Tag Archives: multiculturalism

For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”

Posted on by
For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”
 
 
By Tim Murray
  A Giant Toy Rubber Duck: Canada’s Symbol for its 150th Anniversary.

The Demolition of a Nation, One Step At A Time (revised)

On July 1, 2017, Canada will observe 150 years of Confederation. But as this bulletin points out, is there a nation still to celebrate?

“…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 1st, 1947

“It is rare for a nation… to turn in a completely new direction. It is unusual for a democracy take such a turn. People are therefore entitled to inquire whether the distinctive character of their nation—and some of its greatest achievements—will remain if people from very different cultures are encouraged to come and, as far as possible, to maintain their own cultures. “ Geoffrey Blainey (“All for Australia” p. 154)

Demolitions, if viewed in slow motion, are revealed to be a sequential process. They begin with the destruction of the ground floor, and work their way up, until the entire building “suddenly” collapses. Viewed in hindsight, it may appear that the collapse of Canada’s identity was almost instantaneous. But in fact, it did not happen overnight. Our cultural, ethnic and environmental edifice was brought down incrementally, by a series of policies and laws that spanned some forty years. Let’s start at the beginning, in 1962, at the “ground floor” of implosion, and then follow the chain of disintegration up to 2006 and our present predicament, with Canada teetering on the edge of complete colonization and assimilation.

1962 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families would be admitted to Canada from everywhere in the world. However, while the Tories said that all comers were welcome, it was successive Liberal governments which set up the machinery to get them.

1965 In response to a global mood to support the movement for colonial independence and repudiate the history that made the Holocaust possible, Canada signed the “United Nations International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. This post-war shift in attitude served to discredit principles that were used to legitimize exclusions in existing immigration policy. The signing of this UN Convention, a seemingly innocuous action, came to have a profound impact on subsequent immigration policy-making.

1966 The Pearson government’s White Paper on Immigration Policy advocated a universal admissions policy. The country was to be cut from its cultural moorings, as European immigrants would no longer be given preference. This change in immigration selection criteria constituted a crucial change in direction for the country. It was a confluence of two beliefs. One, that Canada should cast its immigration net widely to capture “the best and the brightest”, and two, that Canada was morally obligated to embrace immigrants from across the world without reference to their ethnic, racial, religious or cultural origins. No longer would the nation’s cultural cohesion be a consideration in deciding who gets in and how many.

1967 The “point system” was introduced. As T. Triadafilopolous of the University of Toronto put it, “Through the points system, Canada would select immigrants according to a set of universal criteria, including educational credentials, language competency in English and/or French, and labour market potential. Applicants’ ethnic and racial backgrounds were no longer to be considered in determining their eligibility for admission to Canada. The result of this change …was precisely what (Prime Minister Mackenzie) King tried to avoid: the diversification of immigration and consequent transformation of Canada’s demographic structure. Whereas immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ source regions …comprised only a small fraction of Canada’s total immigration intake from 1946 to 1966, by 1977 they made up over 50% of annual flows. Changes in immigration policy shattered the foundations of ‘white Canada’ and created the conditions for Canada’s development into one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. (from “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights and the Origins of the Point System”)

1967 The Immigration Department was ordered to no longer list immigrants by ethnic origin but rather by “country of last residence”. This allowed the government to conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada via traditional source countries like the UK.

1971 Multiculturalism is declared official state policy. Henceforth, Canada was no longer to be perceived as consisting of our two founding cultures, English and French, but as mosaic of equivalent ethnic fragments. Canada was to become the helpless victim of a social engineering project whose sweeping scope was yet to be comprehended.

1974 Biologist Jack R. Vallentyne of the Fisheries and Marine Service called for a national population policy. His call was ignored. Vallentyne, a former professor at Cornell University, was made leader of the Eutrophication (pollution) Section of the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. It was in that capacity that Vallentyne became alarmed at the extent to which overpopulation and over-development was promoting eutrophication of our water resources.

1976 The Science Council of Canada released its report number 25, “Population, Technology and Resources” which concluded that perpetual population growth would stress Canada’s limited non-renewable resources. It advocated restricting immigration and stabilizing Canada’s population. Another forgotten report.

1976 Voluminous anecdotal evidence had come to challenge the claim that European interest in emigrating to Canada had diminished, as prospective skilled and educated immigrants from Britain and the Continent with immediate family were being turned away in droves. Immigration officials in 1976 conceded that as many as 60% of British applicants were being rejected while unskilled third world immigrants with poor language skills were welcomed with open arms. The vision of the 1966 White Paper was being fulfilled. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased from 34% in 1966 to 47% by 1973.

