Migration to Europe Becomes a Crisis

Posted on by

Migration to Europe Becomes a Crisis

by Daniel Pipes
MEF Wire
July 31, 2018

https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/migration-to-europe-becomes-a-crisis

Daniel Pipes taught Middle Eastern and world history at Harvard University and the University of Chicago, served on the Policy Planning Council under President Reagan, founded the Middle East Forum, and oversaw $28 million in grants to allies. He has written sixteen books. He briefed the Middle East Forum in a conference call on July 31, 2018.
LISTEN HERE

The mass Muslim migration to Europe has galvanized civilizationist forces of populism and nationalism across the continent. This happens in three different ways, as shown by recent elections:

* In Hungary, the civilizationist part on its own forms the government.

* In Austria, the conservative party joined in a coalition with the civilizationist party.

* In Italy the anarchist-left Five Star Movement formed a coalition with the civilizationist party.

Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Norway have likewise shifted towards a civilizationist stance. Even Germany, which opened the migratory floodgate in 2015, is in the throes of a backlash as Islamism is turning a substantial number of its five million Muslim Turks against their host society and culture. A recent study has found that 60% of German Turks align themselves with Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has funded and built hundreds of mosques throughout Germany led by imams who receive their instructions from Ankara.

In Holland and Bulgaria, the creation of Turkish-Islamic political parties has created tensions between the two governments and Ankara, while Denmark is experimenting with the assimilation of migrants through imposed regulations aimed at countering feelings of alienation and marginalization. In Eastern Europe, by contrast, the conversation is mainly about the incompatibility of Christian and Muslim cultures.

Spain, Italy, and Greece have been the entry points for illegal immigration into the continent, which can be stopped should Europe display the necessary resolve. Expelling criminal migrants is possible, though it is difficult to find countries that will accept them. A far greater challenge is expelling non-criminal illegals, which Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Salvini has pledged to do at the rate of 100,000 migrants per year over the next five years.

For now, proposed solutions to relieve the migration crisis plaguing Europe are at an embryonic phase. The extent of their success, however, is not only important for the vast and prosperous continent but will likely influence future developments in the United States.

Summary account by Marilyn Stern, Communications Coordinator for the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics:  Multiculturalism, Muslims in Europe, Muslims in the West, Segregation  |  Daniel Pipes

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

Posted on by

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

I am, as you may be aware, neither a fan nor a friend of either liberalism or the left. If forced to choose between the two, I would pick the classical, nineteenth century, form of liberalism – individual rights, economic freedom, limits on government – over the left any day, but my instincts have always been conservative, that is to say, inclined towards order, tradition, and institutions that have been tested, proven, and honoured by time. A Tory is a specific kind of conservative, for whom the most cherished of time-honoured institutions are royal monarchy in the political sphere and the Apostolic Church in the religious sphere. Politically, I have been a Tory all my life, and as my theology has developed in a high church direction over the years, I have become so religiously as well. Unlike liberalism and leftism, neither conservatism nor Toryism, properly understood, is an ideology – a formula that purports to provide the political solution to all our problems. Indeed, the conservative and Tory are fundamentally anti-ideological, respecting the lesson of the past, that institutions, tested and proved by time, are to be trusted, over the formulations of intellectuals, however well-intentioned, for these never deliver the Paradise on earth they promise and more often than not do a great deal of harm in the name of doing good.

The non-ideological bent of the conservative and Tory allows him both to reject the foolishness and nonsense of liberalism and the left and to acknowledge the rare occasion when an idea coming from those quarters has merit. While, as indicated above, in my eyes nineteenth century liberalism produced more such ideas than any form of leftism then or since, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. While I disagreed with the late editor of Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn on the vast majority of matters, I thought he was dead on right when it came to his opposition to American military interventionism in the Balkans and the Middle East. The late Gore Vidal had a lot of sensible things to say on such matters as well. Although I don’t agree with much that Noam Chomsky has to say when it comes to politics, his analysis of how the mass media shapes and limits thought in democratic societies is essential reading and I have always respected the consistency of his stand for free speech. Whereas most liberals and leftists switch from free speech mode, when they are defending subversives and terrorists, to become censorious witch hunters when anyone touches their sacred cow, the Holocaust, Chomsky, a consistent advocate of free speech, defended French professor Robert Faurisson, braving the wrath of loud mouthed fools on both the left and right to do so.

Admittedly, I find it easier to give credit to leftists for good ideas when those ideas are left over from a Tory upbringing. The Honourable Eugene A. Forsey, although raised a MacDonald-Meighan Conservative, was for the most part of his life a man of the left, a social democrat who, before accepting a seat in the Senate as a Liberal, had worked for both the labour movement and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Despite this, and through all of this, he remained a man of deep Christian principles, and a patriotic defender of our country’s constitution, parliamentary monarchy, Common Law legal system, and traditional heritage and symbols, for which I admire and respect him. Other prominent Canadian social democrats who to one degree or another shared Forsey’s residual conservatism included Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, and even, at least on the point of the monarchy, the late Jack Layton.

I say all of this by way of introduction to the following essay, which looks at an early twentieth-century leader of the Canadian left, who expressed sensible views that are completely verboten among the left of the present day, on the subject of immigration. Consider this quotation:

When it has become necessary in the United States to form an Immigration Restriction League, it is surely high time that we examined closely the character of our immigration, and shut out those whose presence will not make for the welfare of our national life.

These words are the opening paragraph to chapter twenty-one, entitled “Restriction of Immigration”, in Strangers Within Our Gates: Or Coming Canadians, originally published in 1909, the author of which was the Rev. James Shaver Woodsworth, a Methodist minister who at the time was superintendent of All People’s Mission in Winnipeg, an outreach ministry that worked with the poor and especially new immigrants. Woodsworth would later be elected to Parliament as the representative of Winnipeg North. He ran as a socialist, initially for the Independent Labour Party, later for the CCF of which he was the first leader. The CCF was a party that combined prairie populism with social democracy, and which was undergirded by the theology of the Social Gospel. While that theology is not sound from the perspective of historical, traditional, and Scriptural orthodoxy, the CCF outlook was much to be preferred over the hard-left, secular Marxist, ultra-politically correct perspective of its successor, today’s NDP.

