He’s A Fingerless, Ghanaian Homosexual Too Stupid to Come out of the Cold & Now He’s OURS!

Posted on by
He’s A Fingerless, Ghanaian Homosexual Too Stupid to Come out of the Cold & Now He’s OURS!

Seidu Mohammed is the poster boy for our failed immigration system which does little to protect Canada from illegals or permanent leeches on the Canadian taxpayer.
 
He’s just 24 and you’re going to be paying for him for a long, long time. He’s a homosexual form Ghana. He lost all his fingers having headed out in a blizzard as he snuck across the border from the U.S. Christmas Eve. This past Friday and immigration hearing gave taxpayers a belated lump of coal in their stockings as they granted this illegal “refugee” status.
 
CBC (May 18, 2017) gives you the good news: “A Ghanaian asylum seeker who lost his fingers to frostbite while crossing into Manitoba from the U.S. on Christmas Eve has won his case to stay.

“I’m so happy. I don’t know what to say. Now I’m home, I’m finally home now,” said Seidu Mohammed, who learned Wednesday night that the Immigration and Refugee Board had accepted his claim. … he was in tears, he was in tears, he really was. He is overjoyed, ecstatic. I mean it’s a life-altering moment for this young man.”

Mohammed, 24, said he faces an uphill battle, learning to cope without any fingers, but he is determined to make a life in Winnipeg.

Inline image 1

“This is the city I want to stay in. There are a lot of good people here,” he said.[And we sure are lucky to have you!]

“Mohammed fled Ghana for the United States in 2015 fearing for that his sexual orientation would put his life in danger.He says he was outed as a bisexual man during soccer training camp in Brazil in 2014 after the team manager found him with a same-sex partner. “It’s illegal to be gay in Ghana. It’s a crime,” said [his lawyer Bashir] Khan, noting the refugee board “acknowledged him as a person in need of protection.”

Shortly after he arrived in Manitoba, Mohammed told CBC that his father, a strict Muslim, disowned him. Mohammed worried he would be persecuted — or worse — if he was forced to return to Ghana, and he didn’t believe the government or police would protect him. …

Fearing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mohammed made the decision — like hundreds of others in the past year — to sneak into Canada and apply for refugee status.  Since January, 2,000 people have made that same journey, with the majority crossing the border in Manitoba or Quebec. While planning his crossing, Mohammed met another man, Razak Iyal, 35, who had the same idea.

The two of them took a bus to Grand Forks, N.D., then flagged a cab and spent $400 for a ride to a spot near the U.S.-Canada border on Dec. 24. From there, they made the long walk into Emerson, Man. It was Christmas Eve, and the underdressed men shambled through frozen fields in a temperature that hovered around the –18 C mark, but with a wind chill that made it feel more like –30.”

Mohammed was safe in the U.S. Under our law, he was obligated to apply for “Refugee” status under the First Safe Country Act. His application failed because he wasn’t properly prepared. So, he went asylum shopping. Under our  dysfunctional system, had he come to a border crossing, he’d eventually have been turned back because he had come from a safe country and was obliged to apply there. However, because he cross through a field, our idiot law pretends we don’t know where he came from. [I mean could he have fallen out of an airplane, could he have used a giant pogo stick on the U.S.-Mexican border and vaulted into Canada. The law is an ass and pretends if doesn’t know the sneaks have come from a safe country — the U.S. So, they are allowed to make a “refugee” claim.

Bottom line: Being a sneak and an illegal works and the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook for Mohammed for ever!

Century Initiative: Make Canada a “Global Nation” through a Massive Increase in Immigration

Posted on by
  • Century Initiative: Make Canada a “Global Nation” through a Massive Increase in Immigration

    by Ricardo Duchesne

    The “Goal” is 100 Million by 2100

    Check this out: in 2016 Century Initiative (CI) was started by a group of corporate managers (with the assistance of academics, journalists, Muslims and feminists) solely for the purpose of bringing about a 50-per-cent hike in immigration to Canada (from the current annual level of 300,000 to 450,000) by 2021. CI is calling for a “permanent” increase until the end of this century with the “goal” of “transforming” Canada into a “global nation” of 100 million inhabitants “unified by diversity and prosperity.”

