Tag Archives: multiculturalism

Paul Fromm Discusses The Politics of Replacement

Posted on by
Paul Fromm Discusses The Politics of Replacement
Lecture delivered to the Japan First Party in Tokyo.
paul fromm japan firstpaul fromm japan first
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pj26WGhv4M&t=2636s

Canada is a Country of the Descendants of Its French and English Founders

Posted on by
 
Canada is a Country of the Descendants of Its French and English Founders
 
By A Canadian Patriot
 
As STATS CAN immigration figures show, Canada has had a big change in its sources of immigrants. For example, according to the 1861 Census, most immigrants came from the British Isles. After 1861, a minor change occurred : there were waves from other European countries and the U.S. As Chart 5 on the STATS CANADA site shows, a much bigger change occurred from the 1960’s onward. At that time, there were two major shifts in the source countries of Canada’s immigration: (1) There was a significant decrease in the percentage of immigrants from key western nations – in particular, the British Isles and the USA. (2) There was a big increase in the percentage from Asia, North and Sub-Saharan Africa and Central and South American nations, etc. There was also an increase in the percentage of Middle Eastern immigrants.
 
The people from non-traditional source countries brought their ideologies, ethnic loyalties, values, cultures, norms, beliefs, and conflicts to Canada. The end result is that in 1871,the percentage of immigrants from the British Isles was 80%. By 1991, that percentage was down to under 20%. In a very biased statement, supposedly-neutral STATS CAN says that this was “an increase in diversity”. The truth is that the “diversity” rhetoric from liberals, leftists and “progressive conservatives” as well as their mainstream media friends has been focused on the belief that there are positive impacts from immigration from non-western nations. What STATS CAN, the Left, liberals and “progressive conservatives” and media ignore or downplay are the significant negative impacts of such a shift. For instance, what benefit to the average Canadian citizen came from this demographic transformation? What is the long term projection for our population composition? If research from Harvard (Putnam) as well as human history is true, when a country has groups of people with increased diversity in ideologies, religions, ethnicities and values, there is a much greater likelihood of conflict, power struggles, etc.
french canadians
 
FRENCH CANADIAN WOMEN
 
I would add that that the often-repeated slogan,  “We are a nation of immigrants” is a deceitful justification for admitting more immigrants. In fact, we are not a nation of immigrants because for most of our history, we have been a nation of mostly European descendants born in Canada. And even by more recent standards such as the 2011 National Household Survey which estimated that the foreign born population was 20.6% of the total population, we were still not a nation of immigrants. We were and still are a nation of people mostly born in Canada with a smaller segment born elsewhere.
 
One other important point : We keep hearing that we are and have been a “multicultural nation”. That statement implies that Canadians approved of immigration changes. It is utter deceit. In fact, until the 1960’s, we were a nation of two cultures. French and English made up the majority of our country. There were other cultures (ethnic populations), but they were a vast minority. Multiculturalism and the change in the source countries of Canada’s immigrants has been forced on Canadians. None of us were given a chance to vote on it. Worse still, multiculturalism has become a virtual religion. And now the religion of multiculturalism has taken such a hold on Canada, that criticizing it is tantamount to blasphemy. Anyone who dares to question it is seen as the lowest form of life that must be tarred, feathered and locked in a public stockade. Canada was not broken. Why was it “fixed”?
 
One last point : Our population keeps increasing. And immigration is the key factor contributing to this increase. In the 1960’s, Canada’s population was in the 20 million range. Now, 5-6 decades later, it is over 36 million. Inevitably, breeding of recent immigrants will increase that number. Has this increase improved the relative quality of life for Canadian citizens? I don’t believe it has.
 
And so why on earth should we continue to support the key driver of this population increase, namely, high immigration numbers? It makes no sense to me. And as much as I keep hearing the rhetoric of the left, liberals and “progressive conservatives”, that we need more immigration to sustain our way of life and our economy, I don’t believe it.Three major federal studies contradict this nonsense and back me up. Moreover, all I see are the downsides. Even the Parliamentary Budget Office says it will cost Canadians $1 billion over 3 years just to cover the costs of the fake refugees at our Eastern border. Remember : Those people arrived because of Trudeau’s virtue-signalling blunder in 2015. That blunder has evolved into accepted inevitability. If Trudeau does nothing, about 50,000 more fake refugees will probably arrive this year.
 
