Tag Archives: Pierre Trudeau

Does Canada Have An Anti-Anglophone Federal Government?

Posted on by
Does Canada Have An Anti-Anglophone Federal Government?

Is Justin Trudeau fulfilling a covert agenda instigated by so-called father Pierre Trudeau? Brad Salzberg Jul 27   Share   Share For nearly eight years in office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has prided himself on a so-called “progressive” form of governance.
While Canadian media echo the sentiment, an ominous undertone of what “progress” really means falls outside the scope of media narrative. One form of progress is currently eluding millions of citizens of our country who qualify as “Old Stock” Canadians. The offspring of generations of European immigrants, most of these citizens derive from a secular or religious Christian background. To say these communities are getting the “short end of the federal government stick” is the understatement of the decade.

Devoid of community solidarity, white Canadians today exist as a quintessential “silent majority.” It isn’t difficult to see why. Simply put, no one speaks of them. Nearly eight years in office, and PM Trudeau has yet to make verbal reference to English Canada, as well as any form of reference toward our Anglophone communities.

To be sure, Mr. Trudeau doesn’t like our type. He much prefers French-Canadians. Canadians of 3rd World origin are a close second. For verification, we turn to the plight of Anglophones within Canada’s social and political arena. As a result of this week’s Federal Cabinet shuffle, the new Liberal MPs entering cabinet are Jenna Sudds, Rechie Valdez, Ya’ara Saks, Arif Virani, Gary Anandasangaree, Soraya Martinez Ferrada and Terry Beech. Seven new members, one of which is an Anglophone male.

Broadening the scope beyond a federal level reveals what CBC and corporate media never speak of: The “running of the Anglophone” from political office in Canada. Those who believe it to be limited to federal politics take head. At every level of government, white Canadians are being hustled out and replaced with those favoured by Trudeau: Quebecers, 3rd World migrants, homosexuals.

According to Statistics Canada, our country has five cities with a population exceeding one million residents: Out of the five– Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton— just one has an Anglophone mayor. We absolutely cannot understand how an ex-Liberal Cabinet member from the Trudeau government, Amarjeet Sohi, was elected Mayor of Edmonton. In the most recent federal election, the Liberals didn’t win a single seat in Alberta. A total washout, all seats save one(NDP) were taken by the Conservative Party.

What happened? Suddenly every Edmontonian worth their winter boots voted for ex-Liberal MP Amarjeet Sohi? One has to wonder about the forces controlling Canadian politics at present. Whoever they are, they do not like “our kind.”

Why not? Because Anglophones exist as a thorn-in-the-side to Justin Trudeau’s pseudo-communist assault on society. Toss aside the white snowflakes, and what remains are ten million Old Stock Canadians with an ability to see through the veneer of Justin Trudeau’s “woke socialist revolution.” Looking back, we consider the methods that nascent totalitarian governments used to disempower unwanted segments of society.

Fundamental to the endeavor is coordinated government-media propaganda. Trudeau’s Liberals accomplished this through a tacit purchasing of establishment media. Once accomplished, the PM went about insulting and degrading our communities, branding us racist, homophobic and genocidal. Covid from China brought another neo-communist tactic to the mix: the “running of the Christian,” manifest in a plethora of arrests of Canadian pastors. After 50 Christian churches were burned down in arson attacks, PM Trudeau responded with a shrug of his shoulders, stating that the attacks “were understandable.” Make no mistake– this Trudeau fellow has it in for us, big time.

His LGBT advocacy delivers another angle to the agenda. It’s a funny thing– as much as LGBT, Pride and Transgender propaganda have permeated society, media never speak of a specific downside: LGBT results in fewer children being born. Do tell, fellow patriots: why, in a country with a rapidly shrinking population, does our prime minister promote the hell out of non-birthing LGBT advocacy? Trudeau maintains the same vehemence toward promoting Abortion and Euthanasia. All of which maintain a commonality. They result in an impediment of children being born in Canada. It’s a weird phenomenon– until we begin to think about which communities most indulge in these practices.