    We must not underestimate the power of CI in pushing through this goal, or at least persuading Canadians that their country must be totally diversified. The founders of CI are members of the global business elite, and their associates are well established in the media, in the three main political parties, and in the conformist academic world, which should not be surprising since CI is merely pushing for the intensification of the already established ideology of immigrant multiculturalism.

    In a series of upcoming articles, I will be dissecting and exposing the many unfounded, poorly researched, and deceptive arguments employed by CI to manipulate “ordinary” Canadians into believing that their nation was never good enough and will decline irreversibly if the doors are not totally opened to third world mass immigration.

    First, a few words about two of the main characters behind this plan to destroy Canada’s European heritage.

    Dominic Barton
    One key founder of CI is Dominic Barton, director of McKinsey & Co, considered “the most prestigious” worldwide management consulting firm. This is a firm dedicated to the nullification of national identities in order to create deracinated generic humans with no identity other than the “lifestyles” they purchase in global stores. McKinsey’s alumni have been appointed as CEOs or high-level executives at Google, American Express, IBM, Westinghouse Electric, Sears, AT&T, PepsiCo, and Enron. Be it noted that Rajat Gupta, the first non-American-born partner to be elected as the firm’s managing director, was convicted in 2010 of insider trading.

    Barton is best described as a globalist, not a Canadian. He is currently based in London and has spent most of his business life outside Canada as McKinsey’s Chairman in Asia from 2004-09, based in Shanghai, and in Korea from 2000-04. Among his titles, he is currently the chair of the Seoul International Business Advisory Council, a trustee of the Brookings Institution, and an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

    We should not confuse globalism with globalization. Globalists, as I wrote in a recent article, purposely encourages this confusion, but globalization is factual accountabout the accelerating interactions of nations since the discovery of the New World and the creation of international markets, shipping and railway communications networks. Globalism, in contrast, is an ideology that advocates open borders, mass immigration, and the liquidation of (Western) national identities.

    Barton wittingly promotes this confusion from the opening salvo of his justification for permanently high levels of immigration. He says that increasing Canada’s population to 100 million via immigration is the only way “to counteract challenges associated with our aging population.”

    If Canada’s population continues to grow at its current rate — 1.2 percent per year — we will see a significant decline in our productivity growth as we have less people participating in the workforce. We will become a nation of about 53 million people by 2100, outside the top 50 countries in the world by population. As our population relative to the rest of the world shrinks, so will our economic prospects and influence in global affairs.

    He admits that “the challenges that Japan faces from its aging population are even more dramatic than Canada’s.”

    Coupled with Japan’s low birthrate, based on current trends, the size of their workforce will be nearly cut in half in the next fifty years.

    Which should lead any reasonable person to ask: Why then is Japan’s leadership looking for solutions that do not entail any change in the country’s zero immigration policy? Answer: Japan’s leaders are not interested in destroying the nation of Japan. They are for globalization, not for globalism.

    Barton, however, would have Canadians believe that the Japanese leadership is implementing policies akin to what the CI is calling for. He writes about how “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched an advisory panel on the issue in 2015 and set a key policy goal of maintaining Japan’s population at 100 million people.” Then he says:

    There are two things that Canada can learn from Japan and other advanced countries faced with similar demographic challenges; first, building the necessary supportsystems that make it easier for families to have children (e.g., child care, tax policy) and second, maximizing workforce participation (e.g., by investing in training programs).

    Actually, what Barton should be telling Canadians is that we can learn from the Japanese leadership that there is no reason to increase immigration in the degree to which we institute policies encouraging Canadian women to have more children. The Japanese leadership is not calling for immigration, it is calling for a boost in the birthrate ofJapanese women, “by pledging more public support for households raising children and increasing welfare facilities to eliminate instances of family members quitting jobs to care for elderly relatives.”

    Why the double standard, Barton, why do you identify Canadians who are against massive immigration as “xenophobic and racist” while praising the Japanese leadership for their pro-Japanese ethnic-oriented plans?