Woodsworth went on in the next paragraph to quote approvingly two American Presidents, including Roosevelt (Theodore) who said “We cannot have too much immigration of the right kind, and we should have none at all of the wrong kind. The need is to devise some system by which undesirable immigrants shall be kept out entirely while desirable immigrants are properly distributed throughout the country.”

Can you imagine Jagmeet Singh or anyone in the party he leads quoting anything that sensible approvingly today?

Woodsworth contrasted the way Canada “eager to secure immigrants, has adopted the system of giving bonuses” with the way the United States “levies a head tax that more than defrays the cost of inspection.” In other words, we were paying for our immigration, the United States was making it pay for itself. He then quoted extensively from the Immigration Act of 1906, specifically clauses 26 through 33. Clauses 26 through 29 prohibited the immigration of anyone who “is feeble-minded, an idiot, or an epileptic, or who is insane, or who has had an attack of insanity within five years…is deaf and dumb, blind or infirm, unless he belongs to a family accompanying him or already in Canada”, “who is afflicted with a loathsome disease, or with a disease which is contagious or infectious, and which may become dangerous to the public health or widely disseminated”, “who is a pauper, or destitute, a professional beggar, or vagrant, or who is likely to become a public charge”, “ who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or who is a prostitute, or who procures, or brings or attempts to bring into Canada prostitutes or women for purposes of prostitution.” Clause 30 authorized the Governor-in-Council to further prohibit “any special class of immigrants” when deemed necessary, and clauses 31 to 33 specify the procedures whereby all of this is to be enforced. After quoting all of this material Woodsworth commented:

No one will quarrel with the provisions of this Act, but it should go further, and provision should be made for more strict enforcement.

Among his suggestions for improving the Act, are the prohibition of other classes that were then barred from immigrating to the United States – “polygamists; anarchists, or persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials” etc., – and “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants.” Take note of the latter, which he says “is of the greatest importance.” Rather than prohibit or carefully select assisted immigrants, the new immigration regulations of 1967 do the exact opposite of this and make the sponsorship of immigrants into a backdoor by which the requirements of the points system that these regulations introduced can be bypassed altogether.

As far as provision “for more strict enforcement” goes, Woodsworth says the following:

The trouble is that we are working at the wrong end. The examination in every case should be not at the ports of entry, but at the ports from which the immigrants sail – or better still at the homes from which they come. Such a course would be at once kinder to the immigrants and much safer for our country…Again, the examination where the people are known is the only effective method. Diseased, paupers, criminals, prostitutes and undesirables generally are known in their home neighborhood…The Canadian Government should insist on the immigrant presenting a satisfactory certificate from the Government officials of his own country. If the foreign governments would not co-operate, if they are too despotic or corrupt to make such an arrangement practicable, then we should appoint our own agents in Europe who would make most thorough investigation.

As with the careful selection of assisted immigrants, a major problem with the post-1967 immigration system is that we have gone in the exact opposite direction of what Woodworth proposed. Until then, a prospective immigrant had to go to a Canadian visa officer in one of our embassies, consulates, or High commissions abroad, and apply from outside of Canada. In October of 1967, a regulation was passed waiving this requirement and allowing legal visitors to Canada to apply from within the country. Charles M. Campbell, who served on the Immigration Appeal Board for ten years, eight as vice-chairman, explained that this, together with the establishment of the Immigration Appeal Board and the right to appeal a negative decision, led to the situation in the early 1970s where the system was completely swamped. Since this change had been made by regulation and was not part of an actual Immigration Act it was easily repealed in 1973, about the time that the Liberal government passed a general amnesty to deal with the backlog. It was only on paper, however, that we went back to the old rules. Today, the right to apply from within Canada is supposedly limited to select groups, like spouses of Canadians, but in reality, this is nullified both by the absurdity that “outland applications” can be made from within Canada and by the policy of making broad exceptions for “humanitarian and compassionate” reasons.

Woodsworth’s ideas would make him persona non grata today in the successor to the party he once led, as well as in the Green, Liberal, and, sadly, Conservative Parties. They are, however, basic plain sense. Governments are established for the common good of the countries they govern, not for the common good of all people, everywhere. Until quite recently, only American liberals with their naïve notion of their republic as the “first universal nation” were foolish enough to think otherwise. Governments, therefore, owe it to the countries they govern, and the people who already live in those countries, to be selective as to who they let in. It is their duty, not just their right, to allow desirable immigrants in and keep undesirables out. Those who disagree with this will try to argue that “desirable” and “undesirable” are entirely subjective and based upon irrational prejudice, but it is pretty obvious that the classes Woodsworth speaks of as undesirable – those who are subversive of government, law and order, criminals, or who because of poverty or mental or physical conditions are more likely to be public expenses than contributors – are objectively undesirable from the standpoint of a government looking out for its nation’s interests.

Today, the first, and usually only, response of the liberal-left to those who call for selective, restrictive, immigration that lets the desirables in but keeps the undesirables out is “racist.” This is their response even if the immigration restrictionist has gone out of his way to avoid bringing race, ethnicity, and culture into his arguments. Rev. Woodsworth had the following to say about this aspect of the immigration question, speaking specifically to immigration from Asia:

The advocates for admission argue that we ought not to legislate against a particular class or nation, and that the Orientals are needed to develop the resources of the country. Their opponents believe that white laborers cannot compete with Orientals, that the standard of living will be lowered, and white men driven out, and they claim that a nation has the right to protect itself… Perhaps, for some time, the presence of a limited number of Orientals may be advantageous. But it does seem that the exclusionists are right in their contention that laborers working and living as the Orientals do, will displace European laborers. It is generally agreed that the two races are not likely to ‘mix.’ Ultimately, then, the question resolves itself into the desirability of a white caste and a yellow, or black caste, existing side by side, or above and below, in the same country. We confess that the idea of a homogenous people seems in accord with our democratic institutions and conducive to the general welfare. This need not exclude small communities of black or red or yellow peoples. It is well to remember that we are not the only people on earth. The idealist may still dream of a final state of development, when white and black and red and yellow shall have ceased to exist, or have become merged into some neutral gray. We may love all men, and yet prefer to maintain our family life.