1976 Canada’s first separatist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected. By this action, Quebec Francophone voters indicated that they were not prepared, as English Canadians were apparently were, to see their unique culture dismembered by a multicultural globalist agenda. Quebecers were not willing to go down with the English Canadian ship.

1980 English Canada got its second wake-up call when Quebec held its first referendum on separation. After it was defeated, English Canada went back to sleep, and the global “out-reach” to non-traditional sources of immigration continued with Official Multiculturalism still in place.

1980-1983 In response to a recession, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau cut immigration levels from 143,000 to 89,000. It was the only time in recent decades that a federal administration reduced immigration quotas in deference to tougher economic times and the need to defend jobless Canadians. Thereafter, immigration policy would be the prisoner of political imperatives, most specifically ethnic vote-seeking.

1982 The “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—forming part of the Constitution Act—was signed into law. It relegated Parliament to a secondary role—and through it diminished the ability of a majority of the population to influence the direction of the country. It allowed the courts to strike down provincial and federal statutes to satisfy individual rights. Consequently, as writer Frank Hilliard observed, it achieved Pierre Trudeau’s goal of altering our British Parliamentary system and replacing it with a model that divided society into ethnic communities, each with its own cultural norms. It is noteworthy that the Charter’s Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a ‘multicultural context’.

1986 Employment Equity Act—allowed a staggering number of recently-arrived immigrants to leap-frog over resident Canadians to secure jobs in the federal public sector. The Act became a template for similar legislation in other provinces which also affected the private sector.

1986-89 The Health and Welfare department of the federal government completed a report “Charting Canada’s Future” which concluded that Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada’s age structure. Moreover, increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have, in the long-term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 would have little long-term impact on Canada’s overall age structure. That message continues to be ignored to this day.

1988 The Multiculturalism Act—institutionalized the policy of multiculturalism begun by Pierre Trudeau.

1988 Breaking with Trudeau’s belief that Canadians should not apologize to ethnic lobbies for alleged past injustices, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized and compensated the Japanese-Canadian community for the federal government’s internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The apology began an era of grovelling which can be seen for what it was, not a sincere desire for redress, but a naked grasp for the ethnic vote.

1991 The Intelligence Advisory Committee, with input from Environment Canada, the Defence Department and External Affairs produced a confidential document for the Privy Council entitled “The Environment: Marriage Between Earth and Mankind”. The report stated that “Although Canada’s population is not large in world terms, its concentration in various areas has already put stress upon regional environments in many ways.” It added that “Canada can expect to have increasing numbers of environmental refugees requesting immigration to Canada, while regional movements of the population at home, as from idle fishing areas, will add further to population stresses within the country.” The document was apparently buried.

1991 The Economic Council of Canada, in a research report (“The Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration”), concluded that immigration has been of no significant benefit to the economy. Once again, it was a message that is still forgotten.

1991 Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney launched the policy of mass immigration, which greatly increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. Like the Liberals’ White Paper policy of 1966, which was engineered by Tom Kent to defeat “Tory Toronto” by recruiting immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ sources, the McDougall policy was designed as a political stratagem to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberals by earning their gratitude. Mass immigration then must be seen as primarily a political weapon to defeat rival political parties rather than a policy that confers a legitimate economic or demographic benefit to Canada.

1994 July 6 Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, with Policy 1.1.4, declares that its mandate requires that its programming should “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”. “In fact”, the CBC continued, “by the reasons of the ethnic diversity of the audience, the Corporation has long practiced a policy of cultural pluralism in its programming, and intends to continue to reflect the multicultural richness and multiracial characteristics of Canadian society in keeping with the Corporation’s obligation to ‘contribute to shared national consciousness and identity’. Schedule planners and programs staff are expected to demonstrate continuing awareness of and sensitivity to this aspect of CBC/Radio-Canada role.” In so doing, the CBC in effect became the voice of immigrant ethno-cultural lobbies and power blocs, while the views of the full cross-section of mainstream Canadian society were largely excluded.

1995 A second referendum on separation was held in Quebec. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 0.8%. Many would argue that the 1995 referendum was hijacked by the federal government, which poured in a ton of money in publicity largely exceeding the amount authorized by the referendum laws. The Gomery commission subsequently found many key Liberal figures guilty of fraud. In addition, for good measure, the federal government fast-tracked the citizenship process for all new immigrants in Quebec in the months leading up to the referendum . This action was timely, as it allowed these immigrants to vote and tip the scales to victory for the “No” side.

Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately blamed the loss on the ethnic vote, which had grown with mass immigration. Failing to see that their own society was being undermined by the very same forces that were undermining Quebec, English Canadians rejoiced. However, the result clearly illustrated that since 1980, an increasing proportion of the Francophone population were opposed to the multicultural makeover of their society.

1997 The $2.4 million federally commissioned Fraser Basin Ecosystem Study, led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC, was released. It stated that BC’s Fraser Basin was overpopulated by a factor of three. Healey later urged all levels of government to develop a Population Plan for the country. The study was ignored by the government that funded it.

2001 The Population Institute of Canada made a presentation to the House of Commons Committee on Immigration which recommended that the government develop a Population Plan for Canada, as called for by Dr. Michael Healey. The presentation fell on deaf ears.

2005 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, released a report that challenged the provincial government’s plans to accommodate an additional 4.4 to 6 million people for Ontario over the next 25 years. In introducing this annual report, Miller issued strong cautions. “One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario’s population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. ” He added that the area did not have the water resources to support the population increase, nor the ability to handle sewage created by the increase. Miller was vilified for his comments.

2006 Following Mulroney’s precedent of apologizing and compensating Japanese-Canadians for the wartime actions of Mackenzie King’s government, Prime Minister Harper compensated Chinese-Canadians for federal laws that were enacted before the First World War to protect Canadian jobs from the importation of cheap Chinese labour. The compensation came with a profuse apology.

2006 The C.D. Howe Institute reported that immigration levels would have to be raised to impossibly stratospheric levels to have any effect in slowing the rate of Canada’s aging population.

2013 Canada’s most famous environmentalist, Dr. David Suzuki, said that Canada was overpopulated and that immigration levels should be reduced. Like Gordon Miller, Suzuki was vilified by everyone except the general public, who evidenced their approval in the comments section of newspapers across the country which carried the story.

2013 Reacting to growing ethnic enclaves and the threat of the emergence of a parallel Islamic society, the Parti Quebecois government introduced a Charter that would re-establish the secular nature of Quebec society, a hard won achievement of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Recognizing that support for the Charter would represent a clear repudiation of the multicultural agenda, the political class and the English media denounced the proposal.

2014 The fact that the Charter enjoyed the support of a majority of Quebecers—and apparently a majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada– the media and the political establishment attempted to discredit the Parti Quebecois government by raising the prospect of another referendum on sovereignty. This was (and is) a ploy to shift the focus away from the Charter.

2015 Two months following his electoral victory, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, essentially confirmed that the mission of cultural and ethnic fragmentation conceived five decades before had been accomplished. In fact, it had gone beyond that. Canada was no longer even a multicultural state—or a nation—but something the world had never seen before. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, Trudeau proudly observed, “There are (just) shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” A state, in other words, that has been cast adrift, cut from its cultural, ethnic and moral moorings.

In reviewing these policies , pronouncements and laws, it is apparent that the promotion of official multiculturalism and quota hiring (“employment equity”) were conceived to work in tandem with mass immigration, so that immigrants would be made to feel fully integrated and at home with their new country. This great “multicultural experiment” then, was essentially an immigration project which changed the ethnic profile of the nation and grew the population by 25%. It was an experiment conducted by a political class on ordinary Canadians without the consent of ordinary Canadians. It had no electoral mandate. The result is that most Canadians feel like lab rats living in an environment they no longer recognize. They bear witness to the demolition of a nation.

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

Posted on by

Refuting the Latest Minority Boo-Hoo Complaints

Posted on by
Refuting the Latest Minority Boo-Hoo Complaints
 
 
 
OPINION: Minority groups are seeing one of their greatest fears come true — they’re becoming targets at home
 
 
​”​

Our society is suffering from an alarming disconnect: minority groups in Canada and the U.S. are sharing their experiences of being targeted or intimidated by bigots, yet their testimonies in news reports are drawing the ire of critics. How on earth did we get here?

​”​


 
Brad: The first point we have to understand is the source of the “disconnect.” It is not rooted in the intrinsic ​nature of the people of Canada. Rather, it is the result of the disconnect between government and its citizens.


