Tag Archives: multiculturalism

The Kingston Manifesto — Multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” and the dissolution of nations

Posted on by

The American Mercury

Founded by H.L. Mencken in 1924

The Kingston Manifesto — Multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” and the dissolution of nations

S Posted on by E.C. AshendenCanada: The Kingston Manifesto thumbnail

Multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” and the dissolution of nations

by Peter Goodchild

THE CORROSION of Western civilization can be seen in a group of interrelated political events, as exemplified in Canada, my own country: multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” the dissolution of nations, my concerns especially since the period of 2008 to 2011, when I was in the Middle East and saw these things from a perspective not possible for the average Canadian.

Most Westerners live in a world of illusion. They might spend their time “catching the news” on a TV set or a computer, but they are unaware that the main news-media are owned by gigantic corporations, which have a hidden globalist agenda. Yet most people nowadays do not often read serious books, and so they have little access to genuine in-depth information. If you push them far enough, they will only say, “Well, I believe. . . .”

What do Canadians think they are learning by having their eyes glued to a TV set? They believe that since Canada has 10 million km2 of land, it can keep bringing in more immigrants for eternity, even though most of the land is uninhabitable, and that with sufficient goodwill one can have infinite growth on a finite planet.

They believe that people of European descent, who composed more than 80 percent of Canada until recent times, are guilty of centuries of rather uncertain crimes, perhaps including the alphabet, education, democracy, modern medicine, and science. They believe the world should be controlled by a benevolent dictatorship, with all history, nationality, parenthood, and even gender scrubbed out of people’s brains.

The most important question, though, is not some vague issue of “ethnicity” but rather that of the political motive for these developments. “Multiculturalism” really means no culture at all, no values, no past, no goals, no hopes, no future. The ultimate message is that Earth should become a terribly crowded but profitable slave planet, and that resistance is useless.

Globalism and Western Decline

Around 4000 B.C. there arose a people, probably living north of the Black Sea, to whom we now refer as the early Indo-Europeans. They were the first people to use iron (versus bronze) weapons, and also the first to use horse-drawn chariots – perhaps indeed the first to domesticate horses for any purpose. After about 1000 B.C. there arose a division between the eastern (Persian) and western Indo-Europeans (Greeks), or, in other words, between the Asians and the Europeans. The Indo-Europeans in Persia were a minority in a sea of Asians and as a result ended up assimilating Asian customs. But the Indo-Europeans in Greece were a majority and thus managed to impose their aristocratic libertarian culture, the idea that the leader cannot be a despot but is first among aristocratic equals. This the world of the Iliad. Herodotus indicates the split in his frequent distinctions between the Persians and the Greeks. He claims that the Persian world was characterized by despotism, while the Westerners, the Greeks, were a people of relative freedom, aristocratic equality, and eventually democracy for all free men, including property-owning farmers.

The people who have that Western legacy, however, are now disappearing from much of Europe and North America. Instead, we have “multiculturalism,” which really means the dismantling of “culture,” the decline of the West. In our schools, young people are now taught to be ashamed of their legacy, and any courses in the social sciences are perverted to show the “guilt” of those who spent thousands of years developing Western civilization. How did these regrettable changes come about?

To answer this question, one must first note that in most Western countries there is no longer a real democracy, but rather a barely disguised one-party system. The elite of the supposed left and right spend their time together – the same restaurants, the same marriages, the same golf courses. For a change of pace they switch to journalism – and so much for freedom of the press. During an election, it would be possible to make a list of all the slogans, mix up those items, and then ask someone to match the slogans with the parties. But it would turn out that the matching could not be done.

Actually there is only one slogan: “Bodies are good for business.” So the population must be kept expanding forever. The price we pay for overpopulation and over-immigration, however, is high unemployment, environmental degradation, inadequate housing, traffic congestion, overloaded social services, high crime-rates, losses of water and farmland, and declining natural resources of all kinds. Overcrowding also leads to mental illness: in an urban environment, our nerves are often like wires that have been tightened to a point where their molecules will no longer hold.

