Europeans the Greatest in Everything since the Beginning

Posted on by

Europeans the Greatest in Everything since the Beginning

by Ricardo Duchesne

Steven King ignited a hysterical backlash in the summer of 2016 when he modestly asked, in response to a journalist who made a comment about “old white people” making up the majority of the GOP:

Where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?

When moderator Chris Hayes asked, “Than white people?”, King added:

Than Western Europe itself. That’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the United States of America.

At this point the panelists started speaking over each other in a frantic state, with some reporter asking: “What about Africa?” What about Asia?” Before cutting to a commercial and ending this dangerous line of conversation, Hayes said:

Let me note for the record that if you’re looking at the ledger of Western Civilization, for every flourishing democracy you’ve got Hitler and Stalin as well. So there’s a lot on both sides.

Apoplectic Reactions Against King

The next day the media together with academic servants of the state unleashed a barrage of articles denouncing King as “racist” and “mentally stunted”. Varying “lists” of the contributions of non-Europeans to “civilization” and to “modern society” appeared everywhere. A white female from Salon, after producing a list about non-European contributions to “humanity”, “first civilizations”, “citizen rule”, “written law”, “tools”, “surgery”, “numbers”, and “Christianity” itself, concluded:

Although “old white people” may be responsible for the GOP today, they are nowhere near responsible for humanity’s most important historical achievements.

Academics, with their usually condescending (and supercilious) tone, questioned the “idea that there is a separate and unique Western  civilization”. UCLA’s Lynn Hunt explained to a Time journalist, how the idea of the “rise of the West” was “invented” after WWII as a way of countering challenges against European colonialism and the “fear” that the West was “declining”. The concept of the West is “problematic”. Was Ancient Greece really Western? What about the contributions of Muslims to “some central points” of Western history?

Lynn Hunt, who herself has written a Western civ textbook, happily conceded to a journalist that the teaching of Western civilization has been replaced by “World History”, because “we have things in common with people everywhere” and such a course, the journalist agreed, “is more welcoming to students whose backgrounds could be traced somewhere other than Europe”.

Only an editor by the name “Akhilesh Pillalamarri” acknowledged “the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Enlightenment” as “unique contributions of the West”, while adding that “civilization itself arose in the Middle East ,” and that without non-European contributions to

the domestication of crops and animals, the first weight and measures, the first bureaucracies, organized government and religion, writing, and the wheel…algebra, distillation, and advanced astronomy and navigation…Western civilization, and indeed the modern global civilization build largely by the West, would have been impossible.

Most supporters of Western uniqueness would be satisfied with Pillalamarri’s assessment as fairly accurate, including his listing of “China’s many contributions” such as the invention of paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass, and clocks.

My View on Western Uniqueness

We should not be satisfied. In my books The Uniqueness of Western Civilizationand Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age I emphasized the “continuous creativity” of Europeans from ancient Greek times to the present. I also went back to the revolutionary contributions of pre-historic Europeans in the domestication and riding of horses, their co-invention of wheeled vehicles, their principal contribution to the “secondary-products revolution“, their invention of chariots, their creation of the most dynamic language in history, the proto-Indo-European language, their nurturing of the only true aristocratic culture in history (in which rulers were not despots but first among equals), their origination of the first heroic and tragic literature, and, most important of all, their responsibility for the appearance of “self-consciousness” in history, which laid the foundations for the Greek Miracle.

I highlighted the scholars who wrote about the Greek invention of secular observation of nature, the invention of mathematical proof, the invention of artistic realism, the invention of prose writing, the invention of historical writing, the invention of politicsthe invention of infantry warfare, the production of the highest sequence of the greatest thinkers in history, the Hellenistic Revolution in Science, not to mention technological and economic novelties.

I also mentioned the Roman contribution of the first rationalized legal system that recognized each citizen as a legal person, Rome’s unsurpassed engineering, aqueducts, Latin literature, and rational infrastructure of war-making as well as the greatest empire in human history. I argued that the Middle Ages were one of the most creative periods in history as evidenced by the invention of universities, corporate autonomy of the church and towns coupled with the “first modern legal system“, the invention of mechanical clocks, the scholastic method of investigation, the best water mills, Romanesque and Gothic architectural buildings unsurpassed in history, the three field system of agriculture, an entireRenaissance in the 12th century.

The West is filled with “origins”, “transitions”, “inventions”, “renaissances”, “discoveries”, and “revolutions”: the Printing Revolution, the Portuguese rounding of Africa, the discovery of the New World, Cartographic Revolution, the Italian Renaissance, the invention of perspective painting, the Copernican Revolution, the Newtonian Revolution, the Military Revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the First Industrial Revolution, the Second Industrial Revolution, the German Philosophical Revolution(s) from Leibniz to Kant to Hegel to Nietzsche to Heidegger, the invention of the Novel, the Romantic Rebellion, the Darwinian Revolution — to mention a few.

Meanwhile, the Rest of the world remained stuck without any major novelties after the inventions of the Bronze Age that we associate with the rise of civilization as such. There was change, but no revolutionary novelties, no major thinkers, no major scientists, no major artists. There were a few philosophical reflections by Muslims out of their reading of Aristotle early in the Middle Ages, and some novelties in pharmaceutical ingredients and optics. The Chinese also produced a few trinkets by way of water clocks, firecrackers, and paper. But Chinese “development” consisted only in demographic expansion, intensification of rice farming, and the building of big ships called “junks“.