Every way you look at it, Anglophones in Canada are down on their luck. Media never speak of us in a communal sense. Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese, Quebecois, Tamil Tigers. Your name them, and Justin Trudeau has pandered to them in a giant way. But when it comes to Anglophone Canadians, silence is golden. And here we are sitting back and taking it. If we had to pick a question most often asked of CAP by our readers, it would be something along the lines of “why do we put up with it?” A fair question it is– why do Anglo-European Canadians sit back and take the abuse Team Trudeau has been throwing in our faces for the past seven-plus years? The answer comes in recognition of a 50-history of pre-meditated socio-political seduction.

With Canada’s colonial founding as ammunition, a Quebecois communist by the name of Pierre Trudeau set our people up for the fall. The first major sign was an introduction of Multiculturalism in the early 1970’s. Forced upon an unsuspecting general public, it was only a matter of time before “diversity” steamrolled right over our communities. Wanna know the problem with so-called diversity? It has no ceiling. No point of demarcation exists as to when multiculturalism will be declared a success. Canada’s multicultural pushers are insatiable. Nothing is good enough, and nothing ever will be.

That is, until whitey is pushed to the side, his position usurped by PM Trudeau’s preferred form of citizen: Those willing to accept every draconian, freedom-stripping piece of neo-communism he is throwing at our society. Back in the world of high-level politics, we point to the reality of the Anglophone-Canadian predicament. Out of 39 Liberal Cabinet Members, just seven are male Anglophones. In what seems like ancient history, ex-Conservative PM Stephen Harper’s Cabinet had 18 out of 38. A microcosm for society it is. Justin Trudeau is gunning for disempowerment of one identifiable Canadian community. Like so-called father Pierre, he is at heart a Quebecois communist. Caught off-guard through a half-century of seduction, the destiny of English Canada and its Anglophone communities stands on shaky ground.

David Johnston, Trudeau’s “Special Rapporteur’ on Red Chinese Election Meddling is a Close Family Friend, a Committed Sinophile With Long Contacts With Red China

Posted on by

JOHNSTON’S AFFECTION FOR [RED] CHINA RUNS DEEP

  • National Post
  • 23 Mar 2023
  • Terry Glavin
Former governor general David Johnston has been named a “special rapporteur” into China’s interference into federal elections, but his connections to the Asian power are extensive, Terry Glavin writes.

There are so many crazy things the Trudeau government has been expecting Canadians to believe about the partisan advantage the Liberals have accrued to themselves owing to their cosy relationships with China’s agents of influence in this country that it’s really difficult to decide which is the most objectively unbelievable and easily disprovable.

It’s a target-rich environment, as military tacticians would say. But I’m going to lay out the evidence against just one howler, which is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposition that “horrific, partisan attacks against a man of extraordinary integrity” is anything like a reasonable way to characterize doubts about former Governor General David Johnston’s independence in the matter of Beijing’s influence-peddling operations in Canada.

In the muddle of the playby-play coverage of House of Commons committee manoeuvres and the fate of a resolution calling for a public inquiry into Beijing’s well-documented interference operations in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, there are two key things to keep your eye on.

The first is that Beijing’s influence operations in Canada went into hyperdrive after the Trudeau government came to power in 2015, and Beijing’s United Front Work Department undertook extraordinary clandestine measures in 2019 and 2021 to keep the Trudeau government in power. The second is that Trudeau has enlisted Johnston as his “independent special rapporteur” in the matter in order to avoid answering these straightforward questions: What did Trudeau know about what Beijing was up to, when did he know, and what did he do about it?

For argument’s sake, let’s set aside the relevance of the intimate relationship between the Johnstons and the Trudeaus — their neighbouring cottages in the Laurentians, the childhood ski trips the Trudeau boys and Johnston’s daughters went on together, and so on. You can even set aside Johnston’s role as one of the governing members of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, even though the foundation has been directly caught up in the scandal, owing to the clandestine donations the Foundation recently chose to return to a certain superrich Chinese benefactor following disclosures that the money was part of a Beijing-directed grooming operation targeting Trudeau himself, going back to 2013.

The unreported and unarguably pertinent facts to take into account involve Johnston’s own half-century of participation in Beijing’s strategy to draw Canada into its orbit of influence, and his own personal and ongoing association with figures deeply compromised by their collaboration with Chinese government institutions and by their own vested interest in the catastrophe of the Canada-china collaborations that were spun into high gear after the Trudeau Liberals came to power in 2015.