The stage for decline was set by the lowering of intellectual capacity. Most people, unfortunately, don’t react to much of anything anymore. One of the main reasons for this decline is that people don’t really become adults. We have created a world of cultural neoteny – prolonged childish behavior, a milieu of “dumbing down” that stretches from birth to death. “Neoteny” is a biological term referring to remaining juvenile for a long period after birth. Obviously humans do this anyway – it takes years for an infant to turn into an adult. But a great deal of modern political sloganeering has the effect, consciously or otherwise, of keeping people silly and childish for life. Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House was an early look into that, at least in terms of women. Predictions of cultural neoteny can also be seen in Huxley’s Brave New World and in a somewhat grimmer form in Orwell’s 1984. This neoteny is pervasive, but it can be seen in such forms as the decline in literacy and the decline in education.

It’s curious to note, however, that there is a definite substratum of the public that disagrees with official policies. On-line news articles that allow comments from viewers get deluged with people expressing heretical views. Then the comments are shut off, and it’s back to Business as Usual – literally. These dissident members of the general public have rarely been brought together, and each person is largely unaware that there are many others holding the same views. The politically orthodox may be enforcing the rules for most daily conversation, but the disquiet never entirely disappears.

If civilization is defined by the presence of writing, then the decline of Western civilization might be defined by the disappearance of interest in serious texts – from the Iliad onward. People don’t read books as much as they used to. No one seems to feel guilty for the fact that instead of reading a book called X they have merely watched a movie called X, based on the book. Yes, it’s true that a movie sometimes has advantages over print, but in general to make a movie out of a book one has to reduce it to action and dialogue, and all the exposition and analysis has to be removed. The time frame of a movie also means that a great deal of detail will be cut out. Not much meaningful discussion can take place when the person to whom one is speaking is convinced that books and movies are simply different “media” providing the same educational service.

A similar decline can be found in formal education. There was a time when the purpose of a university education was to allow young people to explore the outer regions of space and time. Now it’s just training in how to use a cash register. The lowest clerk in the huge building labeled “administration” has a more pleasant job, and much greater job security, than the average instructor. It’s money that keeps the university churning, apparently, not some vague and pretentious search for wisdom. Teachers are day-laborers, easily replaced, and it takes no great skill to deal with the reading materials supplied by the corporations for their future slaves.

“Education” of the new sort is more form than substance: teachers are so afraid of being accused of heresy that the students are given little real information. The average young person in the modern world spends about twenty thousand hours doing school work, yet nearly all of that is a waste of time, because a job at the end of that road does not require the ability to think in any Platonic or Aristotelian sense. Modern education involves little real learning, and far more time is spent on mere indoctrination.

Any form of “nationalism,” any statement of pride in one’s country, was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed. Western culture in general was denigrated, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that “all cultures are equal.”

By propagating an “underdog” mentality among Westerners, globalists have encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. There is now a strong sense of “wrong,” but especially when these victims look at themselves. They hate their own culture and their own heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame, they suffer from self-loathing. They feel a need for self-abasement. They have low self-confidence, low self-assurance, low self-esteem.

Confirmed underdogs have self-destructive attitudes about sexuality, marriage, and the family. To them, a stable marriage, heterosexual and monogamous, is anathema. What better way to prevent the growth of what used to be called a “real man” than to suggest to a young boy that, deep down, he might not be a boy but a girl? (The same in reverse would apply to girls.) And so we create (or imagine) multiple “genders,” “bi-” this and “poly-” that, psychologically disturbed mutations who have no chance of standing up against the totalitarian state. (How odd that no other species of mammal has more than two genders!)

But above all, to be accepted in modern society one must now proclaim that Western culture is guilty of some nameless crime, making it necessary to give preferential treatment to any and all other cultures. Of course, that is a belief with which those “other cultures” are always happy to agree. And once that “guilt” has become established as “fact,” every piece of writing that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs.

All “respectable” political or religious groups shuffling for power now try to portray themselves as holier, more pious, than the others, but really they all have the same goal: to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves.

The Growth of Cultural Marxism

The moral and intellectual fabric of Western society has been disintegrating for some time. To a large extent the destruction can be blamed on a form of Marxism, socialism, left-wing thinking, “underdog” mentality, which has encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. In the middle of the last century, Marxism never had much luck in intellectual contests among Westerners, so it had to burrow underground, eroding the foundations of modern society and leaving people in a state of perpetual self-doubt and abnegation. This is what is called “cultural Marxism.” Not much of the reality of cultural Marxism is clearly evident: most of it is experienced as a mere premonition, like that of a coming change in the weather.