Western Accomplishments Are Exponentially Greater

St Jerome in his study

The immense and continuous breakthrough of Europeans in all fields of human endeavour can only be properly captured when we zero in on particular philosophers, painters, novelists, mathematicians, logicians, musical composers. Even the startling lists that Charles Murray produced showing, for example, that the giants for each of the natural sciences (the top twenty in astronomy, physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, earth sciences, and mathematics) consisted of Europeans with the exception of one Japanese, do not capture adequately the originality of European greatness. His statistical calculation that 97 percent of accomplishment in the sciences occurred in Europe and North America from 800 BC to 1950 is obviously revealing.
.

So is his observation that the sheer number of “significant figures” in literature in the West is 835, whereas in India, the Arab World, China, and Japan combined the number is only 293. The same is true of his observation that the West produced 479 major figures in the visual arts as compared to 192 for China and Japan combined (with no significant figures listed for India and the Arab World). And the observation that the West produced all the great figures of classical music.

It is also very revealing that, according to my estimations, 95 percent, and most likely 98 percent, of the great explorers in history were European.

Still, these numbers don’t capture the qualitative originality of European greatness. Measuring European greatness has always entailed an evaluation of the way artists, novelists, philosophers, composers, mathematicians have occasioned a breakthrough, a new way of explaining history, a new style of poetic expression, a whole new philosophical outlook. In contrast, the measurement of non-European greatness tends to be about men who were good at following an existing tradition, perfecting an existing style of painting and poetic expression, reinforcing the unquestioned thoughts of sages.

The standards for Western greatness are far higher. Here is a glimpse of European greatness in classical music. We learn that in Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643), pioneer of opera, “for the first time in history there was a complete unity between dram and music”. We learn that “it is harmonic intensity above all that sets Bach’s music apart from that of his contemporaries…In Bach’s music a completely new harmonic language is forged […] There is no music in the literature that has Bach’s kind of rightness, of inevitability, of intelligence, of logically organized sequence of notes”.

When Haydn started, “the new music — the music of the style galant — was in its infancy and Haydn put everything together. It is not for nothing that he is called the Father of the Symphony. With equal Justice he can be called the father of the String Quartet…Rococo is left far behind; this is Classicism of the purest kind, and the music is big”. Beethoven, “from the beginning he was a creator, one of those natural talents, full of ideas and originality […] Then came Eroica, and music was never again the same. With one convulsive wrench, music entered the nineteenth century”.
Berlioz “was a natural revolutionary, the first of the conscious avant-gardists…Uninhibited, highly emotional, witty, mercurial, picturesque, he was very conscious of his Romanticism […] he was in every way a revolutionary, fully prepared to throw established and even sacred notions into a garbage can“. Chopin “was not only a genius as a pianist, he was creatively a genius, one of the most startlingly original ones of the century […] For the first time the piano became a total instrument: a singing instrument, an instrument of infinite colour, poetry, and nuance, a heroic instrument, an intimate instrument”. [The above citations are from The Lives of the Great Composers, 2006].
This kind of originality can be found in all the arts and sciences of the West. Actually, the entire history of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, historical writing, logic, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, economics, geography, is dominated by Europeans from beginning to end. After all, these disciplinary fields were all invented by Europeans.

Why this is so should be the mother of all historical questions. Yet even the thought that Europe was slightly greater terrifies an academic world obligated to push a multicultural mandate in education. This explains the hysteria against King.  Talking about European greatness is now identified as “mentally stunted”.

The only unique contribution Europeans are allowed, known as the “great divergence”, is the Industrial Revolution, with perhaps permission to connect this revolution to the rise of modern science. But students are quickly reminded that China is now surpassing the West in industrial development.  Jack Goldstone and Kenneth Pomeranz are two prominent names behind this historical revisionism. They say the West was merely different in reaching an industrial state first thanks to the exploitation of the Americas, the availability of coal in England, or the “fortuitous” development of an instrumentalist-engineering science in the 1700s. A few critics are begging for the inclusion of Western liberal institutions in the assessment of this divergence. But all in all, the uniqueness of the West is now suppressed.

This is what diversity enrichment entails.

Foolishly Lax Security in Admitting Syrians: ISIS Has 11,100 Blank Syrian Passports

Posted on by

 

 

 

Foolishly Lax Security in Admitting Syrians: ISIS Has 11,100 Blank Syrian PassportsISIS TERRORIST


Report: ISIS in possession of more than 11,000 blank Syrian passports

Source: World Tribune
Islamic State (ISIS) holds some 11,100 blank Syrian passports which German authorities fear could be used to bring potential terrorists into Europe, a report said. The passports, stolen from Syrian government sites, are genuine identity papers that have not yet been filled out with an individual’s details.

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

Posted on by

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Jagmeet Singh
Slick Suit Singh — Future Prime Minister of Canada?

Every social movement has its heroes. Within the spectrum of Canadian political correctness, this role is currently fulfilled by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. His incessant promotion of all-things multicultural — in particular a fervent dedication to our Islamic and LGBT communities — has advanced a globalist agenda to the extent that to even question its motives draws the wrath of social justice warriors from coast to coast.

Yet, being a most insatiable collective of hyper-aggressive globalists, this social dynamic is incomplete. What is required, of course, is a leader to emerge from one of Canada’s coveted Third World communities.