These words, written a hundred and ten years ago by the man who went on to lead the Canadian left for the first half of the twentieth century, would immediately bring down the charge of racism upon their author’s head today. Thirty years ago, the ideas contained in those words were enough to get people kicked out of the Reform Party of Canada, and indeed, as far back as 1972, when the University of Toronto Press put out the reprint edition that I have been quoting, they saw a need to stick an introduction by Marilyn Barber, explaining away Woodsworth as a product of his times.

While there are those who would say that this is a positive development, showing that we have come a long way as a society, and are so much more enlightened now than we were a century ago, the reality is that accusations of racism have, since the late 1960s, been primarily a means for stifling discussion, discouraging rational thought, and silencing dissent to ideas that could not bear up under scrutiny for a second.

Is it racist to take questions of race, culture, nationality, religion, and ethnicity into consideration in selecting immigrants?

Before giving the knee-jerk answer of “yes”, note that there is more than one way in which these questions can be taken into consideration. A government could make it its policy to preserve its country’s ethnic status quo and so refuse to admit immigrants that would alter that status quo. A government could make it its policy to ignore these matters altogether in selecting immigrants. A third possibility is that a government could make it its policy to deliberately and radically alter its country’s ethnic status quo by discriminating in favour of immigrants who differ from the majority of its population and bringing as many of them in as fast as it possibly can. Let us call these Options 1, 2, and 3.

Option 2 is the only policy that is racially and ethnically neutral. It is, therefore, the least susceptible to the charge of being racist. Option 1 is the policy that is most frequently condemned as racist. Of the two non-racially neutral policies, however, it is the only one that can be defended morally. The known negative effects of altering a country’s ethnic status quo include a weakening of social cohesion and communal feeling, a decrease in confidence in one’s neighbours, fellow citizens, government, and society, and, perhaps ironically, an increase in racial and ethnic negative feeling, hostility and strife. When, just over ten years ago, Harvard political scientist, Robert D. Putnam, published a paper, originally a lecture, that interpreted data that he had gathered in a study on the relationship between diversity and social capital as saying that “In the short run…immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital” and that in diverse neighbourhoods “residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’” and that “Trust, (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” he was not telling us anything that had not already been known and recognized from time immemorial. If you introduce one or two newcomers into a homogenous community who differ from the majority ethnically, they may indeed have the much lauded effect of improving the community in the way that is often expressed in the cooking metaphor of adding flavor or spice. This effect decreases, however, in inverse proportion, as the diversity increases. There is a relatively low saturation point – decades ago, Daniel Cappon of York University’s Department of Environmental Studies told the Globe and Mail that the “critical mass” was ten percent – beyond which, the negative effects of ethnic diversification take over. The larger the change and the faster it is accomplished the greater will be these negative effects. The wish to avoid these negative effects is sufficient reason and justification for Option 1, the policy of preserving the status quo. It requires neither irrational racial prejudice nor some ideological notion of racial purity – just plain, old-fashioned, sense.

Over the course of her history, the government of the Dominion of Canada has gone through three basic phases with regards to these policy options. From 1867 to 1962, Option 1 was reflected in federal immigration policy. This was true regardless of which party was in power, Conservative or Liberals, and, as we have seen, it had a supporter in the first leader of the CCF as well. In 1962, Ellen Fairclough the Minister of Immigration in the Cabinet of the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, introduced what was basically a combination of Options 1 and 2. Racial, cultural, and ethnic preferences were eliminated for individuals applying to immigrate to Canada, but the rules which prohibited people from countries other than traditional source countries from sponsoring their extended families were retained. This reflected the thinking of the Prime Minister at the time, who wanted to be fair and non-discriminatory to individuals, Option 2, without radically changing the country’s demographics, Option 1. This, arguably the best of the phases, was also the most short-lived. It lasted until 1966-1967. In 1966 the Liberal government put out a White Paper recommending a new Immigration Act that would radically overhaul the immigration system. In October of the following year that overhaul took place, albeit through a change of regulations by Order-in-Council, as Diefenbaker’s changes had been, rather than through the new Immigration Act, which came nine years later. Thus began the phase of practicing Option 3 while pretending that it is Option 2 that has continued to this day. If Diefenbaker’s policy combined the first two options in the best possible way, this was and is the worst possible combination.

Here is how this was accomplished. The new regulations in October 1967, first, established the points system by which individuals now apply to immigrate to Canada, and second, eliminated the remaining racial and cultural restrictions so that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture could sponsor the same number and range of relatives. On paper, this looks like pure Option 2. The points-system, on its own merits, is quite fair. The prospective immigrant is awarded points towards entry for his ability to speak English and/or French, his level of education, his skilled experience in a trade for which there is a need of labourers, his age (maximum points for 21-49), his having an offer of employment in Canada, and miscellaneous similar factors. The problem is that two large back doors were put in place by which the points system can be bypassed. This is how Option 3 was snuck in and disguised as Option 2.