Cultural Marxism began in the early twentieth century, when Marxism in the usual sense (i.e. economic Marxism) was a failure in Western Europe; in the First World War, for example, most people were far more interested in defending their country than in overthrowing their government. Cultural Marxism arose because, in order to win in the West, Marxists realized they would have to go underground, working on the “culture” rather than openly advocating revolution. The movement began roughly with Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, who claimed that in order for Marxism to succeed in the West, it was vital to destroy the existing culture by sowing the seeds of doubt regarding all traditional Western moral values.

Hence the formation of the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt, and its offspring, some of whom (at various times) were Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Following Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Institute left Germany, finally moving to New York City, where it was affiliated with Columbia University.

In “The Origins of Political Correctness” (version of 2000), William S. Lind breaks cultural Marxism down into five parts:

“Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about . . . the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say. . . . .

“We call it “Political Correctness”. . . .

“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . . If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious. . . .

“First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses. . . .

“Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology . . . is to take some philosophy and say . . . certain things must be true. . . . That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

“Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Cultural Marxism . . . says that all history is determined by . . . which groups . . . have power over which other groups. . . .

“Third, certain groups . . . are a priori good, and other groups . . . are evil . . . regardless of what any of them do. . . .

“Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. . . . When the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. . . .

“And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. . . . . For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. . . .

“The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish.”

It is commonly assumed that the term “cultural Marxism” is a right-wing invention. As such, it could be described as a form of “paranoid global conspiracy theory,” along with so many other right-wing concepts that are casually dismissed in similar ways. But the term isn’t a right-wing invention at all. The use of the term “cultural Marxism” by leftist academics themselves (with the same definitions as are used by the right wing) is indicated by such authors and book titles as Dennis Dworkin, Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain; Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture; Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, Cultural Marxism; and Richard R. Weiner, Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology.

So “cultural Marxism” isn’t a form of “paranoid global conspiracy theory,” since it isn’t paranoid and it isn’t just a theory. But the daily news is so heavy with anti-right-wing judgments that a viewer could could easily give up on trying to find the truth. It’s not surprising that people just accept the claim that cultural Marxism is a figment of the deranged right-wing imagination.

Cultural Marxism is in fact the engine that keeps the whole “multicultural” ship moving along. But even fairly knowledgeable people don’t really think much about that engine, except maybe when they’re lying in their bunks at night and they hear a distant chugging sound.

The attack – by Westerners – on Western beliefs and values never slows down. The “Hippie Revolution,” damaging the lives of so many Baby Boomers, was largely due to the machinations of Benjamin Spock, Noam Chomsky, and Timothy Leary. The Church has reduced itself to infantilism. Ph.D.’s are handed out to students who can only be described as illiterate. Electronic devices destroy our attention span, reduce direct contact among humans, and turn everything into “virtual reality.” Illicit drugs and inadequate diets further reduce our mental capacities.

Sorry – maybe some of this can’t be laid at the feet of poor Karl Marx. Perhaps some of this is just a matter of “lifestyle choice,” to use modern jargon. But is there really a difference?

A related problem that makes cultural Marxism so hard to analyze is that to some extent it’s a group of overlapping activities, not just one, and that’s especially true nowadays. Multiculturalism, sexual deviancy, mass immigration, “sanctuary cities,” aggressive religions, dumbing down, “liberalism” that is not at all liberal, and so on – the modern world has become somewhat shapeless and formless. The trail of Marxism is so long, and goes cold so often.

At times the trail becomes quite ludicrous, with “multiculturalism” itself as an example of that absurdity. The early cultural Marxists hoped to destroy traditional Western culture by flooding it with other cultures. Yet nowadays the photographs in advertising largely portray non-White (non-European, non-Western) people, in spite of the fact that the West is demographically still mostly White. Yet every major bank advertises its services very largely with photographs of happy non-White or multi-racial couples.

But the inclusion of non-Whites is good for business, since such people compose a new and possibly lucrative customer base – “diversity is our strength” is the new chant. So what began in the 1930s as a Marxist tactic has become, many decades later, a marketing ploy by capitalist bankers who would rather die than be regarded as Marxists!

What does the term “left wing” itself really mean? In France long ago, the terms “left” and “right” had precise meanings, based on where one was actually sitting in the Estates General, indicating one’s attitude toward the Revolution. Now perhaps “left wing” means big government, and big spending by that government, but above all it means supporting the “poor” rather than the “rich.” By the “poor” I mean the voters, of course, not the people leading such flocks.

