes free in Peel. The Toronto Star (July 26, 2016) tells the sorry story: ‘A Brampton judge has dismissed an impaired driving charge against a man who was not given access to a Punjabi interpreter when he spoke with a lawyer following his arrest, which violated his right to counsel. While police did initially try to accommodate the man’s language needs, their conduct ‘fell below the standard of care reasonably expected of them in the circumstances,’ Ontario Court Justice Paul Monahan wrote in a decision released last week. Bikkar Khandal was arrested in October 2015 at a RIDE spot-check in Mississauga. Once Khandal had been brought to the police division, the arresting officer called duty counsel — who provide free legal advice over the phone to individuals under arrest — and also requested a Punjabi interpreter, according to Monahan’s ruling.
But the lawyer on the phone said something along the lines of ‘I speak English, he speaks English, we will do this in English,’ and did not arrange for an interpreter, Monahan wrote. The judge found that the lawyer’s conduct was ‘inappropriate and wrong.’ He also noted that after speaking with duty counsel, Khandal told the officers ‘but he’s in English, right? I’m not much English.’ Monahan said that should have caused the police to call back duty counsel, and again request an interpreter. The judge said this was necessary as he considered Khandal’s ability to speak English to be limited.
It is also my view that both Constable (Michael) Lupson and Constable (Eric) Passmore ought to have known early on during the breath room attendance, when Mr. Khandal expressed concerns about the fact that duty counsel spoke English and he (Mr. Khandal) spoke little English, that Mr. Khandal could not have had a proper consultation with counsel,” Monahan wrote. ‘They should have arranged a further consultation with duty counsel and a Punjabi language interpreter at that time.’”
The cost of providing interpreters to drunks and others is seldom mentioned as a burden to the taxpayer in all the gushing pro-immigration propaganda emanating from, our press and political class.
Never Contributed A Penny to This Country But Syrians Kids Cash In: Child Tax Benefit for Recent Refugees Who Arrived in Canada
A recent Syrian family arrived in Canada as a government sponsored refugee family of 11 children between the ages of 1 and 16. They are immediately entitled to the Canada Child Tax Benefit which amounts to $5400 annually for each child age 6-17 and $6400 annually for each child age 0 – 5. Therefore, the family will automatically receive approximately $60,000 tax free per year which is $5,000 per month. This family is living very comfortable in Mississauga without having to work.
According to the news media many more refugee families (Middle East, Somalia, Lebanon) with 10 or more children have arrived in Canada in the last 8 months settling in other parts of Canada such as Winnipeg, Edmonton, Whitehorse, etc. What is interesting that most of the refugee families have 7 – 10 children.
We the Canadian taxpayer have to pay for all of this through our taxes. This is why the majority of politicians who have never had meaningful work, think it quite OK to give freely with our taxpayer dollars. When are Canadian going to wake up before it is too late. Our debt level keeps climbing.
Today was “Day 11″ of the protest of the so-called “Imperial Squatters” in South Burnaby. This group has been camped outside of a two story “walk-up” apartment building on Imperial Drive that is scheduled for demolition.
On the face of it, their grievances are legitimate. As they point out, there are officially 2,770 homeless people in the city, and this particular building is among the very last few that still house some 3,000 low-income residents in Burnaby. There is obviously a dire need for social housing on a grand scale.
Of course, there is no understanding that immigration-driven population growth in the city, plus the influx of wealthy Chinese investors, accounts for this crisis. Oh no, we can’t go there, can we? It is never the fault of The Other. Blame it on capitalism. Blame it on climate change. Climate change is the root of all evil, don’t you know? Traffic jams, varicose veins, PMS, bad hair days. Everything.
What was most conspicuous about these protestors was the fact that they chose to align themselves with identity politics. Two signs made this point.
One included the phrase “Black Lives Matter”, and another read “Gays against Gentrification”. Then there was an Aboriginal protestor beating a drum in the background. If you can’t come up with an articulate explanation for why you are there and what exactly you are protesting about, then just chant “hey-ya-hey-ya-hey-ya-ya…” in tandem with a drum-beat. You know, like they did in Dances with Wolves. It need not be an authentic native language, as long as it sounds like one. Whitey will never know the difference and besides, no journalist today would dare to check on it. Too bad old Chief Dan George is not around to coach you.