In the 1980s Johnston was laying the foundations of the Canada-china universities exchange program. Later, as president of the University of Waterloo, he oversaw the establishment of the Confucius Institute, a scandal-shredded arm of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda and espionage operations in western countries. Widely known in Chinese establishment circles by his nickname “Jiangshan,” Johnston was awarded an honorary doctorate by Nanjing University in 2012, by which time he’d already made more than a dozen visits to China.

Three of Johnston’s daughters attended university in China — one at Zhejiang University, Nanjing University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, another at the Beijing Language and Culture University and Hangzhou University, and the third at Fudan University in Shanghai. During a luncheon speech to the Canada-china Business Council in 2013, Johnston said it would be “wonderful” if all Canadians learned to speak Chinese.

While the federal government has been recently forced to issue strict guidelines to Canadian universities regarding the threat of technology transfers and intellectual-property accommodations with Chinese institutions, as recently as 2017 Johnston attended a conference on “science, technology and innovation” at Chongqing University where he professed a “profound Chinese complex” and boasted that even his grandchildren teach him things about China.

It’s a multi-generational “complex” the Johnston family shares with the Trudeaus, going back to Pierre Trudeau’s service to Mao Zedong during the 1960s as one of the regime’s most valued propagandists in the west. Back then, Trudeau Senior co-authored a book with his friend Jacques Hébert about their time as the regime’s invited guests during the Great Leap Forward and the famine that killed perhaps 70 million people. Trudeau and Hébert sneered at western journalists’ efforts to report on the famine and claimed to have noticed nothing more than “controlled distribution of foodstuffs.” The pair dined well during their entire time in the country.

But set aside the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation entirely. The board of directors of Johnston’s own Rideau Hall Foundation — a “parting gift” from Justin Trudeau’s government upon his departure from the Governor General’s office — is a snapshot who’s-who of Beijing’s best friends and business partners in Canada.

A Rideau Hall Foundation director emeritus is Paul Desmarais III, from the Desmarais family, which founded the Canada-china Business Council. Then there’s Dominic Barton, who served as an adviser to several Chinese state-owned enterprises and whose Mckinsey and Company consulted with Chinese corporations involved in the construction of militarized islands in the South China Sea while Barton was chair of Trudeau’s blue-chip Advisory Council on Economic Growth. Barton was appointed Canada’s ambassador to China following the firing of the disgraced John Mccallum.

There’s John Manley, the Telus director and former deputy prime minister from the exuberantly Beijing-compliant Chrétien era. Manley’s contribution to the debates about Xi Jinping’s kidnapping of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor was to suggest the Canada Border Services Agency should have surreptitiously allowed Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou to evade a U.S. Justice Department extradition request.

There’s Beverley Mclachlin, who has refused to step down from her position on Hong Kong’s highest court despite Beijing’s evisceration of Hong Kong’s rule-of-law system. There’s John Montalbano, chief executive officer of the Royal Bank’s Global Asset Management arm, which manages Beijing’s global natural-resources acquisitions through China’s National Council for Social Security Fund, one of the world’s largest pension funds. On it goes like this.

Believe as much as you like that there is nothing untoward about Johnston’s appointment. And to be fair, he did a wonderful job as Governor General. A Governor General’s job is to make Canadians feel good about themselves, despite everything, and to make a convincing case that no matter how bad things look, everything’s OK.

And that is the job he’s been asked to do for Justin Trudeau in the matter of Beijing’s long and sinister reach into Canada’s democratic political institutions, and it should not be surprising if he does the job well.

WHAT DID TRUDEAU KNOW ABOUT WHAT BEIJING WAS UP TO?

Brilliant Expose of the Subversion of Past Canadian Gov’ts, Liberal and Conservative, By the Red Chinese Lobby, Especially the Demarais Family’s Power Corp.

Posted on by

Brilliant Expose of the Subversion of Past Canadian Gov’ts, Liberal and Conservative, By the Red Chinese Lobby, Especially the Demarais Family’s Power Corp.

The PMO’S history of subservience

  • National Post
  • 4 Mar 2023
  • Raymond J. de Souza
Pierre Trudeau meets with Mao Zedong when Trudeau was on an official visit to China as prime minister in 1973.