    It gets worse than this. CI does call for support for family leave policy, a national daycare system; however, there is nothing in their program about encouraging Canadian women to have more children; rather, the wording is that this is “especially important for new arrivals who may not have the same access to childcare options” as Euro Canadian women. In other words, the aim is to create a national daycare system for immigrants, as a way of encouraging immigrants to have children in Canada.

    Goldy Hyder

     

    Goldy Hyder (left) meeting with Ahmed D. Hussen MPA to convene Century Initiative

    Another founder of Century Initiative is Goldy Hyder, President and CEO of Hill + Knowlton Strategies. Hyder is a Muslim linked with the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada. He was the Keynote Speaker at the 20th Annual Parliament Hill Eid-ul-Adha Celebrations in 2014. The basic message of his speech was that the “true Muslim faith is based on the values of peace, equality, respect and understanding — but that is not the message being shared with Canadians.” The “Muslim community are not doing enough to paint a positive picture” of Islam to combat the “distorted image we see on television.”

    Hyder never explains why it is “distorted” to inform Canadians that Muslim immigrants have been responsible for almost all the terrorist attacks in Europe. Here is a list of Islamic terror attacks in “non-Muslim” Europe since 9/11. He does not tell us either what’s so distorting about informing Europeans that Muslim migrants have been responsible for a rape epidemic across Europe. The fact is that, contrary to Hyder’s claim, the Canadian media has been suppressing data about the thousands of rapes and hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by Muslim migrants in the last few years across Europe.

    Let it be known that the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada has interesting ties to big donations from the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    Hyder, in a rather odd, but very revealing, article published in The Globe and Mail on January 16, 2017, complained against the use of the word “elitist” on the grounds that this word inculcates Canadians

    to be inherently distrustful of experts, to presume that a person is less ethical because they have a higher or lower net worth, or to believe that those with global outlooks aren’t patriotic.

    The globalist elitist Hyder also complained that this term “risks creating an ‘us versus them'” psychology that discourages ordinary Canadian, get this, from being “inclusive” of global millionaires!

    This is the state of pathological thinking that now permeates the left-corporate alliance. Ordinary, lower income, Canadians who suffer from the importation of cheap labour and the degradation of their heritage are now the perpetrators of exclusionary labels.

    Speaking of mistrust, in upcoming articles about the Century Initiative, I will make it amply clear why ordinary Canadians should mistrust elitists like Hyder. I will demonstrate that almost all the economic, demographic, historical, and ethical claims made by CI cannot be trusted one bit, but should be seen for what they are: a globalist effort to transform Canada into a mere shopping mall without any national identity that is uniquely Canadian, but simply a place like all the other European nations where the same mass immigration globalist agenda is being pushed without democratic debate but enforced with extremely deceptive, “us versus them” labels about “racists” and “xenophobes” against ordinary indigenous Europeans.

 

Should We Take a Chance on Syrians — One of the World’s Major Terrorist Hotbeds?

Posted on by

Should We Take a Chance on Syrians — One of the World’s Major Terrorist Hotbeds?

 

Syrian gumballs

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

One of the Immigration Lobby’s Biggest Lies: Immigrants Create Jobs

Posted on by

One of the Immigration Lobby’s Biggest Lies: Immigrants Create Jobs

 

immigrants create jobs

Note to Moslems Rapists In Germany

Posted on by

MOSLEM RAPISTS

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

STEVEN BLANEY, AN ENCOURAGING VOICE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

Posted on by
STEVEN BLANEY, AN ENCOURAGING VOICE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
 
Hello,

Yesterday, The Toronto Sun published an editorial by renown editorialist Candice Malcolm which praises Steven Blaney’s proposed plan on national security and immigration.

According to her: “Steven Blaney on the national security front — deserve special recognition for their bold leadership and proposals to get Canada back on the right track.

We’re glad to take compliments when they come, especially from someone known for tackling sensitive issues with courage and audacity.

This is what she wrote:

When it comes to national security, Quebec MP and former federal public safety minister Steven Blaney provides a reality check to counter Trudeau’s open-border naivety.