One of those backdoors is the sponsorship of relatives. Assisted or sponsored relatives, do not have to meet the strict requirements of the points system like individuals who apply on their own merits. In traditional source countries, the trend for the last couple of centuries has been towards the small, nuclear, model of the family. Couples have fewer children than before, and their ties to extended family – relatives beyond the nuclear model – are much weaker than they were before the Second World War, let alone prior to the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, in non-traditional source countries, the tendency is still towards large families, with many children, and strong, binding, ties to the extended family. This is not said by way of criticism of those cultures. Indeed, as I have argued in the past, in the modern transition to the nuclear model we can see the early stages of the social unravelling of the West and the “war on the family.” The point is that people from non-traditional source countries will be far more likely to want to bring a huge number of relatives over with them than people from traditional source countries, and both the Diefenbaker Conservatives and the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals, knew this. This is why the former, not wanting the country to be radically and rapidly transformed, retained racial and cultural restrictions on sponsoring relatives when they removed the other racial and cultural preferences. This is why the later, removed those restrictions. It is not that they wanted to be fully racially and ethnically neutral in their policy. They wanted to make Canada as diverse as they could, as fast as they could – Option 3 – while pretending to be neutral – Option 2. When they passed their new Immigration Act in 1976, the emphasis was on “family reunification”, by which wording Canadians were sold a bill of goods. A streamlined immigration application process for the purpose of family reunification makes sense when we are talking about bringing in the spouses and children of Canadians who have married abroad. What the Trudeau Liberals meant by it was making it easier and quicker for people from the Third World to bring their entire extended families into the country so as to change the country’s demographics – or, as the Liberals themselves put it, “change the face of Canada” – as fast as possible. This is not a racially neutral policy, nor is it a policy that has Canada’s interests at heart.

Remember that Rev. Woodworth said that “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants is of the greatest importance.”

The other backdoor is the refugee system. We had foolishly signed the United Nations’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, giving that body, established by an evil and insane American President as a monument to his own ego, the General Assembly of which exists only to provide a soapbox for the voices of every tin-pot dictatorship, military junta, kleptocracy, and failed state on the planet, the Security Council of which exists merely to rubber stamp the decisions of the American government, the right to dictate our refugee policy. Unlike the other signers, however, we have used the Convention as an excuse to make ourselves the laughing stock of the world, by pretending that illegal aliens are asylum seekers who have a “right” to cross our borders without going through the proper channels, and accepting a high percentage of “self-selected” refugees, of whom only a very small percentage are actually fleeing for their lives. Chapter seven, “How Canada Fails Refugees”, of Toronto writer, Daniel Stoffman’s, Who Gets In, is a must read on this matter. Stoffman shows how our corrupt refugee system, which primarily serves to line the pockets of immigration and refugee lawyers, actually makes it harder for real refugees to get in, by showing preference for the fakes and frauds. Reforms were made after this book was published but these all went out the window when Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister in 2015 and the system is now worse than it ever was before. Trudeau, a supporter of the previous American administration’s policy of intervention in Syria that produced a Civil War that has killed half a million people and displaced millions of others, insists that we have a responsibility to bring those who have been displaced over here. Sensible people would question the sanity of bringing thousands of people, whom you have helped murder and displace with your irresponsible interventionism, and who would have cause to hold a grudge against you even if they were not predominantly of a religion in which holy war is one of the core tenets, over to live in your own country. Especially, when you promise to bring them over in such large numbers and such a short period of time that you cannot possibly vet them properly. The folly of all of this has been matched only by its corruption – the Trudeau government did not go to actual refugee camps to find the “asylum seekers” it brought over, but rather found the majority of them in apartment buildings in cities in Turkey, Jordan, Oman, and Lebanon where they had been living for years and bribed them to come over and get their picture taken with Trudeau before being put into refugee camps here!

Through these two large back doors, Option 3 became Canada’s official immigration policy, under the guise of practicing Option 2. While it was the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals who started this, it has remained the policy of our government ever since, even in the periods in which the Mulroney and Harper Conservatives were in power. That Option 3 was intentional on the part of the Grits is evident from the results. At the start of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership, English Canadians, French Canadians, and white ethnics, taken together, compromised over 95% of Canada’s population. If trends continue, they will be a minority in Canada in 2050. A change that large does not happen that fast unintentionally. Perhaps those who introduced this phase of Canadian immigration policy did not foresee the scale of the change but demographic transformation was their intention.

This policy has never been popular. Polls conducted, from the beginning of this phase until the present day, have shown that the majority of Canadians do not and have never wanted immigration that radically changes the ethnic makeup of the country. Now, let me be clear, the modern democratic dogma that “the majority is always right” is false – it would be more accurate to say the majority is usually wrong – and government has a duty to do what is right, even when this is not what the majority wants. In this case, however, majority opinion corresponds with what we know to be true about large scale, rapid, demographic transformation being bad for established communities and countries, and the reason for this correspondence is clear – the majority are those who have to live, every day, with the results of immigration policy, whereas the politicians who make that policy, and their academic and media supporters, have largely isolated themselves from the consequences of their ideas, living in controlled, largely homogenous, communities, just as they have isolated themselves from all criticism of their ideas, by shrieking “racist” whenever anyone questions – or even dares to take notice of – the transformation that is quickly taking place before their very eyes.

Today, the Canadian left is all on board the “let’s make Canada as diverse as we can, as fast as we can” train, even though the brunt of the negative consequences must be borne by working class Canadians, the poor, and basically all those for whom the left until fairly recently professed to speak. The Canadian left of the twenty-first century would have no room for the likes of the Reverend J. S. Woodsworth. Indeed, if he were still ministering in the Winnipeg of the current year, expressing the same views as he did in 1909, in all likelihood Mayor Duckie would wring his hands in despair and order a police investigation, Helmut-Harry Loewen would seize the opportunity to get his name in the newspapers on a regular basis by warning of the imminent threat he posed, David Matas would consider initiating legal proceedings against the “Hitler of the North End” on behalf of Binai B’rith, and the ironically-if-unawarely-named Fascist Free Treaty One would seek to prevent his views from being heard through crude intimidation tactics, whereas I, on the other hand, would find myself in the odd and unusual position, of having to cheer the old socialist on.

Works Referenced

Charles M. Campbell, Betrayal & Deceit: The Politics of Canadian Immigration, West Vancouver, Jasmine Books, 2000.

Daniel Stoffman, Who Gets In: What’s Wrong with Canada’s Immigration Program – and how to fix it, Toronto, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002.