It seems that drum-beaters are now an essential feature of every demonstration of any kind in Canada it. It’s the new normal.
There is always a drumbeater among radical students trying to shout down a visiting lecturer at a university. Or a drumbeater at a pipeline protest, like the one at a Burnaby tank farm a couple of summers ago. Or a drumbeater at Occupy Vancouver or tent city at Oppenheimer Park. There are drum-beaters here, there and everywhere.
Perhaps drumbeating is now an obligatory lower-level course at Indoctrination U. Perhaps in the immediate future, whenever the national anthem is played, drumbeating will accompany it. This is 2016 after all. Perhaps a drum and a stick will replace the Beaver as our national symbol. Maybe CBC icon and boomer has-been Buffey St. Marie will be selected as the next Governor-General or Speaker of the House of Commons, with drum and stick in hand. But please God don’t let her sing the national anthem. Not with that voice.
One notices that even white protesters are to be seen beating a drum these days, the famed members of the Wanna-Be tribe. Try as they might however, they lack the credibility and gravitas of a fat brown woman in a buckskin jacket with a feather in her wide brim black hat chanting and drumming. When anyone in native garb does that, politicians genuflect and journalists feel a sacred presence.
These are the drumbeaters that I want in my demonstration.
Housing Unaffordability Is Caused By Immigration Demand, Not A Shortage Of Housing Supply
Housing Unaffordability Is Caused By Immigration Demand, Not A Shortage Of Housing Supply
(Housing Unaffordability Is A Matter Of Demand, Not Of Supply)
The overwhelming cause of astronomic house prices in Metro Vancouv
er is relentless and unnecessary immigration-driven demand for housing. Every year since Canada’s mass immigration policy started in 1991, an average of 40,000 to 50,000 immigrants have arrived in Metro Vancouver / Fraser Valley. The voracious demand came first. It used up existing supply and then it created a shortage of supply. Three British Columbia academics have presented extensive supporting evidence of this.
The key points are (1) that the immigration demand was unnecessary 25 years ago and it remains so today, (2) that correcting Housing Unaffordability damage has to involve cutting demand and (3) that cutting demand means reducing immigration dramatically.
Yet a recent B.C. provincial government report on Unaffordable Housing ignored the role of unnecessary immigration. And a preliminary federal government look at the issue does the same.
Instead, both the provincial and federal governments parrot the statements made by groups who are motivated by their own interest and greed. These groups have told our governments and Metro residents that a shortage of housing supply has caused Metro Vancouver’s unaffordable housing. These groups also like to tell us that millions of people would like to move here and that Canadians have to take these people by densifying their communities and creating more supply.
Our CBC and most of the private media have helped these groups by playing the role of the propaganda arm of these groups.
At no time do these groups or their propaganda arm recognize that in almost all immigration cases except for a very limited number of genuine refugees, the purpose of Canadian immigration has not been to help immigrants. It has been to protect the needs of Canada and Canadians. Affordable housing is one of the most important of the basic needs of Canadians. This should be obvious to anyone, but governments at all three levels have broadcast immigration lobby nonsense that mass immigration is wonderful for Canada. In doing so, governments at all three levels have effectively said “To Hell with Canadians’ need for Affordable Housing”.
It is time for Canadians to say “To Hell With Those Governments”.
Those who observe what is happening from far away might describe what governments and other groups have done in Metro Vancouver and elsewhere as the actions of Organized Crime. Government and other group actions have definitely been criminal but we think such a phrase under-states the gravity of the behaviour and does not get to the sinister heart of what is happening. The phrase “Organized Slime” is much more accurate. “Organized Slime” is a collection of deceivers who pretend to be benevolent .They try to tell us that Canada’s current immigration intake is no different from its past intake and that Canada’s current intake is making Canada a better and nobler country. Their aim is to convince Canada’s majority population to perform the ultimate national act : to commit national suicide and to do so while chanting “Diversity is our strength”.
Who are they? Here is a representative sample of the slithering hypocrites and deceivers : ethnic groups who want to vastly increase their numbers, a groveling political class that will do anything to get ethnic votes, greedy developers, arrogant real estate agents, smoke-screeners at UBC’s business school and other academics, a quisling CBC and a horde of the mentally-challenged in the private media.