 
It is essential to understand that mass immigration and multiculturalism are both unilateral government policies, meaning the general public never had a say regarding the demographic and cultural transformation in the first place.
 
​This is the root of the issue. So if blame or responsibility is going to be assigned, it should be assigned toward government…and in particular, what has emerged as the “Trudeau Dynasty” in the form of predecessor Pierre and son Justin, who chose of their own volition to implement nation-changing government policy WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR APPROVAL OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE.
 
​”Any time someone expresses there [sic] opinion about refugees and immigrants in this county [sic] you have to be a racist. I’m so sick of that card being played.”

That comment garnered almost 200 “likes.”

Brad: Yes, Canadians are sick of the multicult jive and political correct​ness. While incidents of racial prejudice on our streets should not be tolerated, it is a situation which develops out of frustration and resentment. Blaming Canadians of European heritage will resolve NOTHING. It will only increase anger and resentment.


If there is to be resolution in this matter, it must be as a result of a combined effort– immigration community adaption being a primary component. The road to resolution is not a one-way street. So, rather than play the blame game in perpetuity, these communities should gain a deeper understanding of the reasons why resentment against globalism is rising rapidly. It’s not Trump specifically. The anger has been building for decades.
​”​

Minorities, by nature, are sensitive about being exploited, standing out or being excluded.

​”
Brad: And “non-minorities” are the same. Canadian-born citizens don’t appreciate being ignored by government, having their nation turned upside down by way of unilateral government policy, and having their thoughts and feelings shut down by endless accusations of racism. 
 
We don’t like being excluded either– for example, by way of Chinese-only public signage in Richmond BC.

Here in Canada, Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch captured headlines by stoking fears about improper screening of immigrants.

Brad: Kellie Leitch captures headlines by exercising her constitutional right to freedom of assembly and expression. Such is Canada’s long history of democratic tradition…however, these leftist types seem to believe these rights are to be the exclusive domain of globalists, diversity-pushers and multicult proponents.


 
Check the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I assure these civil rights apply to ALL Canadians, and not just our third world communities.
 

Lately, what has minority groups in Canada feeling unsafe is the unpredictable nature of such occurrences. According to Barbara Perry, a criminology professor and lead author of the study, no one knows when a right wing extremist will “lash out.”

Brad: How entirely one-sided. After all, no one knows when a hate-filled terrorist will blow up a marketplace filled with dozens of grocery-shoppers either.​


We in Canada should heed these signs. Ideologies that incite hate crimes easily transcend borders, especially when they’re laid out online or given free air time by the news media.

Brad: Please…Canada’s mainstream media have been left-leaning for decades. For the most part, they have been complicit in protecting Justin Trudeau’s agenda for the re-imagining of our nation as little more than an international hotel for the very poor and the very rich. It is only in past few months that a tangible change in approach has occurred.
​”​

Minority groups are absolutely justified in feeling that their safety is being threatened.

​”
Brad: All people’s safety is being threatened, and in all objectivity, much of this is rooted in extremist and militant Islamic terror.

 

Multiculturalism = A Doctrine From the Pits Of Hell

Posted on by
Multiculturalism = A Doctrine From the Pits Of Hell
 
 
Multiculturalism’s War Against Christmas and Western Culture
 
by Larry Murray
(1) Canada years ago adopted the doctrine of multiculturalism, which in my opinion is a doctrine from the pits of hell itself. We have handcuffed ourselves, walking all over our traditions (such as celebrating Christmas) because of it. By accepting this practice, we no longer think it politically correct to talk about Christmas. In fact, we no longer think it right to ever publicly talk about Jesus Christ, or God or matters of faith. I really believe we have sold out hook, line and sinker to Satan himself. (Ed Ostrom, Retired Salvation Army Officer In Saskatchewan)
 
 
Inline image 1
 
 
 
(2) The term “multicultural” has come to mean “relentless high immigration or mass immigration” which, in turn, has become an all-out assault on Canada’s deep-rooted majority population and its traditions such as Christmas. Most Canadians will accept small numbers of people from ethnic backgrounds that are different from Canada’s majority population, but most Canadians do not  want to become a minority in this country.  In other words, most Canadians see that the word “multicultural” is a description not of who we are, but a prescription of what we are going to become—–whether we want it or not. (Immigration Watch Canada)
 