Far from cowering to political correctness, Blaney’s no-nonsense approach to immigration and security is exactly what Canada needs.

From his sensible proposal to stop illegal immigration across the U.S. border, to his commitment to the integration of newcomers, rather than hands-off mass migration, these policies would help restore the integrity of our immigration system.

Unlike most politicians, Blaney understands Canada’s natural advantages are being undermined by Trudeau’s gullible approach to immigration and security.

All Canadians must remain vigilant to the threats we face and, like Blaney, should refuse to be silenced by the politically correct liberal mob.

Canada is the best country in the world and common sense, conservative values and ideas are needed now more than ever to ensure we remain strong and free.

Candice Malcolm is right. Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are cunningly leading us to a slow death, like a frog which boils to death without noticing its once cold water is heating up.

If like me you care about preserving Canada’s natural advantages, send a clear message by marking Steven Blaney as your first choice on your ballot and by donating $10 to our campaign by clicking the button below so that he can continue his fight to put Canada back on track.

Thank you Candice for saying out loud what many people are afraid to say!

Pierre-Luc Jean
Campaign Manager

Donate $10

Steven Blaney Campaign

1264 rue des Grenats, Levis, QC, G6W7M5

If you are no longer interested, you can unsubscribe instantly

EMAIL VIA MAILGET

 

Refugee Claimants Receive VIP Version of Canadian Healthcare Services

Posted on by
Refugee Claimants Receive VIP Version of Canadian Healthcare Services
 
By Louise McNeil

​​​​According to the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and United States, “refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they have qualified for an exception to the agreement.”

Because the recent border crossers in Manitoba and Quebec obviously came from the U.S. and have traveled through the United States, the important question is this : What are these refugee claimants doing in Canada? They should have been returned to the U.S. In fact, unless they can prove that they did not come from the U.S., they should have been returned to the U.S. almost immediately. In my view, by not returning these border crossers to the U.S., Justin Trudeau has violated the Canada–U.S. Safe Country agreement. His motive : to import as many votes as possible.

Furthermore, at least some of these border crossers have claimed refugee status in the U.S. For those claimants whom the U.S. has not yet rejected, the U.S. process should be allowed to take its course and those border crossers should be in the U.S. as the process continues. For those whom the U.S. has already rejected, Canada should not waste its time processing.

Trudeau takes his direction from George Soros, the multi-billionaire who supports civil unrest in many countries and believes in open borders.

At the end of the day, Canadian authorities will refuse many of the refugee claims and the claimants will be sent back to the United States. Trudeau is aware of this but simply can’t avoid grandstanding as the protector of the world’s so-called “persecuted”. I believe he is victimizing the refugee claimants further by offering them false hope to stay in Canada.

In the meantime, Canadians are responsible for providing free services (health care and other) to those with refugee claims as they move through Canada’s refugee system. 

On March 22, 2016 Stephanie Levitz of Canadian Press wrote that the total cost of the Syrian Refugee Program may cost up to $1 Billion to resettle 25,000 government assisted refugees. According to The National Post, the Syrian Refugee programme cost is closer to $1.2 billion. As of 2016 the budgeted cost of the Interim Federal Health Program is $51 million. 

Specifically, Canada’s Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) has to provide health care to recent border crossers as well as to protected persons such as resettled refugees, rejected claimants, and immigration detainees, along with other groups identified by the minister.

That means that the border crossers and those in other categories will receive free health care until they become permanent residents or until they leave of their own accord or are forced to leave once their case is denied by the Refugee Appeal Department (RAD) and/or Supreme court. An average case can last from two to five years. Some last upwards of ten years or more. During this time, Canadians have to pay for the cost of health care provided to anyone claiming refugee status, regardless of whether the claims are false.

The following is a description of the health services refugee claimants receive : in-patient and out-patient hospital services such as services from medical doctors, registered nurses and other health-care professionals licensed in Canada. These services include pre- and post-natal care ; laboratory, diagnostic and ambulance services.

Refugee claimants can also receive Supplemental coverage such as limited vision and urgent dental care ; home care and long-term care ; services from allied health-care practitioners including clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, counselling therapists, occupational therapists, speech language therapists and physiotherapists.