Our PM likes to tell Canadians that government policies have to be evidence-based. But federal immigration intake continues to be based not on evidence, but on pressure from Organized Slime.
Our PM does not seem to understand that calling for evidence-based decision making, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, following the orders of Organized Slime to bring in unnecessary people does not make sense.
In fact, our PM has declared that Canada is a “post-national state”. This is equal to saying that the needs of Canada’s majority population are to be subordinated to the demands of non-Canadians or of aggressive new arrivals.
To Canadians who can cut through the mass deceit, our PM and his “Post-National State” supporters have declared war against Canada’s majority population. And any elected official or supporter who has remained silent about federal policies that tell us we are a “post-national state” has done the same.
“Post-National State” policies have already resulted in the spilling of Canadian blood. Here are examples of such policies : virtual organized displacement of Canada’s majority population in many cities, preferential hiring, so-called “anti-racism” campaigns (really campaigns against Canadians of European origin), maginalization of Canada’s own unemployed, the promotion of mindless diversity, endless attacks on Canada’s historical immigration efforts to defend itself, subsidizing Canada’s treasonous immigration lobby and a host of other betrayals.
Do those people who have spilled blood really think that there will be no consequences to their actions?
For sensible immigration policies for the 21st century.
France Celebrates ‘Diversity’ — Culturally Hostile or Unassimilable Immigration Might Not be the Way to Go, Do Ya Think?
1) Charlie Hebdo massacre – January 7, 2015 – 12 dead, 11 injured
Journalists from the secular, non-conformist publication were the primary targets but a janitor and a policeman were also among the 12 killed in the mid-morning assault.
The Kouachi brothers fled the scene before being cornered and killed by French security services in an industrial estate outside Paris.
2) Kosher supermarket siege – January 9, 2015 – 5 dead, 9 injured
Amedy Coulibaly held 19 people hostage during a siege at the Porte de Vincennes supermarket in Paris while the Kouachis were on the run from police.
A follower of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Coulibaly, who shot dead a police officer elsewhere in Paris the previous day, had demanded that the brothers not be harmed during his time holed up in the Kosher store.
He murdered four people in the supermarket before being shot dead by police.
4) Nice truck rampage – July 14, 2016 – 84 dead, 303 injured
Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, who had links to Islamic State, drove a 19-ton truck through a massive crowd enjoying the Bastille Day fireworks display at the Promenade des Anglais on the city’s waterfront.
He was eventually shot dead by police inside the lorry, but questions have been raised about security procedures at the event.
5) Rouen priest murder – July 26, 2016 – 1 dead, 1 injured
Two men broke into the Normandy church during mass, taking the 84-year-old priest and four others hostage. The suspects were shot dead by police while attempting to flee. IS claimed responsibility for the attack. – Tim Murray
|White Settlers clearing the land to prepare for planting|
Leftists have been winning the war of words and setting the terms of political discourse for decades. Their discursive power was quite evident three years ago in the decision of the Associated Press to drop the term “illegal immigrant” from its style guide as an “offensive” term that did not accurately describe migrants who enter the United States without documentation. “Islamophobia” is another term used regularly to close down the claim that Islam is an inflexible faith that cannot adapt to Western values.
Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924) instructed his fellow Bolsheviks: “We can and must write in language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Today, the most frequently used epithets to smear opponents are “racist”, “sexist”, and “homophobic”. The Left has been so successful in projecting insidious motives on anyone disagreeing with their idiotic views that conservatives now devote considerable time playing up their “good intentions” or singing the same tune by targeting “two-faced liberals” caught making sexist or racist remarks.
Lenin also commanded his comrades: “The communists must be prepared to…resort to all sorts of cunning schemes and stratagems…to evade and conceal the truth.” Current leftists are consummate deceivers, Orwellian double-speakers and fabricators of bellyfeel words that carry a blind yet enthusiastic acceptance of an idea. They are quite apt at distorting the older meanings of words, even to the point of turning them upside down. “Discoverer” and “explorer of Canada” were once terms used in admiration; now they are used in quotation marks as untrue and laughable terms.