Furthermore, I see a rise in Asian gang crime, Somalian gang crime, Islamic fundamentalism and the negative impacts of a major increase in populations in our major urban centres. For example, property values in Metro Vancouver and Toronto are out of reach for many of our children. Why are they so high? Because wealthy Asians have speculated with our property. And so, whatever the benefits of immigration, those benefits are vastly outweighed by the negatives, especially if you are a European- descended “Old Stock” Canadian.
 
It’s time to put the brakes on immigration.

LOVE OF THE LAND

Posted on by
LOVE OF THE LAND — YOUR LAND 
It amazes me that politicians, with their silly smiles, with their multi-acre homes, with all their money and power, can talk about such things as multiculturalism, mass immigration, and the homogenization (though they never use this word) of all ethnic traits as if this were a purely dispassionate exercise in demographics, a matter of educating the simple people, with their primitive superstitions, to the algebra of the coming global dictatorship, and to the unavoidable facts of an intensely overcrowded planet, three times the size of what it was in 1950, when “wilderness” did not yet mean “places on the Earth where permanent human life is impossible.”
Today’s politicians never mention the fact that love of one’s home can be as strong as any other love, that homesickness can be as strong as any other emotional pain, and that without that bond to the home a human being is like a fetus without an umbilical cord.
your beautiful landyour beautiful land
This love of the land, I mean a little plot of land, on the edge of the sea, on the edge of the forest, was recorded in words that can easily be found. The Norwegian national anthem begins, “Yes, we love this land, where the wild sea foams, wind and weather-beaten. . . .” And Sir Walter Scott asked: “Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, /  Who never to himself hath said, / This is my own, my native land!”And the Ponzi scheme that constitutes all of modern finance means that everyone’s income pays for less than before, and that each person’s home is easily lost through the nightmare of paying for everyday bills. And the sink-or-swim daily routine of employment means that no job is guaranteed for more than a month in the future. The chances of actually living in a house of one’s own, with no little horrors of losing it, become less and less likely.

Attachments area

 

Ottawa Mayor, Police Force, Islamic Groups Attacking “Racist” Old Stock Canadians

Posted on by

Ottawa Mayor, Police Force, Islamic Groups Attacking “Racist” Old Stock Canadians

Led by the City of Ottawa, United Way East Ontario, Ottawa Police Service, and joined by many other organizations, the group will coordinate local efforts to overcome hate and violence in our city.

“We know members of our communities face Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of hate,” said Yasir Naqvi, Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Canadian Citizenship.” We’re here today to show that we are taking a unified approach to help address these issues.”

Yes- it is a unified approach– unite all Anglophones into a monolithic community stepped in racism and bigotry. Always the way–forever and a day. Witch-hunting organizations such as Muslimlink, National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Anti-Hate Network love to slam Old Stock Canadians as racists and bigots–without ever coming out and explicitly stating who the perpetrators are.

Yet, any informed Canadians(step aside Snowflakes) understands the message implicit in the program– the racists and bigots are all White Canadians. Why so cowardly? It is perfectly logical that if such comprehensive racism exists in the fashion described, some group of Canadians must be responsible.

Still, the witch-hunt brigade prefer a more tacit approach–we will brand white Canada racist without actually coming out and “naming names.”

From the Old Stock Canadian perspective–the one currently being suppressed by way of Canadian media– what difference is there between an implicit and explicit approach?

Is the end game not the very same? The Liberal-Globalist assault upon English Canada always is–these agendas are written-in-stone, and immutable– just like the so-called “multicultural” organizations driving this anti-Anglophone agenda.

Please do tell, Ms. Amira Elghawby— how much energy will be placed upon IMAM’s preaching hate in Ottawa mosques? How much of your resources will focus upon fundamentalist/militant Islam’s attack upon Christians?

Let CAP guess– “nothing from nothing leaves nothing.”  In other words, this “anti-racism” initiative is an anti-white agenda disguised as an advance of “human rights” issues.

My oh my–how incredibly “Justin Trudeau” this is. And of course this is the case. Globalism is naturally a globalist phenomenon–meaning the patterns repeat over and over in a pre-conceived manner.

Government. Media. Academia. Third World non-profit organizations.  Tax-payer funded immigration, refugee and multicultural organizations. All united in form and content–and all of it anti- Anglophone in essence.