This is not Justin Trudeau, but it is NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh. Clad in slick suits and designer turbans, Mr. Singh recently became official poster-boy for Canada’s diversity industry. It is indeed a privileged position, as the standards held for “traditional” Canadian politicians do not apply to “multicultural” politicians such as Mr. Singh.

Recently, a protestor interrupted an NDP event in Brampton, Ontario. A woman got onstage and began to aggressively question Mr. Singh regarding his position on issues relating to Islam, and Sharia law in particular. Granted, the approach was ill-advised, as the spontaneity of her inquiry was not a proper platform in which to address sensitive issues of this nature.

Within a democratic political environment, however, a candidate running for office is required to address the concerns of their constituents. Jagmeet Singh did nothing of the sort. Rather, he waxed philosophical regarding the need for all Canadians to “love each other.” A noble thought, yet one which entirely evades the issues. Recently, Mr. Singh released a public statement that he opposes a motion put forth by the provincial government of Quebec requiring public servants to reveal their face when administering services to clients. After months of inquiry, our protestor wanted answers — yet none ever arrived.

The result of her interruption of the meeting was universal condemnation. Media attacked her. Liberal politicians vilified her. All of a sudden, Singh was catapulted to a position not unlike that of globalist messiah. He had single-handedly defeated the bad, bad racist. Victory was assured, and Mr. Singh was declared a hero.

Canadian “identity” politics have changed the nature of political discourse in Canada, and not for the better. Time was when the main issue within politics were issues — for example addressing public concern, as well as one’s duty to constituents. Times have changed. Today, after a forty year program of diversity indoctrination, the main issue is the identity of a politician.

Within contemporary society, Third World political figures are depicted as vital and brimming with benevolence. Conversely, Anglo-Canadians politicians — save Justin Trudeau — are old and tired. At present they are something of a political dinosaur. On the other hand, Singh and others like him are rendered untouchable. If one dares speak against them, prepare to be branded a racist.

What privilege! Protected by a teflon-coating of political correctness, identity politicians are accountable to no one but their own particular community. As for the Anglophone minority in Mr. Singh’s riding of Brampton, Ontario — a riding where over 90% of constituents are of Third World origin — these people have no choice but to grin and bear it. Any dissent amongst the ranks will bring the inevitable accusations of bigotry, and the rest. Talk about being placed in social straight jacket.

Since gaining office, Justin Trudeau has been a pin-up poster boy of culture-eroding globalism. Naturally, this is not good enough. For Canada’s diversity-bandits, nothing ever is. What is required is the real deal. A non-Anglophone, Third World Canadian leader of the variety we find in Jagmeet Singh — the NDP’s answer to their political failings of the past decade.

Singh is a social justice weapon-in-waiting. It is he the liberal left is placing on a political pedestal as an example to all Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, and the message is: do not mess with us, because we hold the most powerful weapon in modern-day Canadian politics — a “silver bullet” known as the accusation of racism. As for social and political issues, let them go gentle into that good night along with all forms of traditional Canadian identity. Canada now has a globalist messiah in the form of NDP candidate Jagmeet Singh. The post-modern promised land of Justin Trudeau’s “new” Canada await

Build a Wall: Stop the Illegals — protest outside Ahmed Hussen’s office

Posted on by
 Build a Wall: Stop the Illegals — protest outside Ahmed Hussen’s office
 
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Justin Trudeau’s Rousing Pro-Refugee Rant

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau’s Rousing Pro-Refugee Rant

 
by Tim Murray

Justin Trudeau

Ijust saw Trudeau’s press conference in Kelowna. It is obvious that flake-head has, after two years, learned his lines well, as one would expect of a former high school drama teacher. His impassioned rant about Canada’s “values” and tradition of “welcoming” refugees and immigrants pushed all the right emotional buttons and employed all of the standard cliches. When he was done, I was looking for a quick path to the bathroom. Fortunately the lid was up.

This man actually believes that Canada alone has discovered the perfect formula for making hyper third world immigration “work.” We know how to do it right. We know how to “integrate” migrants. How many migrants you ask? As many as want to come.

At that point, reporters jumped in to ask him why, if that is the case, that he has sent out emissaries to tell would-be refugees that “we have rules.” We welcome and will continue to ALL those who are fleeing persecution, war and disaster, BUT they must follow the “rules.” What are these “rules” you ask? Well, it usually goes like this. You put one foot on Canada’s soil and say, “I am applying for refugee status,” and you’re in. Then you get food, lodging and a work permit while you wait.

If your claim is rejected, you apply for an appeal. More time to settle in. If that too is rejected, you receive a deportation order. And then, in half the cases, you don’t show up for your “removal.” Chances are that you go to a big city (eg. Toronto) and melt away into the background. Since the government doesn’t keep track of who leaves the country, they won’t even know if you left or not. Moreover, you can rely upon quisling city councils to declare their cities as “sanctuaries” where local law enforcers are instructed NOT to cooperate with border security agents. In the meantime, if you can put down roots by siring a Canadian’s kid or having his baby, you’ll be harder to eject. Especially if you can find a credulous cleric to champion your cause and an idiot journalist or TV reporter to pull heartstrings. Churches come in handy that way, don’t they? Harbouring liars and law-breakers in the name of Christ.