In addition, they can obtain assistive devices, medical supplies and equipment, including orthopedic and prosthetic equipment. The equipment includes such things as mobility aids, hearing aids, diabetic supplies, incontinence supplies and oxygen equipment.

Canada’s Interim health-care programme also provides prescription drug coverage (most prescription medications and other products listed on provincial/territorial public drug plan formularies).

Finally, Canada’s Interim Health plan pays for the cost of one Immigration Medical Exam (IME), and IME-related diagnostic tests required under the Immigration Refugee Protection Act.

Since April 1st, 2017, refugees who are traveling from overseas refugee camps to Canada receive not just a free Medical examination required for immigration, but Vaccinations; Treatment of disease outbreaks in refugee camps; and Medical support during travel to Canada

Here is the question I have for all Canadians : WHAT’S IN YOUR HEALTHCARE? I suspect it’s nothing close to what refugee claimants are getting.

For sensible immigration policies for the 21st century.
See what’s happening on our social sites
Immigration Watch Canada P.O. Box 45075 Dunbar RPOVancouver , B.C. V6S 2M8 Canada 1-778-803-5522
www.ImmigrationWatchCanada.org

Why I Won’t Be Voting for Chris Alexander for Conservative Party Leader

Posted on by
Why I Won’t Be Voting for Chris Alexander for Conservative Party Leader
 
About a week ago, I received this letter from former Immigration Minister Chris Alexander who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Fortunately, he is in the back of the now 15 person pack..
He supports a massive increase in immigration. In this he perfectly reflects the view I heard at a shareholders’ meeting of Maple Leaf Foods, on April 27. Much of corporate Canada just can’t replace the founding/settler people of this country fast enough. They applaud massive Third World immigration to keep unemployment high and to keep wages down. 
 
Let’s examine his arguments:
“Our Party has always delivered strong immigration.MacDonald and Cartier pioneered this strategy.” – That was another time, After Confederation, as Canada came to include all the territory West of Ontario. The West was extremely sparsely settled — a small number of scattered Indians and very few Europeans. The Americans were making noises about “Manifest Destiny” and hungered to grab the West. At that time, immigration to help put some bodies, some settlement into this wast territory, made good sense. With high unemployment and impossible traffic gridlock around some our major cities, Canada is full!
For ten years until 2015 we sustained the highest immigration levels in Canadian history.” — . Disgracefully so! The Stephen Harper Conservatives ratcheted up the nation wrecking schemes of the Liberals. On their watch over 2-million newcomers, mostly from the Third World, poured into Canada. Unemployment remained high. Many of these people did poorly. A 2011 study by former MP Herb Grubel showed that these immigrants — far from growing our economy, were actually hurting it, costing taxpayers $25-billion a year. [The annual drain in now $30-billion according to a recent statement by Professor Grubel.] And the plan for the eventual replacement of the European founding/settler people hurtled on. Our share of the population fell from 96 per cent when John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister to 79 per cent. Not very “conservative.” And, Stephen Harper was proud of the fact that, despite the economic downturn of 2008/2009, the worst recession since the Great Depression, his government kept those immigration  numbers up. Put that another way, those Tories just piled more misery on to the shoulders of unemployed Canadian men and women.
“We need this young talent to keep growing as a country. Without skilled immigrants, we risk stagnation and irrelevance.” — Skilled immigrants? You mean we really need more taxi drivers in turbans and women in hijabs pouring coffee at Tim Horton’s. Economists have confirmed there is NO skill shortage in Canada.Our college graduates face uncertain futures with poor prospects for permanent jobs, despite their high-cost qualifications. As for skills, we should be training our own people.
No, Chris Alexander will not be getting my vote.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Paul

In office, our Party has always delivered strong immigration.

MacDonald and Cartier pioneered this strategy.

For ten years until 2015 we sustained the highest immigration levels in Canadian history.

In this race I’m the only candidate (with Rick Peterson) proposing we raise immigration levels.

We need this young talent to keep growing as a country.

Without skilled immigrants, we risk stagnation and irrelevance.