Regarding the Chinese election interference scandal, there was this little nugget that came to public attention. The Chinese donors — who were to be reimbursed by the Chinese communist state — who ponied up a cool million for the Trudeau Foundation wanted to build a joint statue for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Chairman Mao at the University of Montreal law school.

The law school demurred on the Mao bit, saying that, “Obviously, since Mao had no connection to the university, that suggestion was not an option for us.”

It’s not obvious actually, as universities tend to set a very low bar in terms of whose cash they take. It is notable though that being one of the greatest mass killers in history did not disqualify Mao, but that he hadn’t done even a semester abroad on campus. If he was an alumnus, or perhaps had agreed to accept an honorary degree, then things may have been different.

It seems that the entire Trudeau-mao statue project was dropped. It may have had a better chance if it had been proposed for the Desmarais family’s Power Corp. headquarters in Montreal. That is the corporate seat of Canada’s multi-generational bipartisan soft-on-china policy. The Desmarais family had business interests in China and powerful friends in Ottawa — Trudeau Sr., Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. The latter were eager to be put in service of the former.

Thus a statue of a Canadian prime minister shaking the bloodsoaked hand of a Chinese tyrant would have been a fitting expression of Canadian policy.

Recall that the greatest crisis in foreign relations for Beijing was the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. Would that prevent China’s integration into the world economy and its capacity to project its power abroad?

Canada came to the rescue of the Chinese communists, working hard to minimize the impact of Tiananmen. First up was Pierre Trudeau in 1990, retired but mightily active in federal politics, leading the charge against Meech Lake. He went to China, escorted at all times by agents of the communist regime, along with sons Justin and Sacha. The sign was clear. The G7’s longest-serving head of government was saying that Tiananmen should be put in the rearview mirror.

Sacha would later write of the trip, recalling the fond memories his father had of touring Maoist China decades previous. The Trudeau affection for Mao was long-standing.

Next up was Mulroney. One of his last acts before leaving office in June 1993 was to host a dinner at 24 Sussex Drive for Chinese Vice-premier Zhu Rongji, along with Paul and André Desmarais. Despite post-tiananmen sanctions, Canada was eager to get back to business as usual. A few months later, Mulroney himself was in China getting on with business.

The campaign reached its height when Chrétien — who was employed by the Desmarais family in the 1980s and whose daughter married André Desmarais — began his premiership with a mammoth Team Canada visit to Beijing. In due course, Chrétien would be succeeded by Paul Martin, who came into his own fortune courtesy of the Desmarais family.

Thus by 2018, Beijing had every reason to be confident that with another prime minister from Montreal installed in Ottawa, Canada would continue to be agreeable. Then China seized the Two Michaels. While they knew that Justin Trudeau would accept the kidnapping with equanimity, what if he lost power? The plight of the Michaels had made an impression on Canadians, personalizing the gangster state China had become. What if another party came into office?

For his part, Trudeau let Beijing know not to worry when, on the eve of the 2019 election, he appointed the Beijing-friendly Dominic Barton as ambassador. Barton wouldn’t make trouble, having spent his previous time at Mckinsey cozying up to the communist regime.

Was that the motivation for Beijing to do its best to keep Trudeau in power in 2019?

By 2020, the Two Michaels meant that the China consensus was breaking down. Mulroney distanced himself from seeing China policy through the lens of Power Corp.’s interests.

Hence it was all the more important to keep Trudeau in power. It was not a sure thing; Trudeau had lost the popular vote to Andrew Scheer in 2019. Hence the ramped up interference in the 2021 election.

The Chinese attempt to sway the election to the Liberals was so brazen in 2021 that it was openly complained about at the time. Trudeau ignored it then, confident that what he knew from our intelligence services would never be revealed.

The limited good news of the China scandal is that for nearly four decades, 1968-2006, Beijing counted on a sympathetic Canadian prime minister, no matter which party was in office. No need therefore for interference. Now that only the Liberals are reliably willing to do their bidding, Mao’s successors need to get into the game.

Liberal-China Collusion Dates Back 50 Years To Election Of Pierre Trudeau

Posted on by

Liberal-China Collusion Dates Back 50 Years To Election Of Pierre Trudeau

In terms of Canada-China relations, Canadian media has never pointed to an obvious connection between Pierre & Justin Trudeau.