But you know what really get CAP’s goat? When Canadian mayors support a set-up for the demonization of those who  come from the same heritage as they do. What a common phenomenon this is– it is practically ubiquitous among Canadian mayors.

In fact, after Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts, MP Ahmed Hussen, academia and media, CAP will state Canadian mayors collectively support the vilification of their own people.

John Tory of Toronto. Jim Watson of Ottawa. Lisa Helps of Victoria. Bonnie Crombie of Mississauga. Each one is fully on-board with shaping the collective character of 25- odd million Old Stock Canadians into a rabid gang of uneducated racist meatheads.

All in a day’s work, eh? What a state-of-affairs. Justin Trudeau spent four years demonizing Anglo-Canada by way his vote-pandering, grovelling apologies to every non-Anglo community he could find: Sikhs, Chinese, Jews, Muslims, First Nations.

What did this do for our people? Branded them racists, bigots and xenophobes. Who agreed with him? Immigration Minister MP Ahmed Hussen, MP Iqra Khalid, and other members of PM Trudeau’s “globalist” inner circle.

READ MORE: Death of Democracy– Canada Becomes WORLD LEADER In Refugee Intake, Majority Of Citizens Are OPPOSED

On a provincial level, the government of British Columbia has also delivered apologies for the historical–as well as present-day– behaviour of Old Stock Canada. After both Justin Trudeau and former PM Stephen Harper apologized for the Chinese Head Tax of 1905, ex-Liberal Premier Christy Clark’s government also issued an apology.

Then, the following year, Raymond Louie of the Vancouver city municipal government issued a third apology for the Chinese Head Tax. Good enough? Of course not–we are talking about insatiable multicult-pushers here– being dissatisfied is woven into the DNA of these forces.

Okay, so we have all three levels of government grovelling to Third World Canada based upon their collective surge in political power in a post-Pierre Trudeau Canada.

Rule #1 — Old Stock Canada must feel sorry for these people. Rule #2-– Old Stock Canada are responsible for the suffering of all non-Anglophone communities in Canada.

Mayor Jim Watson of Ottawa agrees. Mayor Jim Watson raises Pride flag at Ottawa City hall. See Watson establish “Iran Day” at Ottawa City Hall.   Witness as Watson supports “Islamic Heritage Month” in Ontario.

Boy, are these Canadians all over the place regarding the joys and sorrows of Third World Canada. One of the most tell-tale signs of the entire sordid affair lies with this Islamic Heritage Month propaganda piece–Canada, in truth, has no Islamic heritage.

Consider this thought– to what extent has Islamic philosophy or ideology impacted the formation of Canadian society. Quick answer– to no extent at all.

Now, let’s turn to Anglophone Canada. Fact is, every fundamental of Canadian society is rooted in British and European-style governance. Rule of Law, Constitution, Parliamentary structure, habeas corpus, hidden ballots, justice system,court system, and related jurisprudence.

Trudeau-family created liberal-globalist outcome? Anglophones are bigoted bastards, and rabid racists. Fair and equitable? You be the judge. Then, what happens next?

White Canada is accused of having “white privilege.”  Muslimlink of Canada— kindly point out the so-called “white privilege” implicit in the contents of this article.

Stone-cold silence. It’s always the way with these people and their nefarious political agendas. So Bonnie Crombie, John Tory and Jim Watson have fully bought into the “whitey as menace” theory–regardless of the fact they themselves are Canadians of this variety.

How “Liberal-Globalist” this is. Imagine how happy Anglo-bashers like Senator Ratna Omidvar are. Third World-centric journalists Shree Paradkar and Sheema Khan are over-the-moon about it. Jasmine Zine, academic white-basher from Wilfred Laurier is also well pleased.

But millions of Old Stock Canadians are not impressed in the least– and with every day that passes, more and more are awakening to the “snow-job” Trudeau and Gerald Butts have planted into the garden of Canadian society– the concept that white Canada are nothing more than spiteful, hateful racists and bigots.