As the 2016 census shows, rates of natural increase are barely sustaining our population today.

To build a New Canada with a strong new economy, we need to continue attracting and integrating the best economic immigrants.

As only Conservatives know how.
Policies for a New CanadaBest regards,

Chris

Chris Alexander
Conservative Leadership Candidate

The Infantilization of Modern Men

Posted on by

The Infantilization of Modern Men

by Ricardo DuchesneResearch Gate

Cato the Elder
Cato the Elder: The Face of Rising Rome

Some White men are identifying with the Alt-Right as they realize that the goals and norms celebrated by our social order are underpinned by multiple deceptions, suppression of debate, anti-scientific notions about human equality, and unjust opposition to White identity in the midst of outright celebration of minority group rights.

But it is not easy to dissent. The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly educated hicks who can’t stand losing their White privilege, too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvellously spreading through the West.

Nevertheless, the establishment is having difficulties keeping men away from the Alt-Right due to the widening gap between its ideals and the sickening realities engendered by these ideals, between the ideal of equality and the crime statistics of blacks, between the ideal of multicultural harmony and the reality of Islamic terrorism, between the ideal of freedom of expression and the suppression of criticism against Islamization, between the ideal of gender equality and the feminist acquiescence with migrant sexual assaults.

Still, one can’t help wonder why the vast majority of White males are still entrapped to these ridiculous ideals. The standard answer is that Whites have been brainwashed since birth and the media still has a near monopoly control over the news. The establishment controls the narrative over all the realities that don’t square with the ideals. They know how to narrate black crimes as instances of discrimination and enduring inequalities. They know how to portray Islamic terrorism as acts committed by a minority against “most peace-loving Muslims.” They know how to portray the shortcomings of diversity as “challenges” that can be minimized with further sensitivity sessions and education of children against xenophobic feelings. They know how to ignore countless stories that run against the narrative while playing up stories that demonstrate its success.

This argument is lacking. Many Whites know what’s going and yet they prefer escapism, secure careers, or a comfortable network of politically correct friends and family members, even when they have a chance to take risks. The majority seem to welcome their own demise. One has to wonder if Alt-Right men even have the vigour, vitality, and commitment of the 1960s generation. Everyone knows that contemporary White men are emasculated. Feminism is blamed. My view is that White men are the weakest in the world today because they inhabit the most comfortable, easy going civilization. Prolong luxurious living, easy to get food, as the ancient Greeks understood, breeds indulgent men, malleability, and softness. This weakness is a natural consequence of the cyclical nature of history.

Cyclical Decline

Chateau Heartiste and Return of the Kings abound with articles accusing feminism. The current article in CH is The Innocent Victims of Feminism Are Boys. But feminism is a symptom of a wider decline in Western civilization. Western decline has long been written about. Oswald Spengler’s version is the best known. But even though Spengler spoke about the rise of pacifism, loss of youthful vitality, senescence, the dissipation of strong identities and moral values in large metropolitan centres, many have a hard time making sense of his biological metaphors; his talk about the youth, maturity, old age and eventual death of civilizations, as if they were organisms.

Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), writing when the West was rising, and taking the decline of Rome as his main example, identified three main cyclical phases in the trajectory of civilizations:

  1. Anarchy and savagery
  2. Order and civilisation
  3. Decay and a new anarchic barbarism

The novelty in Vico was to suggest that the underlying mechanism behind these recurrent cyclical phases was the changing psychological state of human beings in response to different realities facing them in civilizational development. When humans face anarchy and savagery, they accept the necessity of behaving in useful ways to protect themselves. They achieve this by creating order, which leads to civilised behaviour. But once they achieve comfort through civilisation they start to amuse themselves, growing dissolute in luxury and incapable of the discipline and seriousness required to sustain a civilisation.

These underlying psychological dispositions were long understood by ancient Greeks and Romans as common sense observations about how the necessity of survival and living without comforts nurtured strength of character, whereas a life of luxury and easy acquisitions encouraged effeminacy and licentiousness. Ancient Greek literature is full of objections to the pernicious luxury of the Orientals, the older civilizations surrounding them, their harems, eunuchs and their corrupt intrigues. The very concept “Orient” came to mean opulent meals, indulgence, wantonness: effeminacy.