Brad SalzbergMar 2

It was in the year 1971 that ex-Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau first engaged with the communist government of China. A series of meetings with Chairman Mao Tse Tung on Chinese soil set the course for what emerged a half-century later: exposure of the Chinese government’s interference in the past two Canadian federal elections.

The idea that no connection exists between communist enthusiast Pierre and current PM Justin Trudeau is something both government and media wish to keep hidden from awareness of the Canadian people.

Cultural Action Party has, in one form or another, spent past 30 years attempting to expose the nature of this covert relationship. For brevity’s sake, we stick with fundamentals that Canadians are likely unaware of:

— Canada’s relationship with China is old. It began with cooperation between Bank of Montreal(BMO) and the Bank of China in the late 1800’s.

— As far back as the early 1900’s, the government of China were integrating themselves into Canada’s education system. 

— In 1971, approximately eight months after meeting with Chairman Mao, Pierre Trudeau cancelled Canada’s bi-cultural English & French Canadian identity. The degree of input from the Canadian people amounted to a total of nothing. Devoid of public consent, PET forced multiculturalism upon an unsuspecting, and largely naive, Canadian public.

The first wave of immigration in the wake of Canada’s nascent cultural transformation were Chinese migrants. To this day, media have eschewed the fact that financial donations from the Chinese government resulted in a reorientation of the Canadian education system.

Marxist philosophy infiltration of our universities kick-started a trend brought to a pinnacle by current PM Justin Trudeau: the fine art of national self-loathing. The outcome was the downfall of national pride in country. Say no-go to “1-2-3 Canadians we love thee,” as manifest in promotional campaigns for Montreal’s Expo 1967. Transitioning to self-hatred time in Canada, Pierre Trudeau set the stage for globalization of our country.

Fast forward to the 1980’s, and we discover the establishment of the Canada-China Business Council. This is the point when modern Canada became economically integrated with the business interests of the government of China. Influence and control of Canadian politics was now waiting in the wings.

Reviewing the history of CCBC exposes a tangible partnership between the Trudeau family and Power Corporation, owned by the billionaire Demarais family of Quebec. The board of directors of China-China Business Council offers up multiple executives drawn from Bank of Montreal[BMO] as well as Power Corporation. Quebec-centric corporations such as Bombardier and SNC Lavalin would benefit greatly from these associations.

Thus, the economic partnership between the Liberal “Laurentian Mountain Elite” and communist China was born. Then came Justin Trudeau.

Canada and China have decided to begin exploratory discussions of a possible free trade agreement (FTA). These discussions will enable Canada to determine what issues or areas could be included in a potential agreement, and whether there is sufficient interest or economic benefits to pursue an FTA.

Thus stated Liberal Cabinet member Francois Philippe-Champagne, card-carrying Laurentian Mountain elite, and holder of mortgages from the Bank Of China.

The Canada-China Free Trade Agreement did not come to fruition. A darn good thing, because the details were so biased toward a benefit to China one might believe the Liberals were selling Canada to the communist behemoth nation in totality.

Of course, the Liberals were far from finished in their pursuits. China continued to ramp up power and influence within Canadian society. Despite warnings from CSIS regarding infiltration of Chinese spies and hacking private government data, PM Justin Trudeau approved the following:

“The government of Canada has awarded an estimated $6.8 million contract to a state-owned Chinese company to supply security equipment for 170 embassies,consulates and high commissions around the globe.”

Hear ye, hear ye: “Justin Trudeau facilitates China’s infiltration of Canada in the spirit of so-called father Pierre Trudeau.”

Of course, no one heard this message, because media has never pointed to a blatant, obvious connection between Pierre & Justin Trudeau in term of Canada-China relations, or anything else.

Why not? It wasn’t until 2023, when exposure of China’s federal election interference occurred, that mainstream media were finally forced to open the gates to the flooding of Canada by the government of China.

OTTAWA – March 1st, 2023: The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation says it is returning $200,000 it received seven years ago after a media report alleged a potential connection to Beijing.

“The Globe and Mail, citing an unnamed national security source, published a report on an alleged plot by the Chinese government to influence Justin Trudeau after he became Liberal leader.”

“The report alleged a Chinese billionaire was instructed by Beijing to donate $1 million to the Trudeau Foundation in 2014, the year before the Liberals came to power under Trudeau.”

