Unfair to Canadians

Posted on by

Unfair to Canadians

 

unfair to Canadians

Category: Uncategorized

Shut the Door to Criminals. Terrorists or Those Who Want to Change Us

Posted on by

 

 

 

 

 

shut the door

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shut the Door to Criminals. Terrorists or Those Who Want to Change Us
Category: Uncategorized

Bissett: Immigration policy is out of control and needs an overhaul

Posted on by

Bissett: Immigration policy is out of control and needs an overhaul

Inline image 1
A group of new Canadians takes the citizenship oath at Pier 21 immigration centre in Halifax on Saturday, July 1, 2017. How many newcomers should Canada admit?

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

The Trudeau government’s plan to bring in close to one million new immigrants within the next three years should be of serious concern to Canadians. Next year alone, the numbers are expected to reach 310,000 but to that total must be added approximately 900,000 temporary foreign workers and foreign students who will be living in Canada. Since most of the newcomers will be settling in three of our major cities, the pressure on infrastructure and local services will be extreme.

Canada’s current immigration policy is based on myths. All of our political parties, most of the news media, big business interests, the banks and land developers favour large-scale immigration and justify this on the grounds that immigration helps our economy, strengthens the labour force and alleviates our aging problem.

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.

The truth is that the government has lost control of the immigration program by abandoning its traditional role of selecting our immigrants and controlling their numbers. Canadians have been brainwashed into believing we are doomed if we don’t keep immigration levels high. We are also told that our immigration policies are acknowledged to be the envy of the world. These arguments are wrong.

There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

A more recent study by Prof. Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University and economist Patrick Grady found that in the year 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes paid by these immigrants by $23 billion. It is not surprising that this study has received little media coverage in Canada.

Studies outside of Canada have come to the same conclusion about the economic value of immigration. In Britain, a report by the House of Lords in 2008 warned that the government’s plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and would seriously affect the availability of housing and the quality of public services. The report also criticized the government for misleading the people by justifying immigration levels when they provided no economic benefit, were not needed to fill labour shortages and did not help the state’s pension fund.

Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem – indeed it may well exacerbate it.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

Sadly, we have allowed our political parties to use and exploit immigration for political purposes – with all parties competing for the ethnic vote by calling for increasing numbers. This is a cynical approach, patronizing to immigrants and damaging to the country. It is time for comprehensive reform.

James Bissett is former head of Canada’s immigration service  (1985-1990).

Government’s Proposal to Ramp Up Immigration Levels is Misguided

Posted on by

Government’s Proposal to Ramp Up Immigration                                    Levels is Misguided