But the thinkers of the modern era, the ones who came up with a lineal view of history, starting with the Scottish philosophers, Adam Ferguson, John Millar, and Adam Smith, rejected this cyclical view, and argued instead that all societies pass through a series of “progressive” stages: from primitive savagery to agricultural civilizations to a final stage of commerce. It was their view that the last stage of commerce would bring peaceful relations among nations, commercial riches, and thus the necessary conditions for the full development of human potentialities.

The logic of this idea was accepted in varying ways by most European modern thinkers. What Marx did new was to reject the idea that commercial capitalism would be the last stage. The rejection of the unilineal theories of cultural evolution that Franz Boas started, the celebration of primitive ways of life, currently a cornerstone of multicultural thinking, is still a variation on progressivism in asking Westerners to treat less developed cultures with equal respect while calling for everyone to be integrated into a liberal modern world dedicated to the elimination of poverty, warfare, and inequalities. All these arguments, from Adam Smith to Marx to Boas are of the view that humans can be improved through improvements in cultural development. Even the environmentalists have been unable to escape support for innovations that cut back on pollutants and create nature-friendly technologies.

We have underestimated the cyclical argument and the simple truth that prolong comfort, peacefulness, relaxation, lack of stress and tension, weaken the human character. I am going to leave the theory of historical cycles for a future post, and continue this article showing that long ago, before the age of feminism, there were some astute observations about the emasculating effects that luxurious living had on the male character. I already alluded to the Greek association of Persian or Oriental luxury with effeminacy (which academia now dismisses as part of a “racialist discourse” intrinsic to the origins of Western civilization).

Greek and Roman Effeminacy

The Greeks themselves were later to be viewed by the Romans as over-intellectualised and over refined in their tastes. As the Romans began to enjoy abundant wealth for the first time, following their victories over the Carthaginians, with the upper classes developing an appetite for the refined tastes of the Greeks, and wanting their male children to learn about Greek rhetoric, art and philosophy, Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) warned Romans of the weakening effects that Greek ways would have on their traditional toughness. Cato, although a Roman noble, was known for his “rusticity, austerity, and asceticism.” He hated the permissiveness and hedonism that came along with luxury. Plutarch observes about Cato:

His enemies hated him, he used to say, because he rose every day before it was light and neglecting his own private matters, devoted his time to the public interests. He also used to say that he preferred to do right and get no thanks, rather than to do ill and get no punishment; and that he had pardon for everybody’s mistakes except his own.

The Greek historian Polybius (200-118 BC), who was witness to the ways in which imperial plenty affected the lives of young Romans, noted how

some of [the young Roman men] had abandoned themselves to love affairs with boys and others to consorting with prostitutes, and many to musical entertainments and banquets and all of the extravagances that they entail…infected with Greek weaknesses.

Sallust (86-35 BC) would attribute the collapse of the Republican form of government to the corrupting influence of wealth and the resulting abandonment of traditional values:

When toil is replaced by an attack of indolence, and self-control and fairness by one of lust and haughtiness, there is a change in fortune as well as in morals and behavior.

By the time of Livy (64 or 59 BC-AD 17), we have a historian who believed that the decline of Roman morals was irreversible, lamenting in the preface to his monumental history of Rome,

how with the gradual decline of discipline, morals slid, and then more and more collapsed, and finally began to plunge, which has brought us to our present pass, when we can endure neither of vices nor their cures.