I will write about the replacement of the words “pioneer” and “settler” with the word “immigrant”.
The replacement of the words “pioneers” and “settlers” to describe the founders of Canada with the word “immigrant” happened gradually without barely anyone noticing it. In the series of articles written on Canadian immigration these past weeks I have used the term “immigrants” in reference to the French, British, European men and women who arrived in Canada from the 1600s to 1914/21. I did so to show that even on its own terms the established interpretation that Canada is “a nation of diverse immigrants” is false, since most Canadians were either native born with strong ancestries in Canada or and internal migrants from within the British world of North America and the British Isles.
But it is time to question the way the word “immigrant” has been deceptively extended to include what were in truth pioneers and settlers. Almost all the men and women who came to Canada from the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe, and, if you like, from British America, before 1914, were pioneers, notimmigrants.
Immigrants started to arrive in Canada mostly after WWII. I am saying this in accordance with all the dictionary definitions I have examined. The New Oxford English Dictionary is very clear. Immigrant is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”. Settler, however, is “a person who settles in an area, typically with no or few previous inhabitants”. Pioneer describes “a person who is among the first inhabitants to explore or settle a new country or area”. “Pioneering” means “to be the first to use or apply a new method, area of knowledge, or activity, open up a terrain as a pioneer”.
The one academic I know who has addressed this distinction is Samuel Huntington in his book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004). He writes:
Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group in order to create a new community…Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society (p. 39).
What Huntington says about American settlers applies to the Canadians who came to Canada more or less before 1914/21. Huntington says that America’s “core culture” was created by the settlers who came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This core culture consisted of the:
Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, the British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy and music (p. 40).
While the early settlers were responsible for this core culture, future settlers were responsible for the extension of this core culture into the “American frontier” or the “Great West”. These men and women who opened the West were not immigrants. Immigrants only began to arrive in large numbers after the 1820s into the already created towns and cities.
In Canada, it can be said that the “core culture” was created by the time of Confederation in 1867, with French and English as the major languages, Catholic and Protestant values, French civil law and British parliamentary institutions and law. The “non-French and non-British” men and women who arrived in the 1800s and early 1900s were also settlers, insomuch as many of them settled in the new prairie provinces and British Columbia, or in new areas in Upper Canada and the Maritimes.
This distinction between settlers/pioneers and immigrants, which was recognized (at least implicitly) by past historians, has been explicitly obfuscated by current historians. The two standard history textbooks I have referenced often in my series on Canadian immigration, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (2000), and A History of the Canadian Peoples (2011), avoid the use of the words “settler” and “pioneer”, but always use the words “immigrants” or “diverse immigrants”. Consider this: “immigration” enjoys the longest entry in the index of J.M. Bumsted’s A History of the Canadian Peoples, after the words “Canada” and “Aboriginal Peoples”.
It is not that historians did not use the word “immigrants” or “immigration” in the past. George Bryce’s book, A Short History of Canada, published in 1914, a solid book of 600 pages, uses immigrants often, but he also regularly uses “settlers” and “colonizers” (without the negative connotation this term currently carries). The same is true of Donald Creighton’s Dominion of the North: A History of Canada, first published in 1944, revised in 1957, which I greatly enjoyed reading in a tiny room at summer residence, University of Toronto, this past May. Both these books portray Canada as a nation fundamentally shaped by the French in Quebec and the English, not as a “nation of immigrants”. J.M.S. Careless’s book, Canada: A Story of Challenge (1959), subtitles the first period of large scale immigration to Canada as “Immigration, Development and the Pioneer Age, 1815-1850″.
If I may disagree a bit with Huntington, it is more accurate to identify the settlers who created the core culture as “pioneers”, in contrast to those who extended this culture into new areas in the West, who should be identified as “settlers” proper. The word pioneer carries two key meanings; one is very close to the meaning of settler, that is, a person who is among those who first enter or settle a region. But another meaning is uniquely about pioneering in the sense of being the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or cultural development. The French and the English were the earliest settlers and originators of Canada’s core culture and therefore the true pioneers, while the Europeans, including English, who settled the West from about 1867 to 1914/21, were setters both in the sense of extending farming to the prairies, as well as extending Canada’s political culture to this barely settled area of Canada.