— BRAD SALZBERG

 

 

Critical Reflections on Canadian Multiculturalism w/ Prof. Ricardo Duchesne

Posted on by
8:46 AM (1 hour ago)

Exporting Canada’s Model Of Multiculturalism = Ethnocide Of European Peoples by Ricardo Duchesne Ratna Omidvar Canadian Senator Ratna Omidvar tells Germans how to redesign their nation with Third World migration at the Embassy of Canada. We hear everyday that multiculturalism is the uniquely defining characteristic of Canada. The White natives of England, France, Sweden, America, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Spain are now hearing the same. Every Western nation is uniquely multicultural. But there is no denying that Canada’s emasculated elites have been unique promoters of the idea that Canada has a uniquely successful multicultural model that should be adopted by all Western nations. Since about the 1990s, Canada’s elites took it upon themselves to advertise the nation as a “successful model of multiculturalism.” They knew that a momentum was building up in the West for mass immigration, cheaper labour, along with globalism generally. They saw an opportunity to showcase Canada’s initiation of “official” multiculturalism. Thousands of government officials, together with hundreds of simple minded academics, hopped from European country to European country, from conference to conference, ceremoniously insisting that Canada was a proven case that “immigrants help society grow culturally, economically and politically, and that “cultural appreciation of ethnic and religious diversity” is essential for the fulfilment of liberal principles and the creation of a harmonious state. The strategy was simple: first call your nation uniquely multicultural, then rewrite Canada’s history as a nation created by immigrants from diverse places, and then portray the legal enactment of multiculturalism as a recognition of this historical fact. Never mind that for most of its history Canada was a nation created from the ground up by native Europeans with a high fertility rate. There was really only one short period — from 1901 to 1914 — when Canada saw high numbers of immigrants (and these were mostly from Europe and from the United States). During much of its history, many of the immigrants actually emigrated to the United States. The notion that Canada is a nation of immigrants is simply a lie to justify an experiment of “major proportions” implemented in the 1970s to re-create a Canada according to the dictates of cultural Marxism. In the exportation of the phrase “we are uniquely immigrant nations” to Europe we clearly see the lie behind this “uniquely Canadian model.” This label is not about recognizing a historical reality but about bringing about a totally new reality across the West. The idea that European nations were created by diverse immigrants is patently absurd. Ratna Omidvar Pursuit of truth is of no concern to Canada’s humanitarian ambassadors. The aim is to trick Europeans into redefining their nations as multicultural by imitating Canada. This can be seen in a recent cultural event hosted by the Canadian embassy in Germany: “Respect for Diversity and Inclusion of Migrants in Germany.” The leading person in this 2017 summer event was the Canadian Senator Ratna Omidvar. Her unique speech was aimed at encouraging Germans to uniquely “embrace immigration and integration.” The fact that the millions of Moslems and Africans who arrived in Germany did so without any security checks and without any “points system” does not concern Ratna one iota. For this opportunist it is all about diversifying as fast as possible all European nations regardless of the means employed. The message of this “Iranian immigrant” resonated with the full house at the Embassy in Berlin and inspired creative and thoughtful ways to embrace immigration and integration. This Senator, you see, has the title of “Nation Builder of the Decade for Citizenship,” granted by the globalist Globe and Mail newspaper. She is a “founding Executive Director of the ‘think-and-do tank’ Global Diversity Exchange,” the “Co-Chair at the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Migration,” and a “Member of the Order of Canada.” Ratna surely knows what will make Germany great. The Government of Canada called this event “Canada’s Approach,” “Respect for Diversity and Inclusion,” “A Respected Voice on Immigration,” “Strength in Diversity.” Canada has been exporting these phrases for three decades. Don’t be tricked by their pretentious humanitarian tone; these are possible the most deceptive, ethnocidal phrases ever conceived, and perhaps Canada should be credited for this singular achievement. To meet Canada’s ideals, Germans are rewriting their history as a “nation of immigrants,” teaching their students that there is no such thing as a “pure German,” and even saying that Islam has always been part of Germany’s identity! To top it all, they are considering enshrining into the constitution, at the behest of Federal Integration Commissioner Aydan Özoğuz, the idea that all Third World cultures should be assigned the same status in Germany’s identity as German. They are insisting that the “Federal Republic of Germany” be officially declared “a diverse country of immigration” in the constitution as Article 20b. There is no way around it: “respect for diversity” = ethnocide of Germans. Take a listen:

Posted on by

Exporting Canada’s Model Of Multiculturalism = Ethnocide Of European Peoples

by Ricardo Duchesne

Ratna Omidvar
Canadian Senator Ratna Omidvar tells Germans how to redesign their nation with Third World migration at the Embassy of Canada.