Theoretically, TV and press reporters have an obligation to hold politicians’ feet to the fire, but in matters of immigration and refugee policy, that is seldom the case. They typically don’t press home the attack. In this case, obvious follow-up questions to Trudeau would have been, so you welcome the world, all the tens of millions of people who are fleeing awful circumstances, but you assure us that they will be processed according to the rules. How many resources would it take to do that in an expeditious way? How much would it cost Canadian taxpayers? If 5 million Haitians, 50 million Central Americans, 1 million Afghans, 5 million Syrians, 20 million Africans and 30 million Asians want in, what will be the price tag? A trillion dollars? 5 trillion? 15 trillion? Enough to double the federal debt?

Other questions would be, what do you mean by “integrate”? Integrate into what? Our mainstream culture? But you said that Canada doesn’t have a culture. And then you spoke of our “core values.” We have core values but no culture? Or is it that we have a culture but no core values? You continually tell us that “Diversity is Our Strength.” But how diverse shall our ‘diversity’ be?

Thanks to the policy of mass immigration we went from 6 to 260 ethnic enclaves since your father left office. Are you aiming to make it 460? Will we be dialling 15 for English? Will we driving on both the left and right sides of the road as we please? Will some be practicing FGM according to their preference? Will MPs be able to give their maiden speech in Tamil or whatever their mother tongue was? Will some be able to practice polygamy and collect federal money for each wife? And — the million dollar question — will there be diversity of thought and speech in your Canadian utopia?

I think we already have the answer to that one.

But alas, no reporter can be found to pose such questions. We don’t make journalists like that anymore. Instead we have virtue-signalling parrots of political correctness sculpted by Institutions of Higher Indoctrination. I don’t know what they teach in journalism school these days but I doubt that independence of mind is a course requirement.

More sickening than Trudeau’s rant is the certainty that the anti-immigration perspective will never be given equal time to make its case. Particularly not on the CBC, which is in large part funded by people whom the Prime Minister calls “angry white bigots.” They want our taxes, but they don’t want our opinions. But who does? I mean, we only reflect between 40-60 percent of public opinion on most points. No wonder polling firms refuse to run our questions.

If you are looking for a political vehicle to give voice to your concerns on this issue, don’t look to Andrew Scheer’s Official Opposition Conservative Party. As reflected in his choices for the Shadow Cabinet, immigration-reformers, aka “the far right,” are not welcome in his “big tent” party. He is determined that his party not be portrayed as ‘anti-immigrant,’ ‘racist’ or heartless. The name of the game is not to salvage what remains of Euro-Canadian heritage, but to defeat Justin Trudeau. To do that, CBC panelists insist, the Conservatives must be Liberals. Wait, do you mean they’re not Liberals already?

Let’s be honest. Is the nauseating cant that issued out of Justin Trudeau’s mouth in Kelowna any different than what came out of the mouth of Conservative Jason Kenny during his tenure as Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism? Is Conservative Chris Alexander’s or Lisa Rait’s or Michael Chong’s world view substantially different than Boy Wonder’s? Is dog excrement so different than cat excrement?

We need a revolution folks.

CFIRC PROTESTS INVASION OF ILLEGALS — IMMIGRATION MINISTER AHMED HUSSEN’S CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Posted on by

CFIRC PROTESTS INVASION OF ILLEGALS — IMMIGRATION MINISTER AHMED HUSSEN’S CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

September 9, 2017

 

For Immediate Release

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee is protesting today  at 2:00 p.m. outside the constituency office of Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen (99 Ingram Drive) in Toronto.

 

We are here to protest the utter failure of this Moslem, Somali refugee, immigration lawyer to protect our borders from a stream of illegals pouring into Canada, mostly through Quebec. Over 7,000 have entered since early July putting a huge strain on housing and social welfare. When he was appointed minister earlier this year, we had our doubts but wished him well. Sadly, he has proved himself a captive of his pro-invader background and totally unable to STAND ON GUARD FOR CANADA!

 

Canadians have been sickened by pictures of highly paid Mounties carrying suitcases for many well dressed Haitian illegals. They should have shoved them back across the border.

MOUNTIES WELCOME SOMALI ILLEGALS

Canadians have been further sickened by pictures of Canadian soldiers who should be building a fence or wall, instead erecting tents to house the invaders. Meanwhile Gen. JonathanVance, the Chief of Defence Staff of the Canadian Army prances in the Ottawa gay pride parade with Justin Trudeau while his country is invaded.

MOUNTIES GREETING ILLEGALS

The Trudeau government has shown no will to resist the invasion. A safe country treaty with the U.S. requires a would-be refugee applicant to apply in the first safe country he arrives in. For these Haitians and others streaming across the Quebec border, that would be the U.S. If they cross at a proper border crossing, they should be turned back. However, should they cross 100 yards away from a border crossing, against all logic, we pretend we don’t know where they come from and let them make a “refugee” claim. They are criminal illegals. They should be turned around and sent back.

 

Ahmed Hussen, Justin Trudeau, the RCMP and the Canadian Army have utterly failed to do their duty to STAND ON GUARD for Canada and for the Canadian taxpayer.

 

The illegals will cost the Canadian taxpayer hundreds of millions in welfare, legal aid, medicare, dental care (better than for Canadians on welfare), language and skills training and, of course, processing. Appeals can stretch their stay, even if rejected, to more than 5 years in Canada.