J. S. Woodsworth, Strangers Within Our Gate: Or Coming Canadians, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1972 (original edition 1909)

Paris Invaded & Degraded

Posted on by
 
Paris Invaded & Degraded
Czech couple took pictures and made comments of Paris Today…


“We went there not so long ago, just go for the weekend. We bribed the price of tickets, unusually low, but we were not in Paris for more than 10 years. We decided to refresh impressions, again inhale the French romance. The fact that the lowest price for Air France had alerted us, but nothing like this. ”



“The flight was fine, then we boarded a train that took us to the center, and it was there that we experienced the first shock: not only was the Northern station all littered with debris,  there was not a white Frenchman! It shocked us to the core. ”



“Further – more, we hastily settled near the Sacré Coeur, where the situation seems to have been even worse. When we went down into the subway to get to major attractions, then suddenly we found out that in the car me and my wife – only white. It was Friday, about two o’clock in the afternoon! ”

“At the Louvre, which is always full of onlookers and tourists, is now deserted, but around armed to the teeth patrols. These people look at you with suspicion and do not remove their finger from the trigger. And this is not ordinary police, but real soldiers in full dress! As it turned out, in Paris for almost a year living in a state of emergency … ”




“On the streets of migrants crowd, full of shops, whose owners are refugees. Where so many of them come from? At the Eiffel Tower – one. Check out all but covered from head to toe Muslim. This selectivity of the French. Landmarks around the tower teeming with hucksters of the African, Arab gambler, beggars from all over the world and pickpockets. ”




” 




“It was a terrifying experience. I can imagine what’s going on in Marseille and Calais where migrants already de facto set their own rules. In France, a civil war is brewing, that’s what I say. Therefore, I recommend not to go there – Farewell, beloved France! God forbid that we had something like this in the Czech Republic! ”

More pictures of Paris :


“Macron recently espoused the idea that 150-200 million Africans will inevitably migrate to Europe over the next 30 years, and called for measures to be taken to prepare for their arrival.

  

 

Was the Greektown Massacre Caused by a Trouble Nutter or an ISIS Op With Ties to Chemical Weapons That Could Have Wiped Out Half of Canada?

Posted on by

Was the Greektown Massacre Caused by a Trouble Nutter or an ISIS Op With Ties to Chemical Weapons That Could Have Wiped Out Half of Canada?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8My6wXlyjI&fe… … http://www.youtube.com Was Toronto’s Danforth shooting a symptom of so-called ‘mental illness’ OR was it an ISIS attack linked to one of the largest chemical weapons busts in North…

youtube.com
Was Toronto’s Danforth shooting a symptom of so-called ‘mental illness’ OR was it an ISIS attack linked…

74-Year-Old Swedish Woman Prosecuted For Criticizing Mass Immigration

Posted on by

74-Year-Old Swedish Woman Prosecuted For Criticizing Mass Immigration

Scandinavian country deals with dissent by punishing pensions for Facebook posts

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com – April 26, 2018 321 Comments

0
4

A 74-year-old woman in Stockholm was prosecuted and fined for a Facebook post in which she criticized the number of African migrants arriving in Sweden.

According to the prosecution, the woman responded to an article about African immigrants by writing, “Why do these individuals not go home to Africa again.”

The woman also wrote other posts that the prosecution said were “negative to Muslims and immigration.”

The pensioner was convicted for “breach of opinion against a public group” and will now have to pay a fine of 12,250 SEK (around $1500 dollars).

Instead of having an honest national conversation about the impact of mass immigration, which has contributed to soaring violent crime and rape cases in the country, Sweden has instead embarked on a campaign of intimidation and censorship.

A 55-year-old man who wrote on Facebook that Muslim migrants, “account for a lot of gang crime in Sweden and other violent stuff like rapes” was put on trial and fined $1,265 dollars.

Another 65-year-old woman was criminally charged for “hate against a group of people” after writing on Facebook that mass immigration will cause Sweden’s IQ levels to fall to the level of goldfish.

In another case, a woman was interrogated by police, had her DNA taken and was subsequently imprisoned for the “crime” of sharing a joke meme about Islam on Facebook.

Last year, a 70-year-old Swedish woman was prosecuted for hate speech for saying she saw migrants setting fire to cars, something that happens all the time in Sweden.

According to Politico, “Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities.”

private study of 4,142 rulings regarding sex-related crimes passed by 40 Swedish courts between 2012 and 2014 found that 95.6% of rapes were committed by men of foreign descent.

Two out of three rapes with aggravating circumstances were committed by newly arrived migrants or approved asylum seekers. Official crime statistics show that reported rapes have increased 34% in the last 10 years.

What it means to be pro-European survival.

Posted on by
 

What it means to be pro-European survival.

pro European

https://youtu.be/lFLbtkJ2hyw

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

Posted on by

MICHAEL WALSH: Toronto Discovers the Joys of ‘Diversity.’ Rising violence, increasing fear — so naturally Canadian officials blame guns.

Rattled by string of violent attacks, Toronto wonders if city is unraveling

As residents grapple with the latest attack to hit the city in recent months, some are asking whether it was becoming less safe

Detectives in Canada are still seeking a motive for a mass shooting which left three dead – including the gunman – and injured more than a dozen others, as residents of Toronto grapple with the latest in a string of violent incidents to hit Canada’s biggest city in recent months.

Federal officials said on Tuesday that there was no terror link to Sunday’s attack in which the lone gunman opened fire along a bustling avenue in the city, seemingly shooting at random at pedestrians and into shops and restaurants. “At this time, there is no national security nexus to the investigation,” said a spokesperson for the ministry of public safety. The attack killed two people, a recent high school graduate Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis. The 13 injured include six women and girls, as well as seven men.

Authorities have not yet publicly speculated on the motive of the gunman, Faisal Hussain, or explained how he obtained the handgun used in the attack. In a statement, his family cited his lifelong struggle with depression and psychosis, noting that professional help, medication and therapy had failed to help him.

I would say his name alone is a pretty good clue as to the gunman’s motivation. Note the usual “no connection to terrorism” bromide about an incident that is obviously terrorism, committed by a “known wolf” Pakistani Muslim exercising his religious freedom to kill the infidel wherever he may find us. But as long as the authorities and the media continue to pretend that only provable-in-courts-of-law conspiracy cases are “terror links,” the public will continue to be ill-served about the scope of the problem.