As soon as “guilt” has become established as “fact,” every relevant piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs. Although the terms are used misleadingly, everything must also stress “fairness,” “democracy,” and “equal rights.” The punishment for breaches of “multiculturalism” is swift and merciless, unless one is attacking Christians; Easter seems always ready to disappear from the free calendars handed out by politicians.

There are corollaries to all the above. Leftists must believe in prohibiting the ownership of guns, for example. If people believe they are underdogs, they must also believe they have no right to defend themselves. Only grown-ups should have guns, and leftists know they are not grown-ups.

Most leftists believe all cultures are, in some inexplicable way, equal. In their naiveté, they cannot believe that many cultures are cruel and intolerant, locked in the pre-literate mentality of a thousand years ago. Westerners today cannot understand that there can be such vast differences between the mentality of one culture and another. The mainstream news-media foster this misunderstanding by failing to report the shocking statistics of rape, mutilation, murder, and other barbarisms that go on in this world.

Most people have little sense of history, yet cruelty has long been a part of that history. Beginning about 5,000 years ago in the Near East, various civilizations arose in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and so on. After a war between city-states, it was customary for all the male inhabitants of the losing city to be put to death, and impalement was one of the most common forms of killing. That ancient mentality has not entirely passed away. Yet Westerners like to fool themselves into believing that the entire world consists of people who read glossy magazines and keep up with all the intellectual trends. The reality is that, even in modern times, the counterpart to an act of “tolerance” in one country would just as surely result in a death sentence in another.

Above all, cultural Marxism is an effective means of rationalizing the quest for “the ethnic vote.” The cultural-Marxist dogma plays into an alleged economic need: to increase immigration and thereby sustain a “growing economy.” Yet massive immigration really has little or no benefit to the country, and in fact leads to overcrowding, unemployment, and other social ills. For the rich, on the other hand, massive immigration means more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For religious groups, larger numbers of the “faithful” means a greater chance of pushing out competitors. Yet none of these groups has the good of the country in mind.

In a world of otherwise horrendous overpopulation, we are told that the West itself is headed for demographic collapse, and that we must find out why this is happening. Yet no answer is offered, other than the circular response that the problem is caused by low fertility. At the same time, one gets the feeling that the Westerners in these shrinking countries are being punished for some unnamed sin. Left-wingers are always trying to find ways to justify mass migration and multiculturalism, in the hope that they can dominate a planet of rootless wanderers, people with no culture at all.

But if we choose to have a serious look at the real issues of demographic decline, we can see some important variations. In Europe, it is the eastern countries that are facing the worst decline in population. And it is eastern Europe that is the poorest. In McMafia, Misha Glenny tells us that international “human trafficking” is supplied mostly by women from eastern Europe. This fact is surely connected to another, that women in these countries are choosing not to have children — or rather, they are faced with the near-impossibility of doing so. As I was once told by a white woman, “This isn’t a good world in which to be bringing up children.”

It was eastern Europe that was dominated by Communism. It was eastern Europe that was destroyed by Communism. All of this is the legacy of Karl Marx. Demographic collapse is not a punishment of Westerners for some unnamed sin. The dots are obvious, the connections among them less so. But the more one looks at the picture, the more it comes together.

One Ring to Bind Them All

Muslims repeatedly kill and wound large numbers of people. Basically quite simple. But then I find a large number of questions floating around. For one thing, the politicians and the mainstream news-media are all saying that such attacks are perpetrated by “terrorists,” not specifically by “Muslims.” So this raises the large issue of disinformation (versus misinformation). The KGB, during the Cold War, were quite instrumental in developing this. One of the main tricks is not to tell a lie exactly, because it’s possible to get caught, but simply to tweak the facts a tiny bit, even if the final effect is not so tiny. Now politicians do it all the time. By saying “terrorists” rather than “Muslims,” the average television-viewer can wipe the sweat from his forehead and say, “Oh, thank God. Terrorists. I was afraid it was Muslims.” Then he can go to bed, sleep like a baby, and snore all night long.

Somebody once asked me: Why would people deliberately blow themselves up? To a modern Westerner this seems incomprehensible. The answer is that these people think they’ll go straight to heaven if they perform these acts of martyrdom. And how could people believe such a thing? Because they have such faith in their God. Islam was created fourteen centuries ago, and it has hardly changed since then. In order to understand Islam one can study the history of Europe at that same time, the early Middle Ages. Consider the fact that even the Christian monks spent centuries burning other monks at the stake over minor issues of theological doctrine. And for Muslims nowadays, violence on that level is all part of the grand tradition.