 

It’s time to retake control of the borders. Deport all illegals. Build a fence or wall and turn any intruder back to the U.S.

 

CONTACT: Paul Fromm, Director — 416-428-5308

 

–30–

Illegals as Cuckoos

Posted on by

Cuckold

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Who Needs A Functional Refugee Policy In A Borderless World?

Posted on by

Who Needs A Functional Refugee Policy In A Borderless World?

by Tim Murray

No doubt you have seen images of some of the more than 10,000 migrants who have streamed illegally into Canada from the United States at unofficial border crossings — for the most part in Manitoba and Quebec. What began as a trickle eight months ago has become a flood in August. The City of Montreal reported that while there were 50 per day in the first half of July, there are between 250 and 300 crossing illegally now.

The sheer logistics of processing, transporting, sheltering and feeding this latest surge of border-jumpers has overwhelmed the limited resources of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). And the RCMP is pitching in too, smiling at migrants as they help them with their luggage. It seems that this fabled law enforcement agency has become an extension of the hospitality industry, a collection of bell hops and Walmart greeters. Or are they the public relations arm of the globalist government in Ottawa? Perhaps they should be wearing their ceremonial red serge uniforms as they chaperone illegals.

Amidst the chaos, make-shift shelters have been constructed and initial screening and vetting checks postponed. Because of the swell of refugee claims, the basic background check that would normally take 72 hours to complete will now take two months. Will Canada mimic Europe, overwhelmed by mass migration and the problems that ensue from it? The signs are ominous. The ship of state is drifting, and there is a flake at the helm.

This crisis caught authorities by surprise. But it shouldn’t have. When President Trump mused about suspending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 60,000 Haitians, one could have expected that they would make a mad dash to the candy store up north. Especially when they got a personal invitation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, always anxious to play the role of the white knight of generosity and compassion. His twitter message was, “Regardless of who you are or where you came from, there’s always a place for you in Canada.” Come on in!

Trudeau’s hypocrisy was breathtaking. What the media failed to notice that Canada had a temporary program for displaced Haitian “quake-fugees” of its own, but it was wound down in August of 2016— under Justin Trudeau’s watch! So instead of telling Haitian asylum-seekers the truth, that the government was unprepared to receive them, the Prime Minister chose to grandstand, to contrast himself to the evil Trump. He was going to drive the Welcome Wagon and set up impromptu welcome stations along the border. The claimants would be bussed to Montreal, one of Canada’s ten self-styled “sanctuary cities”. Yes, Canada has them too. What columnist Daniel Greenfield called “the coalition of the self-righteous”.

Renegade city councils voted to permit illegal migrants to receive housing, avail themselves of food banks, libraries and other services with no questions asked about their immigration status. In sane times it would be unthinkable for the most junior level of government to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers. But these are not sane times. Instead, city law enforcement agencies have been ordered not to apprehend “undocumented” immigrants or indeed inquire into their immigration status. One gains the impression that the Trudeau administration is not terribly upset with this arrangement.

Taxpayers, however, have a different view. It should not come as a shock that 41% of Canadians polled by the Angus Reid Institute supported the statement that Canada was taking in too many refugees. And a Reuters poll conducted on March 8-9 found that all but 36% of respondents believed that those illegally crossing the border should not be allowed to remain in the country. They are not in love with the idea that queue jumpers who bypassed official border crossings to do an end run around the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country agreement, can just walk into the country, declare that they are seeking refugee status, and while in limbo apply for work permits and receive social assistance. Simply put, the ongoing invasion is trying their patience.

No wonder. Former Deputy Immigration Minister John Manion once estimated that refugee claimant expenditures alone cost Canadian taxpayers around $2 billion/year. The cumulative cost in the fifteen years following 1985 would put it in the $30 billion range. And it doesn’t help when many deportation cases become mired in extended legal battles in the courts. But as costly as this proves to be, deportation is a bargain compared to the annual $30-35 billion net fiscal burden that largely unskilled migrant citizens impose on other Canadians. The fact is that these migrants do not earn enough income to pay the taxes necessary to defray the costs of the social services provided to them. In the case of Syrian migrants, it was found that after one year of residency, only one in ten (12%) had found employment.

This is not a recipe for smooth integration, and it bodes ill for their Canadian-born children. Already, some 43% of second generation visible minority youth in Canada feel themselves to be alienated victims. The myth of Canadian ‘Exceptionalism’, of our having found the secret formula for ethnic and racial harmony, is wearing thin on the ground. The jury is in. Canada has a limited absorptive capacity. Cities like Vancouver are suffering from ethnic indigestion. Too many too fast and without the necessary resources to help them. Rather than fit into the nation, many newcomers are fitting into ethnic enclaves that have grown exponentially . Liberal commentators call this diversity, but others call it cultural fragmentation and emergent tribalism. The downstream costs are incalculable. Public safety and security may exact the greatest toll.

All of this is the bitter harvest of the infamous “Singh decision” handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, when our learned judges determined that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms meant that all “persons,” not just citizens, were entitled to full Charter protection simply by having their feet planted on Canadian soil. Since then illegal migrants are like the guests on Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life”. Say the magic words, “I am a refugee” and you win the prize. All they need to do is get here. That’s it. And the easiest way to do that is to walk through an unguarded border crossing. Presto, you’re in. Getting you out, on the other hand, can take 3-5 years, assuming that you don’t play hide and seek.