Madeline Weld, President
Population Institute of Canada
The Canadian government announced in October that it would significantly increase the intake of immigrants to Canada for each of the next three years, with minimum levels of 300,000 each year. Since 1990, Canada has been accepting approximately 250,000 – and sometimes more – newcomers each year. In 2017, 75% of Canada’s population growth resulted from immigration.
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen argues that the government’s proposal for even higher levels of immigration would promote economic growth, overcome skills shortages and meet the demographic challenge of an aging population.
Population Institute Canada believes that economic and demographic arguments for growing Canada’s population are on shaky ground, while the negative environmental consequences of its rapid growth are very much in evidence, and growing. We contend that there are no good reasons to grow Canada’s population and many compelling environmental reasons to stabilize and reduce it.
It is true that Canada’s growing population over the past few decades has resulted in a bigger economy. There has, however, been no growth in per capita wealth. The real earnings of the average Canadian worker have not changed, while those of the poorest Canadian workers have fallen.
Economists Herb Grubel and Patrick Grady have calculated that immigrants cost the government $30 billion more in services each year than they pay in taxes. And Immigration Minister Hussen admits that his proposed increase in immigrant intake will cost at least an additional one billion dollars in resettlement expenses each year.
Already, large numbers of young people, many with significant debt loads, face a very challenging job market, one which Finance Minister Bill Morneau has called a “job churn.” Many job seekers, especially young and new Canadians, have few prospects of secure employment and must work multiple contract or part-time positions. They can only dream of better wages, a steady schedule and paid sick days. How, PIC asks, will adding hundreds of thousands of additional job seekers improve the prospects of these Canadians, when increasing automation, the loss of factory jobs to developing economies, and outsourcing are already putting significant pressures on Canada’s workforce?
It has also long been recognized that the problems associated with an aging population cannot be solved through immigration. Among studies showing that immigration, even at high levels, has little effect on Canada’s age structure is a 2006 analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute (No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young). It found that to keep a constant dependency ratio, Canada would have to have an unrealistically high intake of immigrants and by 2050 would be taking in 7 million immigrants per year and have reached a population of 165 million. Due to the rapid and unsustainable growth of the human population during the 20th century, all countries will have to deal with an aging population during the coming decades.
In addition, the dependency ratio as currently calculated (number of workers for every person 65 years and older) merits re-examination. No doubt many retired grandparents over 65 years old are helping to subsidize their grandchildren. The fees paid by elderly people in retirement residences support many workers and economists anticipate a large intergenerational transfer of wealth as aging baby boomers die. All these factors complicate the issue of the dependency ratio and suggest that it is simplistic to use number of people over 65 versus the number working as a sole determinant.
Furthermore, many people 65 years of age and older still work, some because they must, others by choice. Thus, designating every person a dependent at 65 is not realistic. It is also relevant to note that significant numbers of newcomers – and of the proposed increase in intake – are in the family reunification category. Many of these are the parents or grandparents of earlier immigrants and are therefore older than the average Canadian and more likely to require the healthcare services paid for by working Canadians.
Clearly, the economic arguments for relentlessly driving population growth through high levels of immigration do not hold up to scrutiny. There is also an increasing awareness that the size of a country’s economy or its GDP is an inadequate measure of its people’s well-being. As Canada’s population grows, more Canadians are having to contend with ever more crowded cities, increased traffic congestion, densification that has eliminated greenspace but not urban sprawl, increasingly stressed infrastructure, rising housing costs, and longer waiting times for healthcare and other government services. The resources of the cities in the southern belt of Canada where most Canadians live, and almost all immigrants settle, are as overstressed as those in cities anywhere in the developed world. What’s more, a growing population is putting enormous pressure on our irreplaceable farmland and very limited fruit-growing areas.
It is wrong to consider Canada as an “empty” country when so much of it is unsuitable for human habitation or incapable of supporting a dense population. The very high per capita “ecological footprint” of Canadians has already badly eroded our biocapacity per individual. For example, the latest (2017) Living Planet Report by the World Wildlife Fund shows a serious and significant decline in wildlife populations as our growing population and demands for space and resources convert wildlife habitat to human uses.
Our finite planet cannot support a continuously growing human population and expanding economies. Canada, too, is finite. And yet as a direct result of government policy, our population is growing as rapidly as the global average of 1.12% annually. The policy to keep expanding our economy by growing our population through immigration is no more sustainable than any other Ponzi scheme. Nor is the government’s planned immigration policy supported by a majority of Canadians – an Angus Reid poll conducted in 2017 found that 57% of Canadians thought that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees (see page 15 of document).
Before increasing immigration levels, PIC believes it incumbent on government to assess the impact of current levels of immigration and the impact that higher levels would have, not only on the economy and the revenue and costs for the government, but also on the environment, climate

One Million or Bust in Three Years — Trudeau’s Immigration Policy: Rapid Replacement of Whites & Economic Hardship for All

Posted on by
One Million or Bust in Three Years — Trudeau’s Immigration Policy: Rapid  Replacement of Whites & Economic Hardship for All
 

Cultural Marxists’ Propaganda to Reduce Numbers of White Children

Posted on by
Cultural Marxists’ Propaganda to Reduce Numbers of White Children
 
Talking us into our own suicide. And, then, they’ll say because of our low birthrate we should stuff our countries with fecund Third Worlders. It’s the engineering of our slow suicide and replacement.
 
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
abortion reality
 
 

https://www.elitedaily.com/life/why-science-says-having-kids-may-be-a-bad-idea

 

NBC: “having a child … is one of the worst things you can do for the environment

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/16/nbc-having-a-child-is-one-of-the-worst-things-you-can-do-for-the-environment/

 

Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/science-proves-kids-are-bad-earth-morality-suggests-we-stop-ncna820781

 

View: Science proves kids are bad for Earth, morality suggests we stop having them

http://www.euronews.com/2017/11/18/view-science-proves-kids-are-bad-for-earth-morality-suggests-we-stop-having-them?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1510994967

 

Shutterstock.com

NEWSBIOETHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, POPULATION CONTROLThu Nov 16, 2017 – 6:24 pm EST

 

NBC article: Having lots of kids is immoral like releasing murderers from prison

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nbc-article-having-lots-of-kids-is-immoral-like-releasing-murderers-from-pr

 

Professor Says Having Kids is an “Indulgence” That’s Bad For The Earth

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/11/16/professor-says-having-kids-is-an-indulgence-thats-bad-for-the-earth/

 

The War on Whites Is Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVoQVKXItMg

WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS –SIGN THE PETITION

Posted on by

The True North Initiative is an independent, non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to advancing sound immigration and security policies.