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington notes that “wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peacefully with their neighbors.” A few decades ago, Charles de Gaulle had the bright idea of importing Muslims from his defunct North African empire, in order to form a union of Europeans and Muslims (called Eurabia by Bat Ye’or) that might even compete with the US as a world power. And now France, among many other countries, is paying the price, but the politicians deny all responsibility.

For Westerners, part of the disturbing news these days is that Muslim attacks are often right in the heart of Europe. So the unspoken fear is that jihad (religious warfare) is moving even further west. What will happen next in Germany, for example?

Then there’s the great stumbling block of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. After all that we know of the Muslim assault on the West, why would she have allowed a vast crowd of Muslim invaders from three different continents – sorry, “Syrian refugees” – to swarm into Germany and destroy whatever was left of German self-esteem?

The goal is always the same: to wipe out all the independence-loving particular countries that are now in place. That is why the news media always hammer out the message that one must never use the words “white,” “race,” “ethnic,” or “nationalist” in any positive sense. When those “rebels” (us) have been crushed, it will be possible for the One Worlders to set up their massive government that will have its fingers on all the buttons.

The European Union is not much different from the Soviet Union, and no better. The goal is to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves. All such ideologies have always been quite opposed to democracy. The biggest step, though, is to crush any sense of pride in one’s own country, and to do that the opposite to nationalism must be instituted: “multiculturalism.” And what better way to make a country “multicultural” than to bring in a few million families from places where people don’t even believe in birth control? If a few suicide bombers get a little out of hand, then – well, it’s a small price to pay. And, yes, it’s true that too many massacres could put a dent in the One Worlders’ plans. Never mind. As Tolkien said: “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, / One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. . . .”

Canada Is Not Vacant Land

It is a common misconception that Canada has vast amounts of land that could support large numbers of immigrants. Much of this belief is due to a failure to understand Canada’s unique but rather daunting geography. About half of the country is bare (or, at best, spruce-covered), uninhabitable rock, namely the famous Canadian Shield. But bare rock is never “underpopulated.”

It is the border strip, 150 km wide, which is demographically the most significant part of the country: 80 percent of the population lives in this area. In contrast, Canada’s largely uninhabited 5 million square kilometers of bare rock, the enormous area north of that border strip, has winters of unearthly cold stretching out over the better part of the year, with snow reaching to the rooftops, and the remainder of the year is characterized by dense clouds of mosquitoes and blackflies. The general impression is that Canada is an “empty” land, just waiting to get filled up. In reality, at 38 million the population is now nearly three times greater than in 1950.

Because only a certain amount of the country is livable, Canada is already well populated. There is simply no need to continue our mad rush to fill the country. Thanks to dishonest politicians over the years, Canada has roughly the highest immigration rate of all major industrialized countries. Canada also has many economic problems and is unable to provide adequate employment or other support for the people who already live here. A large increase in population is not a solution. In fact, in a world that now has a total population of about 8 billion, an increase in population is never a solution to anything. Yet, unlike many other countries, Canada has no political party that will take a firm stand against excessive immigration.

Canadian multiculturalism is a policy announced to Parliament by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on October 8, 1971, leading in 1988 to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The policy is harmful, partly because it fails to include strategies for integration, such as a requirement of proficiency in an official language before citizenship is granted. Multiculturalism as we see it today – measured in terms of the quantity of bodies – simply results in enclaves, ghettos, gang warfare. Each culture fights every other one. About 85 percent of recent immigrants have neither English nor French as their first language.

Multiculturalism also leads to cultural relativism. Canadians of European extraction are now taught to believe that there is no such thing as barbarism, only “cultural differences.” We forget that there was actually a point to the long centuries of struggle in the West that fostered democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. Yet we bow to medieval mentality on the assumption that we are otherwise “racists.”

Immigrants displace Canadian citizens in the job market, even though unemployment these days is already very high. They also add greatly to the costs of “free” medicine, education, legal advice, and all the other perquisites of the welfare state. In part this is because the immigrants of modern times often lack both language and education.