The trouble with Canada’s refugee system is that, as Margaret Thatcher would have said, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The Canadian Welfare State, or any welfare state, cannot survive the crushing burden that untold numbers of failed state migrants will place upon it. The late Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman was right. You can have the welfare state or you can have open borders, but you can’t have both. Unlimited generosity is not sustainable.

In order to pre-empt a nativist backlash, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale assured Canadians that crossing the border illegally was not an automatic free ticket to citizenship. But Goodale was disingenuous. He neglected to mention that Canada will not deport people to 12 designated countries and locations, mainly in Africa and the Middle East — unless they stand convicted of a crime or a human rights infraction or are deemed to be a security risk. According to the latest available data supplied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, almost one in four people who were allowed to make a claim in the first nine months of 2016 were from one of these areas.

Many of them are Somali claimants who made up the bulk of illegal border crossers in Emerson, Manitoba. They are the beneficiaries of what is known as an “administrative deferral of removal.” Temporary bans can be removed at any time of course, but if recent history is any guide, these claimants will be allowed time to apply for permanent residency. All of this proves asylum-shopping works. Shop around and you’ll soon find out that Canada is a soft touch.

Now for the dirty little secret of Canada’s refugee system. Roughly half of refugee claimants who are deported are not “removed”. They don’t show up at the appointed place at the appointed time.

To illustrate the point, it might be helpful to consider the testimony of former senior immigration enforcement officer David Richardson. While Richardson was careful to point out that he left the department in 2003, an officer he spoke with at Pearson International airport confirmed that, in his words, “Not much has changed on the refugee front, at least in Toronto.”

Richardson continued:

When I worked in Removals, sending failed claimants back to the U.S. at Buffalo N.Y., less than 50% of failed claimants showed up for removal. At that time the Fort Erie Point of Entry (POE) alone was taking in over 5,000 claims a year. Multiply that by the numbers taken in at the major airports and POEs across the country and it could be conservatively estimated that approximately 65 to 70 thousand claims are received a yea r, easily. Now (since) these other POEs were getting the same removal numbers as Fort Erie as I am sure they were — based on my conversations with fellow officers in my position as Union Rep for Southern Ontario — then you can safely estimate that 20-30 thousand claimants were no-shows for removals. Incredibly, the department’s response to these numbers was that the no-shows left on their own! Yeah, I know, I was dumbfounded too.

Richardson added that since departments only keep stats for the most recent five years, the total number of no-shows is unknown. There is no running total. And to this day no one knows how many deportees or illegals still reside in the country as no solid exit data exists as no exit controls are in place.

One-time Immigration Minister Joe Volpe once estimated that there were 120,000 illegals in Canada. Some are visa overstays — temporary foreigner workers and students — but many are rejected refugee claimants who have disappeared into the warm welcoming bosom of our growing list of sanctuary cities. It is not hard to disappear in Toronto, or any other ‘progressive’ jurisdiction where an illegal migrant on the lam can find a safe harbour and a cheap labour employer that stands ready to hire them.

Meanwhile, in the wake of 9/11 federal governments have sought to assuage public anxiety by promising more resources for border security while they quietly lay off staff. This is what David Richardson calls “The Big Lie”. Veterans of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would say the same thing. They don’t need changes in the law to do their job. They just need more people. If there was a will, there would be a way. But there isn’t.

In surveying recent decades of immigration and refugee policy and performance, one can conclude two things. The system is broken. And no government has had a sincere wish to fix it. Certainly not the reigning Trudeau Liberals. Instead of developing a plan of action to stem the surge of illegal immigration, the government is responding with reactionary band-aid solutions driven largely by political posturing with little understanding of what constitutes sound asylum policy. Rather than composing a coherent strategy, they are haphazardly importing America’s problems.

So why then did we vote for them? Why do politicians with no interest in controlling migrant flows or maintaining the integrity of the system continue to be elected? The awful truth is that fifty years of social engineering and open borders propaganda have left their mark. Belief in national sovereignty has been going out of fashion, nowhere more so than in Canada. To the point that a Canadian Prime Minister can now proudly boast that ours is the world’s first “post-national” state, a microcosm of the dis-United Nations. When Barack Obama told a Montreal audience last spring that he was a “citizen of the world” , they clapped loudly. They found another brother-in-arms, as if the preening charlatan in the Prime Minister’s Office was not enough. I mean, how many Quislings do Canadians need?

If you want to know how Justin Trudeau views the nation, then read the words spoken by Serge Bouchereau, the organizer of an event outside Montreal’s Olympic Stadium to welcome Haitian asylum-seekers. “This is a vast, rich country that can welcome many, many more people who are in bad situations and can’t stay in their countries.”

How many more you ask? The sky is the limit and the queue is endless.

No problem. After all, who needs a functional refugee and immigration policy in a borderless world?

Eyewitness Account of Today’s Anti-immigration Rally in Quebec City

Posted on by
Eyewitness Account of Today’s Anti-immigration Rally in Quebec City
Violent Antifa street thugs attacked immigration protesters today in Quebec City, but, in the end, the march organized by a group call La Meute proceeded.
 
CTV (August 18, 2017) reported: “Hundreds of members of a far-right group marched to protest illegal immigration in Quebec City on Sunday, but were delayed by several hours by far-left protesters who tried to shut them down by force.

The far-right demonstration was organized by La Meute, which translates from French to “the pack.” The group is opposed to Islam and many view it as racist.