Caligula
Caligula AD 12-41: The Face of Luxurious Rome

Don’t Blame Feminist Women

Some years ago Chateau Heartiste had a post with the strange title Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome. Strange since no one has ever spoken about feminism in ancient times, but this post which consists essentially of a long quote from a comment by some unknown person, could find no other way to account for this commentator’s observations about the dramatic changes that took place in the relation between the sexes in Roman times with the arrival of luxurious living. The commentator goes overboard in his efforts to draw parallels between our times and Rome, but is correct in noting that relations between men and women changed drastically from a very patriarchal culture in which family life was revered to a situation in the first century AD in which women had more say over financial and family matters, and the upper classes were uninterested in children:

~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax,” to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

Blaming feminism for this change in Rome is anachronistic. Feminism is an ideology that emerged in the contemporary West, an expression of decline, but in Rome the decline happened without this ideology. Feminism has accentuated decline in our times, and celebrates it. But blaming feminism, or cultural Marxism writ large, on its own, misses the fundamental cyclical nature of history. The Great Depression raised the vitality of men, and produced the “greatest generation” and the baby boom, but this was a temporary check on an otherwise declining trend that began in the nineteenth century.

Rise and Decline of Europe

When Rome fell apart, Germanic barbarians revived the West, brought in new blood, vitality, aggression, and expansionism, culminating in Charles the Great’s empire. This empire broke apart with the intrusion of new barbarians in the ninth century, combined with the decentralizing dynamic of vassal-lord relations. While the more brutalizing aspects of the nobility were “civilized” with the spread of chivalry and the Christian “Truce of God” after AD 1000, Europeans were still full of zest for glorious actions, testified in their Crusading marches from the 11th century through the 13th century, the Portuguese rounding of Africa at the end of the 15th century, and the Spanish crossing of the Atlantic, culminating in the Industrial Revolution.

Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence, commodious living, orderly existence, the Protestant emphasis on hard work, notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns. This was a relative contrast; the eighteenth century was hardly merciful and soft by the standards of today; this was the age of world wide colonization, and the soon-to-come brutal Napoleonic wars. The point is that the violent aggressiveness of earlier centuries, still prevailing in the religious wars, and expressed in Hobbes’s pessimistic view of human nature, was declining, replaced by a new form of civilized vitality, industriousness and intense desire to master the laws of nature.

Victorian Man
Victorian Man

John Stuart Mill, in 1836, just a year before the great Victorian age began, when Britain was known for its military vitality and consolidation of the greatest empire, was already lamenting over the fact that

there has crept over the refined classes, over the whole class of gentlemen in England, a moral effeminacy, an ineptitude for every kind of struggle. They shrink from all effort, from everything which is troublesome and disagreeable…They cannot undergo labor, they cannot brook ridicule, they cannot brave evil tongues: they have not the hardihood to say an unpleasant thing to any one whom they are in the habit of seeing…This torpidity and cowardice, as a general characteristic, is new in the world…it is a natural consequence of the progress of civilization, and will continue until met by a system of cultivation adapted to counteract it (“Civilization — Signs of the Times” in Prefaces to Liberty, Selected Writings of John Stuart Mill, ed, Bernard Wishy, 1959).

One wonders what J.S. Mill would have said about the preoccupation our current manosphere, Return of the Kings, has with clothing, color, fabric matching and complexion. Victorian men cared about clothing but with the intent of reinforcing the ideal of the proper British man as self-sufficient, adventurer, and scientific, which they felt was damaged with clothing of rich color; only dark colors, straight cuts, and stiff materials could project hardiness and endurance.

The key in J.S. Mill’s observation is that “torpidity and cowardice” are a “natural consequence of the progress of civilization,” of the comforts brought by bourgeois affluence. The expectation recently articulated in a Counter Currents article that reading about Rome’s glories can teach current White men to regain valour and heroism is pure wishful thinking. White men today will never build up their “resolve as great as that of the Romans” by reading about the Romans. The Romans built their character, before and during the time of Cato the Elder, by living at a point in the historical cycle when anarchy and savagery demanded hardness, by working extremely hard as farmers, by living in a very patriarchal culture, with harsh laws and expectations, and by undergoing intense military training and warfare experience. The Rome of Cato was a civilization at its peak; the West today is senile, without children, declining families, preoccupied with appearances, too lazy and comfortable.

Decline is irreversible. The relentless occupation of the West by hordes of Muslims and Africans is an expression of White male decadence and effeminacy. Only out of the coming chaos and violence will strong White men rise to resurrect the West.

Trudeau Tells Us Multiculturalism Must Go From “Tolerance” to “Acceptance” — Hell, No!

Posted on by