Upon which we expand the parameters of political collusion:

According to an article from the National Post, foreign donations to the Pierre Trudeau Foundation began to skyrocket after Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister in 2015.

“Between 2014-2016, donations from non-Canadian sources increased from $53 million to $535 million– an increase of one thousand percent.”

The cat comes out of the bag. PM Trudeau and the Liberals are cast into hot water, and may not survive a scandal existing as a culmination of a 50-year covert relationship between China and the Liberal Party.

Or will they? Can this situation exist as a litmus test for a concept CAP has been advancing since our formation in 2016? Our theory goes like this:

Not only are Justin Trudeau and the Liberals in bed with the government of China. They are also emulating their style of governance. Contemporary Canada exists as a model of neo-communism as perpetrated by Justin Trudeau.

If he survives the scandal, would it not lend credence to the idea that Mr. Trudeau is, in fact, Canada first neo-dictator?

Trudeau Buries Truth With Refusal Of China Election Interference Inquiry

Posted on by
Trudeau Buries Truth With Refusal Of China Election Interference Inquiry

“Since the 1970s, there have been important political and economic pro-China vectors emanating out of Montreal and Ottawa.” byBrad Salzberg 

“What in the world, you might be asking, is up with Canada? How did a country famed for its sensible, moderate attitudes and customs transform itself into the front rank of the woke phalanx?”

Who better than Dr. Jordan Peterson to pose this question to the people of Canada?It is of little surprise that such frank critique of PM Justin Trudeau should appear only within a non-Canadian media publication. By now, most Canadians would have recognized that citizens of our country are being subjected to a “woke media vacuum” within our dying democracy.“Canada, according to Trudeau, is a vacancy, bereft of civil history; a nothing place, waiting to be filled in. But nature abhors a vacuum, and that emptiness cries out to be filled. And who shall guide the infilling? Well obviously, Trudeau himself, along with his  mentors and minions,” says Dr. Peterson. Absolutely correct. Early in his tenure, a specious Justin Trudeau blessed Canada with a piece of neo-communist ideology. His claim that our country is a nation with “no core identity” has opened the door for the next phase of our national state-of-being.Media won’t allude to it, but the words which Peterson speaks has set the stage for a post-modern brand of authoritarian governance in Canada.

Like presumed father Pierre Trudeau, PM Justin’s political cognition is firmly rooted in communist ideology.On this basis, no living Canadian should be surprised that Mr. Trudeau has put the kibosh on a formal inquiry into a CSIS report confirming interference from the government of China in the past two federal elections.‘Trudeau Rules Out Public Inquiry Into Chinese Electoral Interference,’ reads a headline this week in the Globe and Mail. No one should be surprised by the pronouncement.Legacy media has been doing all they can to provide damage control. PM Trudeau “knew about the interference, and warned Parliament accordingly.“The interference is damaging to Canadian democracy and related institutions,” reads the scroll of damage control.All the while eschewing a central fact within Canada’s political narrative: there is no human being on earth more responsible for a deterioration of freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Canada than Justin Trudeau.

Upon which Cultural Action Party repeat our well-worn mantra: The Liberal Party of Canada and the communist government of China have maintained a tacit form of partnership for the past 50-years. Beginning with former Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau in the early 1970’s, China’s path to power within our society is the most overlooked political story of our times.“In U.S. backyard: How China Embedded Itself In Canada”

Since the 1970s, there have been important political and economic pro-China vectors emanating out of Montreal and Ottawa. Since then, that have broadened to influential pro-Beijing groups across Canada.”Extent to which this information has been disseminated within Canadian media? Blink, and you missed it– because it has never occurred.“Pierre Trudeau made no secret of his sympathies for communist leaders like Fidel Castro, and by the time he was elected Prime Minister, he had already visited China twice. He was there in 1949, the year the Communists took power, and then again on an official visit in 1960, when he was a labour lawyer. On the 1960s visit, he met Chairman Mao.  After which CAP delve into an area intentionally hidden from mainstream society.