La Meute had a permit to protest and planned to march at 2 p.m., but was confronted by hundreds of left-wing protesters, some calling themselves “anti-fascists.”

After police attempted to allow the far-right march to go ahead, left-wing protesters – some wearing face-coverings — launched fireworks, lit fires and lobbed bottles and chairs. They also attacked members of the media.

Police quickly declared the left-wing counter-protest illegal, citing “violence and vandalism,” but many protesters remained. The far-right group waited inside a government building until the standoff ended. At least one person was arrested.

La Meute proceeded to march around 6 p.m., carrying signs that said things like: “It’s not racist or xenophobic to want to preserve quality of life and the safety of the country.” Others held signs that referenced “free speech.”

La Meute claims that it does not discriminate based on race but is opposed to illegal border crossings. The RCMP intercepted 3,800 asylum seekers crossing the border between the U.S. and Quebec between Aug. 1 and 15, after intercepting nearly 3,000 in July.”

Quebec protest

A medic tends to a man injured during clashes between Quebec’s far-right and counter-protesters. The man had been carrying a Patriote flag, a symbol of Quebec nationalism. (Maxime Corneau/Radio-Canada)

A good supporter sent us this report.

“There was a political demonstration today in Quebec City by a group called “La Meute” (“Meute” is French for “pack” or “wolfpack”).  I live in the region, so I decided to try to join their anti-immigration march near the provincial legislature building despite my not being an official member or Facebook friend of La Meute.  I tried, but I couldn’t get in since the place was blocked by left-wing protesters who knew of the location of La Meute’s rally point in the basement of a parkade.
 
La Meute’s facebook publicly said they would meet in the basement at 2:00 pm.  I looked at the anti-fa’s facebook, and they were having a simultaneous rally at 2:00 pm around 500 meters away.  I waited outside the parkade for a good time to enter the basement to meet with La Meute, and saw about 5 La Meute members entering with their flags and paw print t-shirts.  However, my waiting for a good time was a bad idea, as a whole bunch of the impatient anti-fa protesters arrived there at around 1:50 pm.  There were so many, that the Quebec City police could not hold them back, it appears.  It looked like there were about 3 types of antifa:  1) people who weren’t afraid to show their face, 2) young anarchists whose faces were covered with bandanas (henceforth “bandanas”) and 3) communists with their red flags.  The various groups did not seem to have a central leader, but were obviously united in their ideology.  I saw banners for open immigration, and anti-capitalism.  The usual unholy alliance and sympathisers tagged along.
 
Faced with the likelihood of not being able to join the La Meute protest, I just sat and mingled with the anti-fa counterprotesters and watched, trying not to gather too much attention to myself, hoping for a later opportunity to join with the La Meute people, but in vain.  At one point, I asked (in French) some passing La Meute members if I could march with them, but they didn’t respond, understandably a little concerned about getting attacked by the bandana wearers who were shouting at them, just meters from me.  At that point onward, I was definitely targeted by the bandanas as a possible right-winger, although in the confusion, some of the distant anti-fa may have thought I was just a blogger, wannabe journalist, or just stupidly curious.  At one point the bandanas were ripe for violence against me and started yelling “fuck off”, but a hefty policeman with a holstered handgun protected me.  If not, I might have been in a fistfight with the antifa or worse (being far outnumbered).  Being around 50 years old, the youngsters were maybe a little hesitant to attack an old man anyway.  But it was close.  I didn’t leave though, since I had spent 2 hours getting to the location, and I wanted to see what happened when the protesters would meet the counter-protesters.  I didn’t travel all that way for nothing.  I was mostly looking at my cell-phone on a set of cement steps, almost like a middle-aged man minding his own business on a summer day, looking at the news.
 
I did not have a bird’s eye view of everything that went on, viewed from every street, but I gather that the La Meute gathering was very very small.  I estimate that they were around 10 people, and they were far far outnumbered by the various antifa protesters outside (I guess around 600 people).  In the media, La Meute claimed around 600 followers in the basement of the parkade, but I can not confirm that.  La Meute members never did hold their public protest outside while I was there, so I left at 3:00 pm (being bored, having waited 1 hour for their march to start).
 
While I was there, I saw a few events that were not reported in the media.
 
1) Some La Meute members were leaving the basement of the parkade, and were heckled by bandanas from a hillock above the street.  The La Meute people, 2 men, and 1 young woman, were departing from the march rally point, it seems, they had some signs for the planned La Meute march, but the signs were blank, and had no writing on them at all.  One bandana threw a wooden stake downward toward the three La Meute members.  The stake was hefty enough, around 2 inches by 2 inches, and around 4 feet long with an angled tip.  If the stake had been thrown with any more force or accuracy it could have seriously injured someone or have taken out an eye.  Fortunately the stake hit the pavement, and only skidded toward the three La Meute people.  The bandanas were yelling “fuck off” at them.  The La Meute woman shouted back at them in french that she would get her revenge someday.  Many of the bandanas had English accents, and were either from anglophone communities in Montreal, or were from outside the province or country.
 