True North seeks to provide a platform for a robust discussion on immigration, security and Canada’s role in the world.

So far this year, 32,000 migrants have illegally entered Canada. That number is expected to climb to 40,000 by the end of the year – more than doubling recent averages.

And it’s clear – the Trudeau government has no strategy to stop the ongoing flow of illegal migrants.

SIGN & SHARE this petition if you think Canada should protect our borders.

Sidewinder – Exposing The Poisonous Snake of China’s Infiltration into Canada Part 1

Posted on by

Sidewinder – Exposing The Poisonous Snake of China’s Infiltration into Canada Part 1

 By David Barswell

The return of Hong Kong to China by the British resulted in a mass migration (prior to the handover date in 1997)  of Chinese entrepreneurs who did not want to live under Communism.   This stream of political and economic refugees to the West provided cover for criminals and for members of China’s intelligence services to penetrate Canada.  (1)

The joint RCMP-CSIS investigation into this massive threat to Canada’s economic and military  security, known as “Operation Sidewinder”, culminated in 1997’s Sidewinder report on “Chinese Intelligence Services and Triads Financial Links in Canada.”  (2)

 

The word “Sidewinder” was used deliberately. The Sindwinder is a  venomous pit-viper species found in the southwestern United States,. The word referred to the serious danger that a significant number of Chinese posed to Canada.

The targets in this on-going enterprise were largely military and economic, chosen to obtain financial and political influence in the Canadian economy and government, and to obtain high-tech information of use to the People’s Liberation Army.

The Sidewinder Report explored the extent to which the People’s Republic of China had succeeded in  penetrating Canada.  It was never released because of the explosive political implications, and the fear of a backlash from the hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin.

Sidewinder was ignored, and all copies destroyed – except for one, which a disgruntled analyst leaked to the press in a traditional brown envelope.

Sidewinder addresses the People’s Liberation Army’s use of the cover provided by the Hong Kong emigrants into Canada to insert intelligence operatives who set up businesses for a variety of purposes.

Canadian Forces defence contracts could be awarded to companies controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and companies under Chinese government control could obtain research grants from the Canadian government, then ship the fruits of the research to China after we had paid for it.

Canada’s generosity, business-friendly policies and research subsidies, made us a sitting-duck target for China to exploit and to take almost unlimited advantage of.

And, of course, companies under Chinese government control routinely obtain political influence in Canada by making donations to our major political parties.

Here are two other examples of Mainland China’s sinister infiltration.

The Teck corporation, for example, which describes itself as “Canada’s largest diversified mining company”, donated $2.3 million to the B.C. Liberals in 2015, and interestingly enough, in July of this year, Dermod Travis of Integrity BC drew attention to Teck’s appointment of a “Chinese government official” to Teck’s board of directors in April.  Mr. Travis stated : “You have an official with a foreign government who is sitting on the board of a public company in Canada… There are a lot of people in China they could have chosen, and the fact this individual is a member of the government should set off alarm bells.” (3).

In 2012, a recently-arrived Chinese “temporary worker” hired by HD Mining International Limited filed a human rights complaint against the United Steelworkers over their campaign to stop the bringing-in of temporaries (Temporary Foreign Workers)  to work for HD, saying that union leaflets and content on the union’s website were “likely to create contempt for Chinese people” (4).

The corporation itself also threatened to sue the federal government for damages over public statements made by Ministers of The Crown about the company.

SHOCK! HORROR! IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE

Posted on by

SHOCK! HORROR! IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE

The anti-White media and broad left caucus are horrified by an inspired ethnic-European initiative for which there is no known antidote. Like all the best ideas it is as simple as the wheel.