Quebec-centric power-players– of which the Trudeau family belong– have been responsible for the Liberal Party link to the communist government of China.In 1978 came the establishment of the Canada China Business Council. Founding members of CCBC included three major Montreal-based companies, Power Corporation, Bombardier, and SNC Lavalin.“For three generations, Power Corp. has been largely run by the Desmarais family. Paul Desmarais was the first generation. He had been an advisor to Pierre Trudeau, and later Trudeau was on the board of Power Corp. Paul’s son married the daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Their son, Paul’s grandson, is the current Chair of the Canada China Business Council.”There you have it. The roots of Justin Trudeau’s refusal to drill-down on China’s election interference.

Degree of exposure from Canadian media totals zero– a proverbial goose egg,Conveniently omitted from the Liberal-China narrative is another salient fact. The Conservative Party of Canada won the popular vote in the last federal election. Meaning that it is possible that the 11 MP seats bribed by China’s government could have won the election for the Conservatives.

Did China win the 2021 election for Justin Trudeau? It’s darn well possible–the very reason why the Liberals are leveraging the billions paid to establishment media to obfuscative the election interference.The government of China know their business. With or without the right to vote, Chinese government leader know all about maintaining  long-term governance. Decade after decade, the same power structure exists to control for the purpose of controlling public behaviour, and muting all forms of push-back against government leaders.

CBC won’t tell you, and Toronto Star won’t print it, but the very same structure is currently in place in Canada. The goal is singular: the Liberals are to be Canada’s government-for-life. Utilizing China’s methodology of media control, the Liberal Party has transitioned to Canada’s first neo-communist government. To be followed, in due time,  by the real thing.

The Canadian Left Apes the Americans Yet Again

Posted on by

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

The Canadian Left Apes the Americans Yet Again

On Monday, the twenty-first of February, even though the border blockades had been removed – they were in the process of being removed at the very moment the Emergency Measures Acts was invoked the week prior – and the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa had been dispersed over the weekend through an ugly display of police state brutality that is utterly out of place in a Commonwealth Realm and has tarnished Canada’s reputation, Captain Airhead nevertheless managed to get enough votes in the House of Commons to confirm his use of the EMA.   Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservatives, voted against the confirmation, as did the Lower Canadian separatists, but the Liberals all voted for it as did Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists.  The latter compromised the historical principles of their party to do so.  In 1970 they had been the only party in Parliament to take a principled stand against the War Measures Act when Captain Airhead’s father had invoked it in an actual emergency (bombs, kidnapping, murder, that sort of thing).   In 2022 they propped up the government in using the Emergency Measures Act against a peaceful, working-class, protest, despite warnings from retired members of the NDP old guard, like Svend Robinson, that they were throwing their legacy away in doing so.   

In the debate leading up to the vote, Captain Airhead and the other ministers of the government were repeatedly asked why they were still taking this to a vote even though the protest was over.   No convincing answer was provided.  The House was told that there was still an emergency, that they would just have to trust the government, and that how they voted would reflect whether they did so trust the government or not.   This was how the Prime Minister and Mr. Dhaliwal cracked the whip on their caucuses to prevent members from breaking ranks.   The implication was that it was a confidence vote, which if the government lost would dissolve Parliament, leading to an immediate new Dominion election – less than half a year after the last one – in which the leaders could punish dissenters by not signing their candidacy papers.

Two days after having thus given us his rendition of the role of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the Prime Minister revoked the Emergency Measures Act.    There was, of course, no more of an emergency on Monday than there was on Wednesday, nor had there ever been an emergency of the type that would justify the invoking of the Emergency Measures Act.    While we cannot know for certain what was going on in the empty space between Captain Airhead’s ears, we can be sure that it was not a sudden epiphany about the importance of respecting constitutional limits on government powers – he would have resigned immediately had that been the case – and that three factors likely had a significant role to play in his turnaround.   One of these is that he had taken a severe beating in the international press.   The second is that the Big Five – Canada’s largest banks – would have explained to the government how that forcing financial institutions to act as the government’s thought police undermines those institutions’ credibility, both domestic and international, and threatens the entire financial superstructure of the country, already weakened by years of reckless government financial policy.   The last, but not least, factor was that the government was losing the debate in the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.   This is not like a bill of legislation which gets sent back to the House if the Senate does not approve.   A vote against confirming the use of the Emergency Measures Act in the Senate, and the indicators all suggested that the Senate would vote against confirmation, would immediately revoke the Act.   Which would make things far more difficult for the Prime Minister in the official inquiry into his actions that must necessarily follow the use of the EMA than a voluntary withdrawal of the power.