Pierre Trudeau’s invention is destroying the country, and to speak against it is regarded as sheer heresy. The Chinese are by far the biggest immigrant group, and Vancouver is now an Asian city. But it is not only numbers of people that matter, because there are other ways of changing the country. Money from Saudi Arabia has insidious effects, and Muslim obsessions with sharia (Muslim law) corrode basic Canadian values. According to the highly respected journalist Robert Fisk (“The Crimewave That Shames the World”), about twenty thousand Muslim women every year are the victims of “honor killings” by their own families, but when Canadians hear such accounts they fail to believe them: if such a story did not appear on last night’s television it cannot be true. Yet I spent three years living in the Middle East, and I know that much of the world is far uglier than is imagined by most Westerners.

As an English teacher back in Canada, I would sometimes have to advise immigrant students against infractions of Canadian laws, including those regarding assault, but my students’ rationale for any moral or legal infractions was always the phrase “in my culture” (or “in my country”). Who, specifically, is teaching newcomers such expressions? Politicians are quite aware that “culture” is not a valid catch-all term, but they don’t seem to care. After all, a higher rate of immigration means more votes, and more customers, and more sweatshops.

Until the creation of multiculturalism, freedom of speech and the press was an age-old right. Now, however, it is a crime to say anything that offends any group of people, because one is said to be attacking “human rights.” A charge of this sort is a circular argument: what is offensive is defined in terms of the claim of the other party to feel offended. It’s like a charge of witchcraft: whatever you say, your statement can be turned around to “prove” you are guilty. The similarity between the twisted logic of Trudeauism and that of Stalinism (not to mention the Patriot Act and subsequent American legislation) is curious, but Orwell described such “thought crimes” long ago in 1984.

It’s easy to understand why the inhabitants of the less-pleasant parts of the world have their eyes on Canada. The most significant result of Communist policy in China was famine, and the worst famine in all of world history was that of Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” 1958-61, when about 30 million people died. Now hunger is again looming in that country. China’s arable land is in decline, and about 600 km2 of land in China turns to desert each year. China has once more outgrown its food supply: the ratio of people to arable land in China is more than twice that of the world average, which is already too high to prevent hunger.

China is the world’s leader in the mining or processing of quite a number of natural resources: aluminum, coal, gold, iron, magnesium, phosphate, zinc, and rare-earth minerals, for example. Yet basic energy reserves are in short supply. Although China has about 20 percent of the world’s population, it produces only about 5 percent of the world’s oil, it uses up coal so quickly that its reserves will not last beyond 2030, and the country’s pollution problems are terrible. And China’s “booming economy” is based on devalued currency, counterfeiting, and what is virtually slave labor.

The “fossil” (deep) aquifer of the North China Plain is being depleted, although fossil aquifers cannot be renewed. Yet this aquifer maintains half of China’s wheat production and a third of its corn. As a result of the depletion of water, annual grain production has been in decline since 1998.

China now imports most of its soybeans, and conversely most of the world’s soybean exports go to China. But China may soon need to import most of its grain as well. How will that amount compare with their soybean imports? No one knows for sure, but if China were to import only 20 percent of its grain it would be about the same amount that the US now exports to all countries.

Immigrants from Muslim countries are another large group entering Canada, and according to the Pew Research Center the Muslim population of Canada is expected to rise much faster than the general population. Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of “education,” and many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries. Mosques are springing up everywhere in the West, yet in Saudi Arabia the building of a Christian church incurs an automatic death sentence. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” versus “radical Islam”: Islam comes in only one form, the one that was invented in the seventh century.

The misunderstanding of the vast difference between Muslims and Christians might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts. In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed: for Muslims, therefore, there is no possibility of a “dialog” among various religions. The second and more important reason why it may not be entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing “at the point of a sword,” but that has always been more true of Islam. The term jihad is not a metaphor.

The general public in Canada has become accustomed to submission and therefore remains mute. Unlike other people, most Canadians are never satisfied until they are feeling guilty about something. There is a constant undertone of “moral inferiority” being applied in Canada to people of a Western heritage. One must never mention Christmas, although one must portray a false joy toward the festivities of any other culture. One must constantly mumble and fumble in an attempt to find correct terms for various ethnic groups. Even the terms “B.C.” and “A.D.” must be rewritten as “BCE” and “CE.” All of this is absolute nonsense. To be convinced of one’s own inferiority is nothing more than to accept that some other person is superior – which is exactly what manipulative politicians are planning. It is time to wake up. Those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others.
©2020 Jefferson-Mencken Group Scroll Up

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