The It’s Okay to be White campaign involves printing and posting around major cities and especially college campuses, an innocuous flyer with just one simple phrase: 

IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE 

Described as a jujitsu strategy the It’s Okay to be White approach uses the left’s own weight against them. The strategy is an ingenious method to flush out anti-White libtards (liberal retards); media’s self-styled journalists, the liberal caucus.

Its Okay to be White 2

The It’s Okay to be White tactic is as good as it gets. A negative reaction labels the critic as an anti-White racist. The It’s Okay to be White stratagem renders impotent the cancerous left who endlessly slobber over non-Europeans.

Media’s outraged response to the It’s Okay to be White flyers now appearing across the world has worked better than any number of pro-White rallies. The left’s spontaneous combustion over this innocent expression proves there is, in fact, a well-oiled orchestrated conspiracy against ethnic-Europeans. The Washington Post is frothing at the mouth, claiming it is ‘an effort to spark racial division’. But, it’s okay to be Black, Hispanic, Asian, Gay, and that doesn’t divide the races? 

Ethnic-Europeans globally have been caught on the back foot by the speed, ferocity, and magnitude of the Blame Whites for Everything contagion. Ethnic-Europeans found themselves stunned and defenseless against the anti-White propaganda of the White-hating broad left.

DNtGEy2UIAYI97G

A delighted European says; “It will be interesting to see if someone is caught distributing it’s Okay to be White fliers. Any negative action taken will rebound and intensify debate, the last thing the broad left want.”

The cancerous caucus of White-hating groups include legislative bodies, government agencies, academia, Antifa, media and sinister White-hating leftist conspirators.

SPUTNIK International reports: “According to a post at 4chan, the participants could’ve carried out the deed on Halloween night while wearing Halloween costumes for anonymity, so that the following morning ‘the media goes completely berserk.’

A number of Twitter users welcomed the campaign, some of them jokingly inquiring about why anyone would feel offended by the ‘It’s Okay to Be White’ statement.

Its Okay to be White 4

Twitter comments include: “Imagine living in a world where a leaflet/poster stating “it’s okay to be white” is considered racist, lol.” ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ flyers are bothersome because we’ve come to believe it’s not okay to be White.’ ‘They released security footage of a kid posting flyers that only say IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE? this is so unreal.’

Will the It’s Alright to be White response be defined as ‘hate speech’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘neo-Nazi’, ‘extreme right’? Will those caught posting It’s Okay to be White signature on their emails by denounced as haters? This tactic will make the broad left look even more sinister ~ and subversive.

Europe Arise: Europe in Flames Cause and Solution

Thank you for sharing this Real News story.

 

 

 

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

Deceptive Use Of Scientific Data To Promote Ethnocide Of Europeans

Posted on by

Deceptive Use Of Scientific Data To Promote Ethnocide Of Europeans

by Ricardo Duchesne

Composite Images
Composite Images: Are these women White, Black, or Chinese?

Afew days ago a University of Illinois math professor insisted that algebra and geometry perpetuate “white privilege.” This teacher, Rochelle Gutiérrez, specializes in “equity issues in mathematics education.” She also argued that the pursuit of objectivity is misguided: “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.”

This is obviously a direct attack on the scientific enterprise as it was uniquely developed by Europeans, rooted in the postmodernist argument that there is no objective reality outside the subject’s perspective. Postmodernism is a discourse that came together with the transmutation of economic Marxism into cultural Marxism when leftists came to the realization that their theories about communism and gender equality were not in alignment with reality, with evolutionary theory and human nature. But what if some scientists today were still adhering strictly to the pursuit of objective knowledge while framing their findings according to cultural Marxist aims, twisting their objectively discovered facts to mean something very different from what they objectively mean?

Well, this is happening right before our eyes with respect to one of the most important set of scientific findings gathered recently about the evolutionary genetics and biological identity of Europeans. Population geneticists, archaeologists, paleogeneticists, and evolutionary biologists, are deceptively interpreting the meaning of their objectively gathered findings to justify the racial diversification of Europeans through mass immigration. They are arguing that Europeans don’t have any ethnic identity even though their own findings indicate that Europeans are a unique people with definite genetic identities.

We know that almost every academic in the humanities and the soft social sciences is an ardent promoter of diversity. But too many on our side assume that if only social scientists were to follow more closely the “objective methodology” of the natural sciences things would straighten out. They don’t realize that natural scientists in the West are increasingly framing, bending, and twisting their scientific findings to serve the ideology of diversity.