 

Deranged Toronto Woman Crazed By Anti-Racism & Cultural Marxism

Posted on by

Deranged Toronto Woman Crazed By Anti-Racism & Cultural Marxism

CRAZY VIDEO: LADY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT TORONTO SHOOTER’S POSSIBLE ISIS TIES

In this cringeworthy video a high school teacher tries to infringe on a reporter’s free speech

0
3
While interviewing attendees of the memorial for Toronto’s Danforth shooting victims, The Rebel’s David Menzies encountered a woman who regurgitated every liberal talking point in the book.

When Menzies asked a couple about a CBS report claiming the shooter visited ISIS websites, the woman interrupted the interview by asking that “we not descend into racism,” apparently unaware that affiliation with the terrorist group has nothing to do with race.

“What did I say that was racist?” Menzies asked, but the woman just attacked The Rebel and said they aren’t welcome in “our community.”

From there, the woman called The Rebel “fake news,” endorsed socialism over capitalism, admitted she doesn’t care about ISIS, said a majority of Ontario citizens are “demented” and called Trump a fascist.

The woman, who said she’s a high school teacher who educates her students about the racist agenda of the right, then threatened to call the cops over the “racist hate speech.”

The Fourth Turning and a New Homeland for Euro-Canadians

Posted on by
The Fourth Turning and a New Homeland for Euro-Canadians
by  Brian Wiggins – July 23, 2018
Imagine a Pristine Homeland for Euro-Canadians
In “The Ethnic Cleansing of Whites in Canada,” I argued that a defined territory is crucial for our survival. According to Dr. Frank Slater, “the special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances . . .” Acquisition and defense of territory, notes Slater, are an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. The passionate relationship between a people and its homeland has been constant throughout history. A people can suffer many setbacks, but as long as it retains its own territorial space, it can recover. [i] In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnocide.
In the United States, the Trump Administration cannot deliver on their signature campaign promise: to build a wall on their southern border. It’s hard for me to understand how the Americans have put up without a wall for so long but if the Republicans can’t get their wall built, and Brexit can’t Brexit how do we, in Canada, expect to establish an immigration moratorium and repeal our Multiculturalism Act? Not very likely. I propose that we make contingency plans for a new homeland(s) inside Canada.
Canadians from the founding cultures, need to look beyond a conventional political solution. If Catalonia, Khalistan, Israel, Wakanda, “Farrakhanland,” Scotland, Kurdistan, Quebec, and “New” California, why not a homeland for European-Canadians in South-Western Ontario; the Maritimes; the Prairies, around Quebec City or the interior of beautiful British Columbia? It’s British Columbia, after-all.

We can’t be accused of discriminating against people we don’t live with. The massive transfer of wealth and the $35B-$40B fiscal costs of immigration will disappear. Infrastructure savings would be enormous. We’ll never have to worry about being branded racists or xenophobes again. Taxes will decline. Hospitals, currently operating at 135% of capacity in both the Fraser River Valley and the GTA, largely as a result of chain migration, will gradually decline to their intended 85% cap, and we’ll be able to move on our highways again. The Canadian environment could heal. Employment equity plans will vanish, and organizations can get thousands of our kids out of their parent’s basements and into the workforce.

A new homeland for the founding cultures might seem fantastic or a pipe dream to some but consider that we are now, as of the credit crisis of 2008-09, at a significant historical inflection point. In their bestselling book, The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with History, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe describe the seasonal nature of history and foresee an inevitable period of decay that will destroy existing social and political institutions.

Imagine a Pristine Homeland for Euro-Canadians
Steven K. Bannon, former advisor to President Donald Trump (and many others), agrees that a Fourth Turning began in 2008 with the global financial credit crisis and has argued that the administrative state must be dismantled in advance of the final climax. Canadians, too, should tear down everything that is no longer functional, including our pathological immigration policies and official multiculturalism. In order to renew, forests need fires and rivers need floods.

The Anglo-American Saeculum

Strauss and Howe theorize that the history of a people moves in 80-to-100 year cycles called “saecula.” The concept goes back to ancient Greece, where it was believed that at a given saeculum’s end, there would come “ekpyrosis,” a cataclysmic event that destroys the old order and ushers in a new one in a trial of fire. We owe much to the cradle of Western civilization.

Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old age.[ii]

An average life is 80 years, and consists of four periods of ~20 years

  • Childhood → Young adult → Midlife → Elderhood

A generation is an aggregate of people born every ~20 years

  • Baby Boomers → Gen X → Millennials → Homelanders

Each generation experiences “four turnings” every ~80 years

  • High → Awakening → Unraveling → Crisis

Fourth Turning Chronology

The Late Medieval Saeculum (1485) Wars of the Roses (1459-1487)

The Reformation Saeculum begins with the Protestant Reformation and ends with the Armada crisis 1588 – a period of 103 years from one crisis climax to the next crisis climax

The New World Saeculum  begins with the Puritan Awakening and ends with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 – a period of 100 years from crisis climax to crisis climax

The Revolutionary Saeculum or the “Great Awakening” ends in 1781 with the American Revolution – a period of 92 years between climax of the Glorious Revolution and the climax of the American Revolution

The Civil War Saeculum ends in 1863 (1860-1885) – a period of 82 years between the Revolutionary War climax and the American Civil War climax

The Great Power Saeculum ends in 1944 and coincides with the Great Depression and World War II- a period of 81 years from the Climax of the American Civil War

The Millenial Saeculum begins with “Consciousness Revolution.” The global Financial Crisis of 2008, indicates the start of the Fourth Turning, climaxing in 2025? – A period of 81 years from the previous climax of World War II? [iii] 

All Fourth Turnings are marked by periods of dread and decay in which the American (or English) people were forced to unite to rebuild a new future, but only after a significant conflict in which many lives were lost. It typically starts with a catalyst event, followed by a period of regeneracy. Following that there is a defining climax in which a “war” (the coming war might take many forms) for the old order is fought. Finally, there is a resolution in which a new world order is created out of the ashes.