2) One short bandana was a college-age woman.  She had a black satchel filled with what sounded like empty beer bottles rattling around, ready to pitch at police or La Meute members, if needed.  I didn’t ever see her throw any of the bottles, but she was there with her satchel, and nervous, with uncertain flight-or-fight eyes.  The bandana types were dressed mostly in black pants, black t-shirts and black bandanas incidentally.  The bandanas were hopping around and chanting, and very restless, almost like a troop of hooting chimpanzees spoiling for battle.  They constantly went from location to location, and hopped from guardrails down to the sidewalk that I was on.  At one point, they went around the parkade building and disappeared from my view for around 30 minutes.  I find it curious that despite the fact that the antifa vastly outnumbered La Meute, I saw fear in her eyes, perhaps a little from fear of the police, but just a little fear maybe from the fact that there could be a confrontation with La Meute?  I speculate.
 
3) Perhaps the most interesting event to me was a passerby by who went by the antifa at the wrong time.  I did not see them doing the act, but when the man passed by me, his face was covered with black ink.  It looked like the kind of ink that one can wash off (water soluble).  So at least they did not throw permanent dye on the man’s face.  A bunch of reporters descended on him, and asked him questions.  He was in his late forties, well groomed, white, and had a salt and pepper beard.  He had black trousers and a purple dress shirt.  He told the reporters that he was not a member of La Meute, and that he was just visiting the Quebec area.  It seems the anti-fa threw some of the ink on him from above as he passed by on the street below.  Perhaps they mistook him for a wealthy man, which is almost as bad as a racist in the communist’s eyes.  One of the anti-fa medical types (see below) gave him some kleenex or wipes so that he could start to wipe off the paint/ink from his face.  I am not sure if he was from La Meute or not, but if he wasn’t, then the anti-fa got a little carried away on that innocent guy.
 
4) At around 2:30pm a male sympathiser with La Meute tried to get inside of the police blockade (remember, I was viewing him from inside “enemy lines” so-to-speak), but the police pushed him back with much male force, seemingly concerned for his safety, or because he was a late arrival
 
5) The bandanas seem to have a designated medical staff with red tape in the form of a cross on their shoulders, a designated quasi-medical corps among the anti-fa (not a bad idea!).  One of the women had some antiseptic napkins in a fanny pack, and probably some bandages, if necessary. In the news, I saw a picture of a different woman with a similar “Red Cross” type of colored tape on her shoulders.  So there was more than one of these medical helpers.  The quasi-medical staff lends an air of legitimacy and organization to the antifa, despite their violent bent.
 
6) The protesters were overwhelmingly young and white (I guess around 97% white).  
 
7) One bandana leader was a young college-aged man with piercing blue eyes (almost like an actor’s eyes).  When he spoke  French, it was with a North American English accent.
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Canada Day on Roxham Road: protesters, supporters clash over asylum seekers at border

Posted on by

Canada Day on Roxham Road: protesters, supporters clash over asylum seekers at border

Far-right, migrant advocacy groups gather at popular Quebec border crossing

Roxham Road asylum

The two groups confronted each other from across a divide created by Sûreté du Québec and RCMP officers. (CBC)

2.1k shares

As a small group of asylum seekers headed through a wooded area at the Canada-U.S. border crossing in Hemmingford, Que. on Canada Day, two clashing groups of protesters and supporters waited nearby.

Storm Alliance and La Meute, self-described “ultranationalist” groups, organized a demonstration in time for the nation’s 150th anniversary at Roxham Road to protest would-be refugee claimants crossing the border on foot.

“We want to send a message, we want the government to send a message to anybody that wants to cross over illegally, unlawfully that there’s going to be people looking out for you,” said Dave Tregget, the national president of Storm Alliance.

As dozens donned black T-shirts and patrolled the crossing Saturday morning, they were met by a counter protest organized by a migrant advocacy group.

Holding up colourful posters welcoming refugees, Solidarity Across Borders members also gathered at the popular spot for asylum seekers.

“They are a group that’s enabling racism and hiding behind other issues,” said Montreal-based activist Jaggi Singh.

“They say they’re defending the charter of rights — well if you’re really defending the charter of rights defend the rights of refugees to cross and make their claims.”

Roxham Road Canada Day

Solidarity Across Borders members also gathered at the popular spot for asylum seekers. (CBC)

The busload of supporters clapped as a Nigerian family made their way through the ditch and into Canada, while others raised questions about asylum seekers and lax border laws.

“They’re criminals,” said Pearl Roy. “They’re coming into our country illegally and we’re welcoming this?”

The family was then taken into custody by RCMP officers and brought to their offices, said Staff Sergeant Brian Byrne.

Byrne said asylum seekers are taken into custody so officers run background checks. They then can start the process of making a refugee claim.

War of words

The two groups confronted each other from across a divide created by Sûreté du Québec and RCMP officers, who wouldn’t let protesters from either side make their way through.

It isn’t the first time far-right and migrant advocacy groups from Quebec have made their way to at the popular crossing spot in the Montérégie region.

While members of the Storm Alliance and La Meute have been routinely gathering in clusters to quietly observe asylum seekers for a few months, the situation on Canada Day quickly grew tense.

Singh turned to a woman on the other side, wearing a white-and-red shirt with a maple leaf on and with the words “old stock and proud.”

“​What do you mean old stock? Where are you from?” he said.

Roxham Road protest

Police were present at the duelling protests at Roxham Road on Canada Day. (CBC)

She took a sip from her water bottle and spit it out in his direction, smiling briefly, before giving Singh the middle finger.

“I’m not any less Canadian or Québécois than you,” Singh said.