The Leftist Strawman Argument About The “Pure” European

A recent article exemplifying this insidious manipulation came from the highly respected magazine, Science/AAAS, under the title, “There’s no such thing as a ‘pure’ European — or anyone else,” by Ann Gibbons (May 15, 2017). According to Gibbons, natural scientists have established that:

The German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They — and all other Europeans — are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.

There is no such thing as a uniquely German, a uniquely Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, or British people, because “all Europeans are already a mishmash of repeated ancient migrations” from non-European lands.

This is what the scientists are finding, Gibbons says, citing words from Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Doug Price of the University of Wisconsin, Dan Bradley of Trinity College in Dublin, Stephan Schiffels of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, Duncan Sayer, of the University of Central Lancashire, Chris Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Institute in Hinxton, Walter Bodmer of the University of Oxford, and others.

These scientists are claiming that the findings of pure science are negating the “myths” of “the whole concept of an ethnic German,” an ethnic Irish, ethnic Italian, or ethnic Swedish.

Using revolutionary new methods to analyze DNA and the isotopes found in bones and teeth, scientists are exposing the tangled roots of peoples around the world.

But why would an article about DNA and isotopes be framed with the politically charged statement that Germans have “no unique genetic heritage to protect”? Why would this article open with a paragraph mocking Germans in a small town as “neo-Nazis” who believe in a “pure German race” merely because they reacted with anxiety as “busloads of migrants from Syria and Iraq” were settled in their town? Why are these scientists eagerly trying to persuade Europeans that they don’t have an identity “to protect” in the face of mass immigration today?

The genetic make up of Europeans has remained very stable for millennia, with next to zero genetic additions from Africans and AsiansWhy would Ann Gibbons, and the scientists she interviewed, deceptively invoked a straw man — “pure German race” or “pure European” — to argue against what no knowledgeable critic of diversification is arguing today? All differences are differences of degree. The evidence is showing that the genetic make up of Europeans has remained very stable for thousands of years, with next to zero genetic additions from Africans and Asians.

But the scientists I named above, who all work within a cultural Marxist establishment, want to persuade Europeans that they should accept the current massive influxes of migrants with dramatically different ethnic identities as a natural continuation of Europe’s historical experience since prehistoric times. They want to portray opponents of diversification as simple minded racists acting against the scientific truth. It is no accident that this article was picked up by many politically charged news sources, including the New York Times, and many Facebook pages, as a means to counter the rising populist tide against uncontrolled immigration.

Paradoxically as it may seem, the reason Gibbons et al. relentlessly repeat the straw man about a pure European race is because this is the only way they can manipulate scientific findings which are actually showing, to the contrary, that Europeans, in-and-through migratory movements and some genetic mixing and evolution over the course of many thousands of years, evolved right inside the continent of Europe as a uniquely White race.

The Scientific Reality Of Europeans As A Uniquely White Race

There has been genetic mixture, but this mixture produced a uniquely European race divided into ethnic groups. But rather than debating whether this differentiated European race is really a mixed bag of White, Asian, and African racial traits, they pretend that European nationalists are arguing about a pure race so they don’t have to deal with the real debate at hand, which is that European genetic mixture does not preclude the reality that Europeans are a distinctive White people indigenous to the continent of Europe.

Yes, new studies do show that indigenous Europeans descend from major migrations that occurred in prehistoric and in ancient times. But these studies do not show that we can equate these migratory movements, which occurred over the course of many thousands of years, with the massive immigrant arrivals we have been witnessing over the course of 20 years. I will outline here what I know about these migratory movements.

First, in regards to the first migratory movement, Gibbon’s article cites a new view from David Reich which says that a migratory movement from the Middle East which came “as the glaciers retreated 19,000 to 14,000 years ago,” essentially displaced “the first Europeans [who] came from Africa via the Middle East about 43,000 years ago.” Reich’s view is slightly different, actually. He saysthat, as the ice sheet retreated 19,000 years ago, Europe was repopulated by migrants from southwest Europe (e.g., Spain), and then, in a second migratory event, it was also repopulated by migrants from the southeast (e.g., Turkey, Greece), about 14,000 years ago.