 
(3) Let’s press our politicians to start saying “Merry Christmas!” again the way President-Elect Donald Trump has said he would, stating: “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying Merry Christmas again.” This is the kind of politician we need in Canada, unafraid to take on the insidious attacks by cultural Marxists on our traditions and nationality. “Happy Holidays” may seem to be an innocuous “tolerant” phrase, but it is nothing but a calculated assault on our Christian and European heritage in order to create a deracinated global place occupied by millions of Africans, Mestizos, Muslims and Asians trampling upon Eurocanadians. (Ricardo Duchesne, UNB Professor of Sociology)
 
 
(4) The War Against Christmas, and against Christianity in America, is part and parcel of the campaign to transform America, against the wishes of most Americans. It is of a piece with mass immigration. As Peter Brimelow (author of Alien Nation) says of immigration,  “America is being transformed against our will, and for no reason.” (Howard Sutherland, New York Attorney)
 
 
(5) The multiculturalists justify their assault on Christmas by claiming that the public celebration of Christmas causes non-Christians to feel left out. …We cannot forever shield non-Christians from the reality that they are a minority in America…. Suppressing the observances of the majority seems a high price to pay to allow overly sensitive souls to live in a comfortable delusion. Again and again, those seeking to erase Christmas …offer “diversity” and its variants as their justification. But, in practice, “diversity” and “inclusion” mean uniformity and exclusion, as Christian symbols are removed from public spaces. (Tom Piatek, A Contributing Editor of Chronicles Magazine and Taki’s Magazine and author of  “Yes, Virginia, There Is A War Against Christmas”)

A Picture Demonstrates the Multicultural Problem

Posted on by

A Picture Demonstrates the Multicultural Problem

Better than long speeches
 

 
There’s a particular photo that went around the world.
That of the little boy lying dead on the beach. 
It is true that the photo is very sad 
and makes you reflect on the distress of these people 
fleeing their country at the risk of their lives.
 
Above, a photo showing some people walking to reach the final objective, 
to live in a European country.
Even if this photo is making it around the world, 
only 1% of the people will notice the truth.
In the photo,  there are 7 men and 1 woman. 
Up to this point – nothing special.
But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet, 
accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.
There is the problem, none of the men are helping her, 
because in their culture the woman represents nothing. 
She is only good as a slave to the men. 
Do you really believe that these individuals could integrate 
into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions????

Time to Change Tune on Official Multiculturalism

Posted on by

Time to Change Tune on Official Multiculturalism

by Licia Corbella,

About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are
demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their
children from music and co-ed physical education programs for religious
reasons. The families believe music is un-Islamic ~ just like the
Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of
Afghanistan and that physical education classes should be segregated
by gender even in the elementary years.

The school division is facing the music in a typically Canadian way –
that is, bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these
demands, even though in Manitoba, and indeed the rest of the country,
music and phys-ed are compulsory parts of the curriculum. Officials
say they may try to have the Muslim children do a writing project on
music to satisfy the curriculum’s requirements. The school officials
have apparently consulted the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and
they have also spoken to a member of the Islamic community suggested
by those very same Muslim parents. In any event, the school district
is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of
these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school
and Canadian culture.

Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says he has
a better idea. “I’d tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach
music and physical education in our schools. If you don’t like it,
leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole
country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives
under sharia law,” said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of
sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary.

That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us
would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing
about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country.
“Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way
around,” he argues. If they did not like these things in Canada, why
did they not go somewhere else? If they want Canada to be like their
homeland why don’t they go home?

Kanwar, who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan via England and then
the United States in 1966, says he used to buy into the “mosaic,
official multiculturalism” (nonsense). He makes it clear that, like
most Canadians, he is pleased and enjoys that Canada has citizens
literally from every country and corner in the world, as it has
enriched this country immensely. But it’s official multiculturalism –
the state policy “that entrenches the lie” that all cultures and
beliefs are of equal value and of equal validity in Canada that he objects
to.

“The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian
values – not Muslim values – with British and French rule of law and
traditions and that’s why it’s better than all of the other places in
the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea
of sharia law a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely
incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada,” says Kanwar, who in
the 1970s was the founder and president of the Pakistan-Canada
Association and a big fan of official multiculturalism.

Kanwar says his views changed when he started listening to the people
who joined his group. They badmouthed Canada, weren’t interested in
knowing Canadians or even in learning one of our official languages.
They created cultural ghettos and the Canadian government even helped fund
it.