We hear everyday that multiculturalism is the uniquely defining characteristic of Canada. The White natives of EnglandFranceSwedenAmericaAustraliaNew ZealandItalySpain are now hearing the same. Every Western nation is uniquely multicultural. But there is no denying that Canada’s emasculated elites have been unique promoters of the idea that Canada has a uniquely successful multicultural model that should be adopted by all Western nations.

Since about the 1990s, Canada’s elites took it upon themselves to advertise the nation as a “successful model of multiculturalism.” They knew that a momentum was building up in the West for mass immigration, cheaper labour, along with globalism generally. They saw an opportunity to showcase Canada’s initiation of “official” multiculturalism. Thousands of government officials, together with hundreds of simple minded academics, hopped from European country to European country, from conference to conference, ceremoniously insisting that Canada was a proven case that “immigrants help society grow culturally, economically and politically, and that “cultural appreciation of ethnic and religious diversity” is essential for the fulfilment of liberal principles and the creation of a harmonious state.

The strategy was simple: first call your nation uniquely multicultural, then rewrite Canada’s history as a nation created by immigrants from diverse places, and then portray the legal enactment of multiculturalism as a recognition of this historical fact. Never mind that for most of its history Canada was a nation created from the ground up by native Europeans with a high fertility rate. There was really only one short period — from 1901 to 1914 — when Canada saw high numbers of immigrants (and these were mostly from Europe and from the United States). During much of its history, many of the immigrants actually emigrated to the United States. The notion that Canada is a nation of immigrants is simply a lie to justify an experiment of “major proportions” implemented in the 1970s to re-create a Canada according to the dictates of cultural Marxism.

In the exportation of the phrase “we are uniquely immigrant nations” to Europe we clearly see the lie behind this “uniquely Canadian model.” This label is not about recognizing a historical reality but about bringing about a totally new reality across the West. The idea that European nations were created by diverse immigrants is patently absurd.

Ratna Omidvar

Pursuit of truth is of no concern to Canada’s humanitarian ambassadors. The aim is to trick Europeans into redefining their nations as multicultural by imitating Canada. This can be seen in a recent cultural event hosted by the Canadian embassy in Germany: “Respect for Diversity and Inclusion of Migrants in Germany.” The leading person in this 2017 summer event was the Canadian Senator Ratna Omidvar. Her unique speech was aimed at encouraging Germans to uniquely “embrace immigration and integration.”

The fact that the millions of Moslems and Africans who arrived in Germany did so without any security checks and without any “points system” does not concern Ratna one iota. For this opportunist it is all about diversifying as fast as possible all European nations regardless of the means employed. The message of this “Iranian immigrant”

resonated with the full house at the Embassy in Berlin and inspired creative and thoughtful ways to embrace immigration and integration.

This Senator, you see, has the title of “Nation Builder of the Decade for Citizenship,” granted by the globalist Globe and Mail newspaper. She is a “founding Executive Director of the ‘think-and-do tank’ Global Diversity Exchange,” the “Co-Chair at the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Migration,” and a “Member of the Order of Canada.”

Ratna surely knows what will make Germany great.

The Government of Canada called this event “Canada’s Approach,” “Respect for Diversity and Inclusion,” “A Respected Voice on Immigration,” “Strength in Diversity.” Canada has been exporting these phrases for three decades. Don’t be tricked by their pretentious humanitarian tone; these are possible the most deceptive, ethnocidal phrases ever conceived, and perhaps Canada should be credited for this singular achievement.

To meet Canada’s ideals, Germans are rewriting their history as a “nation of immigrants,” teaching their students that there is no such thing as a “pure German,” and even saying that Islam has always been part of Germany’s identity! To top it all, they are considering enshrining into the constitution, at the behest of Federal Integration Commissioner Aydan Özoğuz, the idea that all Third World cultures should be assigned the same status in Germany’s identity as German. They are insisting that the “Federal Republic of Germany” be officially declared “a diverse country of immigration” in the constitution as Article 20b.

There is no way around it: “respect for diversity” = ethnocide of Germans. Take a listen:

Paul Fromm on the Kenn Gividen Show: How Many Indians Did Whites Massacre & Other Politically Incorrect Issues With Charles Edward Lincoln

Posted on by
Paul Fromm on the Kenn Gividen Show: How Many Indians Did Whites Massacre & Other Politically Incorrect Issues With Charles Edward Lincoln
How many Indians did Whites massacre?
The meaning of the Red Ensign — Canada’s rebel flag
The woes of 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.