Now, what this article is not saying, and what most scientists to this day are reluctant to elaborate upon, is that there was a lot of evolutionary change going on among the prehistoric Homo Sapiens who departed Africa about 60,000 and started moving into Europe about 43,000 years. The populations that were located in southeast and southwest Europe, which Reich is talking about, were also evolving in response to different environmental/cultural pressures and the random effects of genetic drift. These populations were becoming “European” as they evolved in the continent of Europe, acquiring new racial traits. What is a “race” if not a people that evolved certain anatomical and behavioral traits by reason of breeding for thousands of years within a geographical area relatively isolated from other evolving/isolated races?

Fake "first European"
This composite image of the so-called “first European” is really an image before Europe’s inhabitants became genetically European.

These scientists, however, want to give the impression that, insofar as there were these waves of migratory movements over the course of thousands of years, everyone was mixing racially, with no group ever acquiring distinctive racial characteristics. Yet, human groups in the past were generally rooted in lands from which they barely moved, and so when we speak of migrations we are speaking of movements that happened between long intervals of time as a result of major climatic changes, or other environmental pressures, and very slowly over the course of generations.

(Today, in our age of globalization, only a meager 3 percent of the world’s inhabitants are living outside their country of birth. In absolute terms, this 3 percent is quite high, about 200 million people, and since many of these people constitute immigrants moving into Western lands that are relatively less populated than the congested lands of the Third World, they do pose a major threat to the survival of Europeans. But you get my point, in the past, before globalization, the intermixing of peoples was rare.)

Indeed, once the migrants (that Reich is writing about) moved deep into (and many just within) Europe, the inhabitants of Europe did not experience any major genetic mixing from non-European races other than some mixing with farmers who started arriving many thousands of year later, after about 7000 BC, from the Near East. This brings me to the second migratory movement that Gibbons says created a race mixed people in Europe similarly to the race mixed people she wants today through he arrival of Africans and Muslims.

These Near Eastern farmers, it should be noted, are racially classified as “Caucasoid,” and some argue that they spread genes for “white skin” in Europe, while others emphasize how the Nordic climes were already selecting for lighter skin before these farmers arrived. These farmers, moreover, did not spread throughout Europe but moved across the Mediterranean from 7000 BC onward, into Sardinia, Corsica, the coasts of Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as inland into Greece/Balkans from around 6200 BC. Huge areas across north-central Europe adopted farming without intermixing with these migrants.

The “third” migratory movement Ann Gibbons et al. identified as “immigrants” is the migration that began some 4,800 years ago by “Yamnaya” pastoralists originally located in southern Russia, or present day Ukraine, who went on to mix with the European inhabitants, creating the famous Corded Ware culture, moving all the way to Ireland, and eventually producing, in the words of Gibbons, a “three-part European mixture” “across the continent.”

Gibbons then goes on to say that Germans, Irish, Scots, Celts are a wonderful mixture of two waves of Middle Eastern peoples and one wave of “Yamnaya.” Article after article in science magazine across the West have been spreading this same deceptive image of racial mixing, writing of the “Yamnaya” as if they were an exotic people from the Third World. But in truth the Yamnaya people were Indo-European speakers, the legendary Aryans no less, who came to Europe starting 4,800 years ago, after this population had also evolved White traits.

I explained at length in Faustian Man In A Multicultural Age how the European race evolved in Europe and is therefore indigenous to Europe. I cited scientific journals and magazines similarly engaged in deception. It is amazing how the scientific community is currently misusing science in this way, making Europeans feel that they are not a people, that they have always been made up of “immigrants” from non-White areas, in order to get them to accept the current occupation of their lands by hordes of Africans, Muslims, and Asians. They want European peoples to feel that they are not rooted in any land, that they never managed to create their own identity after living for thousands of years in particular lands, developing their own languages, dialects, folk songs, heroes, flags and history.

Ann Gibbons mockingly portrays critics of immigration as ignorant individuals who can’t cope with scientific truth but would much rather hold on to “neo-Nazi mythologies.” This is a total lie since all the nationalist or “populist” parties in Europe are the ones upholding the principles of freedom and democracy, open debate about the most crucial question of our times, mass immigration. They also tend to advocate socialistic and environmental policies intended to protect their own workers against importation of cheap labour, their own women against mass rapes by migrants, and their own lands against the extreme polluting effects of mass immigration. Critics of immigration are also honest rather than deceivers. And they are against the ethnocide of Europeans.