“One day it dawned on me that the reason all of us wanted to move here
was going to disappear if we didn’t start defending Canada and its
fundamental values.” That’s when Kanwar started speaking out against
the dangers of official multiculturalism. He has been doing so for
decades. So, it’s no surprise that Kanwar is delighted with the recent
speech British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered to the 47th
Munich Security Conference on Feb. 5.

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism,” said Cameron, “we
have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to
belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving
in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds
objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.
But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from
someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even
fearful, to stand up to them.

This hands-off tolerance,” said Cameron, “has only served to
reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some
young Muslims feeling rootless and … can lead them to this
extremist ideology.”

Kanwar actually credits German Chancellor Angela Merkel for being
among the first of the world’s democratic leaders to take the
courageous step in October to say that official multiculturalism had
“failed totally..” It appears leaders are getting bolder. During an
interview with TFI channel on Feb. 10, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy declared: “We have been too concerned about the identity of
the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the
country that was receiving him.” Cameron ended his speech by saying: “At
stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.That’s why this is a
challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet.”

That democratically elected leaders are at long last starting to sing
a different tune on official multiculturalism is sweet music to Kanwar.
Here’s hoping those poor kids in Winnipeg will get to hear some of it.

Licia Corbella is The Herald’s Editorial Page Editor

lcorBella@calgaryherald.com [February 12, 2011

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canad

Posted on by

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canada

by Tim Murray

What diversity lobbyists hate: Canadian family life in 1950.

It has often been argued by the talking heads of the multicultural and immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.

Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call “settlers”, occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here — even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not “discover” or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans even conceived of it.

Multicultural Arguments Are Inconsistent

These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.

Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from this same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?

There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first — even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians”, the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is, “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship — or cultures — or there should not. But the multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit — recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.

The multicultural “Party Line” needs to be de-constructed.

Yes, the ‘land’ was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the “land” is not the nation. The “land” is not “Canada”. And one can’t credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called “Canada”. It should also be noted that the newcomers from “non-traditional” sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this “nation” of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed “White settlers” and their descendents didn’t do such a bad job of building this nation after all.

Multiculturalism is a social engineering project that turns Canada into a country resembling those that immigrants to Canada have fled fromYet it is the multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks like they are half way there. In 1981, there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, “Is this really a good thing?” “Diversity”, we are constantly told, is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the multicultural lobby assures us that there is “unity in diversity”. A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.

Diversity Is Disunity

You don’t believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Ruandans. Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don’t even have to look far. Take a look at America’s experiment with “integration” right now. Look how it is descending into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of “whites” sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated “apartheid”, but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King’s dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and “Coming Apart”, as Charles Murray’s book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, “The United States is the most fractured society on earth — the most fractured culture.”

The make-believe world that the media presents and the unrelenting torrent of state propaganda will not long conceal these facts. The spin-machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the “Diversity Illusion”, as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.

Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: That so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracized or even punished for spreading “hateful” messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division that exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as divisive!

The communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: That they were insane. That they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: That the socialist state was a Workers’ Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.

But suddenly in the late 1980s and early 1990s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn’t working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.

The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. “In-group” favouritism, a manifestation of which is “ethnic nepotism”, is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of Genetic InterestsFrank Salter, might say, we are “hard-wired” to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests.

One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadian wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the mandates of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially, the CBC.

Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada’s European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That’s why many of these multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers — nothing more, nothing less.

It’s time that Canadians know the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.

The New German Multicultural Toilet

Posted on by

The New German Multicultural Toilet

by The New Observer

February 2, 2016

http://newobserveronline.com/and-now-the-new-german-multicultural-toilet/

“Refugees” in Germany still find European toilets a “mystery,” cannot use them despite being given pictogram instructions, are continuing to leave human excrement on bathroom floors and showers—and this is why Germany has to introduce a new “multicultural toilet.”

Although this might sound as if it is from some bizarre TV comedy sketch, it is not. Right now, German engineers are working on a “multicultural toilet” at the Global Fliegenschmidt toilet manufacturers in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, and news of their first design has appeared in the German media.

As reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), in an article titled “A Toilet that Everyone Can Use” (Ein Klo, das jeder benutzen kann), the new toilet has been necessitated by the fact that the 1.5 million nonwhite invaders just simply cannot learn how to use ordinary European toilets—and that, after many months of failure, they have given up trying to teach them how not to foul up a bathroom.

According to the remarkable FAZ article, “German toilets are a mystery to many refugees and this has already led to problems. A new mobile multicultural toilet should remedy this—and along the way teach something about the coexistence of cultures.”