The earliest settlers, say, up until Confederation, were the ones who pioneered Canada’s institutions, churches, legal system, curriculum, and basic infrastructure. Clearly, they brought with them the customs, values, and know-how of Europe, and in this sense they were not originators of what we have come to identify as British representative government, Protestant values, French civil law and Catholic doctrine. But there is no question that they adapted these values and institutions to Canadian conditions. This is most evident in the rural and urban landscapes that pioneers created in Canada. R. Cole Harris and John Warkentin explain well what was uniquely new about Canadian pioneers (and settlers) notwithstanding their European ancestries. Writing about the period from 1800 until about the 1860s, they note:
In only three generations the whole peninsula of Southern Ontario was occupied by people of European [British] descent. During this time the forest was cut; the geometry of roads, fence lines and fields was stamped across the land; and the prosperity achieved by many was reflected in ample brick farmhouses and in bustling towns. Everywhere the human landscape was new. In the most recent frontier regions settlers still lived in tiny cabins on patches of cleared land; in the older areas there were still some stumpy fields and many people alive who had known the first pioneers. Whereas the human landscape of Western Europe often reflected centuries of human toil, this landscape reflected the recent arrival, the energy, and the apparent wastefulness of its creators. That Europeans had created the landscape there could be no doubt — the architectural forms, for example, were entirely of European origin. But although components of it existed in the British Isles, the human landscape of Southern Ontario could not be found anywhere in Europe (Canada Before Confederation: A Study in Historical Geography, 1974, p. 164).
Edwin Guillet’s Pioneer Days in Upper Canada (first published in 1933, with new editions in 1963, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1973, and 1975, but now discarded), is quite good in bringing to light how the first settlers pioneered the very meaning of “Canadian living”, starting with the immediacy of clearing up heavily forested lands, lumbering against huge oaks, umbrageous elms and stately pines, to open up lands for settlement. Indeed, the clearing of land involved a new co-operative principle of work known as “bees” in which neighbours would gather together to help each other; as no one family could do the work alone in many instances. These bees were also organized for house building, barn raising, and making quilts. The log and sod houses pioneered by these settlers were adapted to local materials in order to withstand long harsh winters.
|White Pioneer school, teacher and students, Muskoka Lakes, Ontario, 1887|
The first settlers pioneered many types of home-made foods using local products, including buckwheat cakes, rich batter puddings, berry pies, molasses, gelatin, ciders. The diet of the settlers — wild asparagus and berries, chestnuts, ducks, partridges, cucumbers, celery and turnips, roasted pig, boiled mutton, rice pudding, fishes of several kinds — was far superior to the current overrated food of dirty Chinese restaurants with their artificial sticky sauces and rootless globalist menus. They also pioneered city halls, fire-fighter’s organisations, theatres, Temperance Societies, sports and inter club games (curling, bandyball, lacrosse, softball, hockey, horse racing), public libraries, debating societies, mechanics’ institutes, agricultural associations, literary societies, private schools and colleges, circuses, brass bands.
The goal of the globalist left and corporate right is to destroy the national identities and heritages of European peoples. They want to equate the Canadians who pioneered and settled Canada with the immigrants who came to a ready-made nation after 1921/1945. The fact is that, as we will see in a future article, the immigrants who came between 1921/45 and 1971 were mostly Europeans who came to be part of an already created Canada, worked hard and assimilated without any ulterior motives. The immigrants who have been coming since multiculturalism was announced in 1971 are very different from these European immigrants, and the reason for this is not only that they are from Third World cultures; it is that they are arriving into a Canada that is under the tutelage of an ideology that celebrates their non-European traditions and encourages them to affirm their group rights in ways that will eventually undermine the Canada created by the White pioneers, settlers and hardworking immigrants who came before.
We never thought we would hear this from a national newscaster.
Obama, Wright, Jackson and Sharpton (the career race baiters) may have to change their underwear after seeing this!
Maybe O’ Reilly really is ready to retire and no longer cares about reading politically correct scripts on air.
What he says is the TRUTH and most of America already knows it! But like the “Emperor with no clothes,”no one will dare speak the truth in public. This video should go viral. Thanks to Bill, someone finally found the nerve to say it.