Bad News Sells

To be fair, sweeping theories of history are not as well received in academia. The Fourth Turning is non-falsifiable and has been a tough sell to professional historians who have now been co-opted into re-writing and revising history to allow for the occupation of formerly Western ancestral homelands by alien out-groups. William McLoughlin, a former history prof at Brown, believes that it is fantasy to think that “if you put enough data together and have enough charts and graphs, you’ve made history into a science.” Fair enough. Those sophisticated enough to lose money in the capital markets at any time, will confirm that the future is unknowable by definition. Nevertheless, the Turnings are much more than mere happenstance or data mining.

Readers who have stock market experience can find support in Elliot’s 5th and final wave of his grand super-cycle and with Nikolai Kondratieff’s wave theory. The cycle of crises also corresponds with cycles of war identified by Arnold Toynbee and geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson. Keep in mind Vladimir Lenin’s comment that “In some decades, nothing happens; in some weeks, decades happen.”

There’s a lot to be concerned about. North Korea and Iran; the staggering mountain of immoral public debt in the United States and Canada and throughout the West; the crouching, racist and hyper-nationalist tiger dreaming of global domination and increasingly militarizing, with weapons stolen from the West, the South China Sea, or what I prefer to call the North Philippine Sea, are all potential sparks. The world’s greatest threat according to Bill Gates, is an influenza pandemic. The Institute of Disease Modelling predicts that a severe flu pandemic could kill more than 33 million people in just 250 days. Several concerning strains are already circulating.[iv]

Finally, in my view, there is a growing threat of a second civil war exploding out of the incredible divisiveness in the United States. Either of these four “sparks;” debt, China, a flu pandemic, or the outbreak of a second American Civil War or a combination of these threats could ignite the final Fourth Turning “climax” sometime between now and 2025, give or take, according to the theory.

The generational cycle cannot explain the role or timing of these individual threats. Nor can it account for the great events of history, like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Kennedy’s assassination, 9/11 or the Lehman insolvency. What the generational cycle can do, according to Strauss and Howe, is explain how society is likely to respond to these events in different eras. It is the response, not the initial event, which defines an era according to the theory. [v] According to Strauss and Howe, the crisis period lasts for approximately 20 years.

A financial collapse driven by a debt implosion is certainly plausible. Total debt in the U.S., for example, including Federal, State, Municipal and contingent liabilities in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is roughly $207 Trillion. In Canada, the Province of Ontario is a financial train wreck. The province will need to increase borrowing to finance another spending shortfall, adding to an existing mountain of debt, borrowed on our grandchildren’s credit cards, and is forecast to rise to $325 Billion, or more than $22,500 for every man, woman and child in the Province.[vi]

Newly elected Premier, Doug Ford, will find his hands to be tied but at least he has the right mindset and there is some hope that his populist surge will spill over Federally next year. To make matters worse, Moody’s has joined the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and S&P Global is warning that Canada’s banking system, yes Canada’s, is facing a growing threat of souring consumer loans amid rising interest rates. Canada’s ratio of household debt to disposable income reached a new astonishing record of 171% in the 3rd Q of 2017 and the proportion of uninsured mortgages has increased to 60% from 50% five years ago.[vii]

It is my view, however, that the final spark for the Fourth Turning will be ignited by a Second American Civil War. Either way, the day of reckoning is coming. The chickens will come home to roost.

The Fourth Turning, whatever the final cause(s), has the potential to trigger a political upheaval beyond what we can possibly ever imagine. Strauss and Howe see a return to a more traditional and conservative social order as one of the outcomes. If history is a guide, the probability of retribution for former “collaborators” and for those who resist the new expectations for conformity will be high. There will be no assumption of compassion for the traitors and complacency will not be an option.

On the bright side, fertility rates will rise again, quality of life and prosperity will climb and public investment in infrastructure will surge. We will enter into a period of Peace, Order and Good Government but many nations are likely to be fractured and geographically divided by ethnicity as a consequence.

Yes, there is hope for a new homeland for the founding cultures. This may be our opportunity to take our nation back and hold those responsible for giving it away, without our consent, as traitors. Gird your loins for our next rendezvous with destiny.

Canada is over 400 years old. Our people have a DNA all our own. We belong to a unique and storied nation with its own official languages, religion, history, heroes, mannerisms, culture and identity. We don’t want open borders. We don’t want mass migrations to change Canada into something new. We don’t want to become a minority in our own land. We want our country back.

Imagine a Pristine Homeland for Euro-Canadians
Canadian “elites” babble about “diversity,” about how much better a country we will be in 2036 when white Europeans are just another minority and we have become a “gorgeous mosaic” of every race, tribe, creed and culture on earth. To many Canadians, such a future entails the death of our nation. To Canadians, millions of African, Chinese, Indian, Arab and Islamic peoples settling in our lands means the annihilation of the historic nation we love, the nation that came into being to preserve us. We will never forgive politicians, whether by accident, or design, if they change our country completely and forever.

Many of these aliens who occupy Canada today have no “cosanguity” with either of the two founding cultures or the larger white European family. From the growing expressions of resentment, contempt and even hostility towards us, it’s clear they we’re not compatible.[viii] Canada is increasingly being filled with people who have absolutely no connection to the great historic Dominion of Canada. They can’t be faulted. Canada was never really created for them but as anti-white sentiment goes mainstream and all of Canada’s non-whites increasingly assert their own racial and ethnic heritage, what will keep Canada together when we lose our white majority? If Euro-Canadians had the same group loyalty as Sikhs, Muslims, Chinese and Indians we would never have permitted these aliens into our land to begin with.