It goes on to describe some of the many problems which German sanitary engineers have had to face after being overwhelmed with the nonwhite invasion: “Many of the refugees have no experience of such toilets in their culture.”

It says that all efforts to educate the nonwhites as to how a toilet works have failed, even though detailed instructions have been provided in pictogram and in Arabic script.

“Many refugees, especially those from poorer classes,” FAZ continues, “only know of the concept of latrines. The toilets have indeed been used as such, but certainly not the way they were originally intended. They have stood on the toilet bowl when they were supposed to have sat there, and more often than not, the bowl has broken.”

Or, the FAZ tastefully informs its readers, the invaders have “done their business anywhere in the house, except in the designated place.”

Furthermore, the newspaper continues, “showers have in this regard also been misunderstood”—in other words, used as toilets.

“Added to all of this, is that many of the Muslim refugees do not know what toilet paper is,” the article continued, adding that they “clean up with the left hand, the unclean hand.”

Largely because of these “problems,” as the FAZ politely calls them, these “cultural differences have been an unbearable addition to an already difficult situation” in the invader centers.

“Employees of mobile toilet rental companies have refused to work at the shelters anymore because they no longer want to clean the centers,” FAZ said.

“And because many of the refugees did not even know what to do with the toilets, they make their way straight into the bushes. And that is why the mayor of the municipality Hardheim im Odenwald, in his much-maligned guide for refugee etiquette, stated inter alia that ‘Our call of nature is done exclusively in toilets, not in gardens and parks, and not even in hedges and behind bushes.’”

Other challenges being faced by the German sanitary engineers include “different latrines for different cultures,” the fact-filled article goes on to tell its readers.

“For Muslims, it is important that when using a toilet, one’s back does not face Mecca. In addition, latrines for men and women have to separate from each other, and the floor cannot be green in color, because that is the color of Islam.”

Therefore, FAZ says, the new “German toilet manufacturers are working to arrive at a solution to this problem. Thus, at the mobile toilet manufacturer Global Fliegenschmidt in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, they had been working on a so-called oriental toilet, consisting of a hole with two foot stands on either side of it.

“But even that did not work, because there are enough refugees who still use it differently,” the article continued, necessitating the development of “multicultural toileting.”

This new “multicultural toilet” allows for both sitting and squatting, the FAZ proudly informs its readers.

It is not yet known when the new toilets will be deployed, but, going by the problems being faced in the invader centers, the Germans had better hope that it is relatively soon.

FAZ-Toilets

 

 

Multiculturalism and Marxist Bias in Academia – SWC Interviews Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Posted on by

 

CANADA HAS GONE MULTICULTURAL

Posted on by
CANADA HAS GONE MULTICULTURAL
 by PAUL BRADLEY
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Paul Bradley who wrote this excellent article describes the nation as Masochistic, which he defines as the condition of someone who finds pleasure in self-denial and submissiveness.
 
This article carries an NB note which advises that: “Only 1% of the world’s nations are officially ‘multi-cultural’ and they are all White nations!” and adds: “While our nation’s demographics have changed dramatically, multicultural policy has not changed one iota. There is no nation on earth which maintains a policy of cultural self-destruction like Canada.”
_______________________________________________________________________
  Indeed we live in curious times. Like never before, human beings are moving about our planet in search of a better life, a cleaner environment, and a higher standard of education. As it happens, however, within our era of unprecedented globalism, Canada stands out among the nations.
 
  Canada is unique in that our country is “officially” multicultural — meaning: multicultural policy is entrenched within our constitution. The only other nation in the world, which maintains such a policy is Australia.
 
  Putting this in proper context, at present there are approximately two hundred nations in the world — meaning that a mere 1% of the world’s nations are officially multicultural. Are Canadians aware of this fact? Frankly, it is doubtful. Based on our government and media’s portrayal of the policy since its inception in 1988, one could easily believe this brand of legislated diversity is standard among nations.
 
  Obviously, it is not. While many nations encourage diversity and willingly accept immigrants and refugees, these countries do not have a legislated mandate to financially support these communities. In Canada, hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars are provided to immigrant communities each year for purposes of promoting cultural events, as well as religious institutions and holidays.
 
  Is this necessarily a bad thing? Under reasonable conditions perhaps not. Unfortunately, the circumstances are anything but reasonable. For decades, Canada has maintained the highest percapita immigration rates in the world. As a result, our country — particularly our urban centres — have transitioned from relatively homogenous communities to a hybrid of various ethnicities.
Is this necessarily a problem? Again, arguably not — though considering the absence of public analysis of these circumstances, one may wonder if an equitable balance will be maintained in the long term. One reason for skepticism is the fact that while our nation’s demographics have changed dramatically, multicultural policy has not changed one iota.
 
  As a result, our so-called “minorities” are no longer minorities in the true sense of the word — yet hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars continue to flow through to these communities and their non-profit organizations.
 
  In fact, these organizations have become so well organized they are beginning to transform the cultural identity of our nation. To add insult to injury, the governments of the nations from which these migrants come from are also providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of funding everything from major real estate developments and shopping malls, to multi-million dollar Islamic mosques and Sikh temples.
 
  All the while, Canadians go about their busy lives, largely oblivious to the societal changes occurring around them. Well, perhaps some are aware — yet within Canada’s hyper-politically correct society, few dare to criticize these developments. As a result, Canadians appear to have little choice but to stand back while China buys up our real estate, and Middle Eastern nations finance the growth of Islam within the nation. For instance, the Toronto Sun reported in January 2015 that a Muslim group linked to a terror organization was buying buildings across Canada. The largest known MAC [Muslim Association of Canada] acquisition is a sixty storey, $4.7 million building in Montreal’s financial district that will house the Canadian Institute of Islamic Civilization.
 
  New arrivals, refugees and religious fundamentalists are valued above the traditional culture and heritage of the nation. Indeed, multicultural policy has led to a peculiar form of “inversion” – it is not Canadian workers who receive priority, but rather temporary foreign workers. On campus, multiculturalism has led to a situation whereby our so-called “Canadian” universities have divested themselves of their Canadian identity. Rather, they are “globalist” education centres for the wealthy of the world. For the Canadian-born students fortunate enough to attend these institutions, they are receiving a thorough education in how to hate their own country, dislike the founding fathers of their nation, as well as a full indoctrination on the virtues of globalism, communism, and every other anti-democratic form of politically ideology.
 
  Let us face the facts: there is no other nation on earth which maintains a policy of cultural self-destruction like Canada. Furthermore, consider the situation within the source nations of our largest immigrant communities. China is the number one source of migrants to Canada. Does China’s government maintain a policy whereby the rights of newcomers take precedence over Chinese nationals? Does China maintain a policy whereby their citizens find a government-sanctioned indoctrination of Western values, culture and religion? Truly, this idea is unthinkable. How about Iran? Pakistan? Not one of these nations would dream of implementing this form of political self-flagellation!
 
  Canada is different — so different that we are the most politically and culturally masochistic nation on earth. Since the time multicultural policy was established in 1988, our government, legal industry and diversity advocates have been steadily chipping away at the foundation of our national heritage.
 
  Who sanctioned such a thing? Did the Canadian public collectively order up a place of cultural eradication like one orders a steaming dish of chow fun in Chinatown? Not a chance – it never occurred. The general public had no choice in the matter, just as they had no choice in whether or not their country maintains the highest rate of immigration on the planet.
 
  More questions abound — What happened to application of democratic process regarding these matters — or at least a recognition of the will of the majority? Oddly enough, all public discussion went dormant after our government began to walk our nation down a cobblestone road to its cultural demise. Are these the signs of a healthy democratic society? Not likely. One could suggest, in fact, that official multiculturalism has served as ground zero for an unapproved and unnecessary societal inversion.
 
  Naturally, this movement has received a great deal of support – not just from born-and-raised Canadians who are presently riding the multicultural bandwagon into the great Canadian sunset. Government immigration “critics”, civil libertarians, our legal industry, our real-estate industry, ethnic “identity”, politicians – all of them are collectively chipping away at the bedrock of Canadian society.
 
  Want to hide your identity at your citizenship ceremony? Step right up, our civil liberties lawyers are here to help. Committed a crime back in the old country? Not a worry; a legal eagle armed with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will assist you — pro bono!
 
  Such is the sorry state of contemporary Canada – a nation which has, for reasons nobody can explain, inverted its priorities which placed Canadian-born citizens at the back of the bus.
  For how long will “generational” Canadians – those who are second and third generation, and beyond — stand by while our nation commits cultural suicide? Only time will tell. Unfortunately, this is of the essence. Left to their own devices, Canada’s cultural assassins and their merry band of self-loathing practitioners will proceed to bury every remnant of what defined our nation before multiculturalism came to town……..