Our ancestors did not create the heroic and adventurous Hudson Bay Company, fight on the Plains of Abraham, Beaver Dam, Stoney Creek, Lundy’s Lane, Michilimackinac Island, Queenston Heights, Paardeberg andLeliefontein, Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, The North Atlantic, in Defence of Hong Kong, The Battle of Britain, Dieppe, D-Day, The Liri Valley, Normandy, the Scheldt, Kapyong and Kandahar, and endure the enormous hardships and sacrifice of the Great Depression, in order for baby boomers to turn the country over to alien out-groups and foreigners who have nothing in common with us and who don’t share our values.

Canada is much more than an idea; it’s much more than a shopping mall. The Fathers of Confederation did not frame the British North America Act to celebrate diversity. It’s the “British” North America Act, after all. Canadians did not spill their blood and treasure around the world for multiculturalism and to become a marginalized, despised but “privileged” minority in the land bequeathed to us by their ancestors; our home and native land. Did we?

If we don’t stop this madness, and establish our own lands, Euro-Canadians will learn soon enough that the non-whites our hyper-altruistic elites usher into 24 Sussex Drive will not fritter away their demographic, political and economic gains in fruitless displays of moral superiority the way we have. A Canada run by non-white aliens and foreigners will be a shockingly different place. Competitive racial and ethnic altruism is not a game non-whites play.[ix] Canadians must force our traitorous elites to abandon policies that will, before long, destroy us all and everything that was bequeathed to us.

I should be careful what I wish for, but as far as I am concerned, the Fourth Turning can’t come soon enough. We are a people. We can create great things if left free to be ourselves and only we can be ourselves. If Canada ceases to be majority white country, it won’t be a country at all. Euro-Canadians should never give up on the idea that this country belongs, first and foremost, to us. We will fight back and the fight has, in fact, already begun. A cold wind is blowing. Winter is coming…


 

Pamphlets distributed on windshields claiming immigration is ‘white genocide’

Posted on by

Pamphlets distributed on windshields claiming immigration is ‘white genocide’

[This is was passes for news at the Medicine Hat News. Let’s examine the smear job.  of the lugen presse or lying press at work.]
 
1. The leaflets calling Canada’s immigration policy a form of White genocide, were not written by the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee. The leaflets apparently direct people to our website.
 
2. The non-news story does not identify the Ontario group — CFIRC — so that readers might check it out for themselves.
 
3. The group is “headed by a well-known neo-nazi” — presumably me. The paper didn’t call me for information for this story or to inquire whether I was a “neo-Nazi”. I have frequently said that I am not a “Nazi” , neo or otherwise. I am a populist and a White Nationalist.
 
4. All too often Canadian police act as thought cops or political police: ” “We’d like to know who’s doing it,” said Staff Sgt. Brian Christman, saying the material could be construed as hate literature. ‘This goes beyond free speech. Somebody is treading in territory that could get themselves into serious trouble.’” Since when did a cop become a judge? Why are the police investigating at all? Where’s the crime? Someone is expressing a point of view.
 
5. While not seeking out comments from the person the writer maligns, he did seek comments from two wildly pro-immigration and anti-free speech groups — B’nai Brith and the U.S. Southern Poverty Law Centre,.
 
6. White genocide or replacement is not a conspiracy theory. It is an objective conclusion of the effects of massive Third World immigration which is the policy of all major Canadian political parties. The European founding/settler people were about 95 per cent of Canada when our immigration policy was changed by stealth in the early 1960s. According to the last census, that number is down to 78 per cent. Projecting ahead, Europeans will become a minority by 2050 or before. We are already a minority in Vancouver and Toronto, the two largest cities in English Canada.]
 
7. Actually, I joined the federal Conservatives and voted, despite the efforts of the operative for one candidate to stop me.]
 
Paul Fromm



By City Desk on July 18, 2018.

NEWS PHOTO
Some residents of the Flats woke up to find pamphlets decrying immigration as “White Genocide” on their vehicles’ windshields on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 a few days after posters with similar slogans were posted at a Church on the Southeast Hill in Medicine Hat.

Medicine Hat News

Days after posters that stated “immigration = white genocide” appeared on a church in Medicine Hat, pamphlets proclaiming much the same were tucked under windshield wipers in another community on Tuesday morning.

The paper slips are titled “Stop Immigation (sic)… Stop White Genocide” and include phrases “White self-hate” and “Jewish supremacy,” directing the reader to a website of an Ontario-based anti-immigration group headed by a well-known “Neo Nazi.”

Medicine Hat police were investigating both matters on Tuesday, and officials believe the two episodes are likely connected.

Police are asking that people come forward with complaints or tips about who might be responsible, and to report when they see materials being distributed.

A national director of B’Nai B’rith called the material “extremely concerning and disgusting, in fact” after viewing it on Tuesday.

“The point is trying to convince people that Jews in general are intending to carry out genocide,” said Aidan Fishman, with the Toronto-based League for Human Rights for B’Nai B’rith Canada.

“I haven’t seen this exact flyer before, but unfortunately it’s a fairly common conspiracy theory among Neo-Nazis and those on the far right that there’s some sort of Jewish directed plot to get rid of European people. It’s obviously ridiculous, but unfortunately there are people out there who think that.

“We’ve see similar acts of vandalism or graffiti trying to spread that message.”

“White genocide” is a popular theory among hate groups that posits that the ulterior motive of immigration is to overwhelm mostly Caucasian populations in European and North American countries.

The flyers found Tuesday in Medicine Hat direct the reader to a website run by Paul Fromm, an Ontario man identified by the U.S.-based anti-hate group Southern Poverty Law Centre as a leader in white supremacist activities.

It documents several high-profile appearances at rallies, his support for Ernst Zundel and his attendance in an Aryan Guard march in Calgary in 2009.

In 2011, Fromm ran against then immigration minister Jason Kenney in the Federal election on the issue of instituting a complete immigration freeze. In 2017, he was denied membership in the federal Conservative party prior to its leadership vote due to his extreme views.

It’s not clear whether Fromm or his group is behind the local incidents, or whether a reader of the website, which rails against the immigration system in Canada, took it upon themselves.

A different website that is equally critical of immigration appeared on posters found at Westminster United Church on Sunday. A pastor there complained that posters targeting homosexuals and visible minorities were offensive.