There is a lot that could be said about how this episode provides further demonstration of many of the truths that I have written about over the years.   It demonstrates that democracy is not the same thing as either constitutionally limited government or personal freedom.   The Prime Minister asked the elected House of Commons to approve his inappropriate use of an Act giving him sweeping powers to trample over our freedoms in order to crush a peaceful protest and they did so.   It demonstrates that the Westminster System of Parliament is much more than a democracy.  It is an institution that has proven itself over time to be effective at protecting personal freedom and checking the excesses of government, even democratic government, and its unelected components have as much to do with making it work as the elected House.   It demonstrates that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolutely useless as a safeguard of personal rights and freedoms.   The Grit government insisted that its actions under the EMA would be consistent with the Charter.   If allowing the government to freeze bank accounts, a) without a court order and b) without liability or any civil recourse for those whose accounts are so frozen is consistent with the Charter, then the Charter is empty and meaningless.   A government that can do that is a government that recognizes no constitutional limitations. It demonstrates that Liberal Prime Ministers, especially those with the last name Trudeau, see democracy in terms of elected dictatorship.  

It also demonstrates that the Canadian Left is incapable of independent thought and borrows all of its bad ideas from the United States.

This has always been the case.   The Liberal Party, which began as the centre-left party that developed out of the pre-Confederation Reform movement, was, before being captured by the harder New Left in the 1960s, the party that envisioned Canada’s destiny in American terms.   It was the party that advocated for North American free trade for a century before the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney sold out their own legacy and signed the US-Canada Free Trade Deal.   It was the party that wanted greater economic, cultural, and political alignment between Canada and the United States.   Liberal theorists such as Goldwin Smith were arguing for formal union between the two countries as early as the 1890s.   The Liberal interpretation of Canadian history retold it as if it were simply a re-run of American history with the same goals accomplished by compromise and negotiation rather than war and bloodshed.   John Wesley Dafoe, a prominent exponent of this interpretation as well as the Liberal propagandist who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, entitled his fanciful view of our history Canada: An American Nation.

This looking to the United States for inspiration did not die out after the Liberal Party swung to the hard left.  When Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada in the late 1960s he exponentially expanded the welfare state.   His inspiration for this was Lyndon Johnson’s similar expansion of social programs in the United States.   LBJ had his “Great Society”, PET had his “Just Society”.   The Canadian social security net that  he so expanded had been similarly introduced in the late 1930s based on the model of FDR’s New Deal in the United States and given the same name.     In 1977, the Trudeau Liberals talked Parliament into passing the Canadian Human Rights Act.   This Act had nothing to do with human rights in the ordinary sense of basic rights belonging to all people that need protection against the power of the state.   It gave the state more power -power that government ought never to have – power to police the thoughts and motives of individual Canadians in their personal and business interactions with one another.   It declared “discrimination” to be against the law – not discrimination by the government but by private Canadians – made it a civilly liable offence with criminally punitive consequences, established an investigative body, the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints at the public expense and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to hear such complaints.   It was a system stacked against the accused, in complete contradiction of the principles the Canadian system of law and justice are based upon, and it became the means whereby the oppressive atmosphere of restricting thought and censoring speech known as political correctness escaped the confines of left-liberal academe where it had developed into the general culture which in turn allowed political correctness in academe to evolve into the more warped version of itself that exists today, wokeness, characterized not so much by self-censorship of thought and speech but by the silencing and destruction of others.   Pierre Trudeau modelled the Canadian Human Rights Act on an American law passed thirteen years earlier – the US Civil Rights Act.  Canada’s constitution is a mixture of the written and unwritten.   In 1982, Pierre Trudeau oversaw the patriation of the principle document of the written part so as to make it amendable by the Canadian Parliament and in the process prefixed to it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   The Charter, over the course of the last two years has been shown to be useless as a protection of Canadians’ basic rights and freedoms from governments, Dominion and provincial, determined not to let those rights and freedoms stand in the way of sweeping public health measures.   Over the past forty years, however, it has proven remarkably effecting at Americanizing our Supreme Court in the sense of empowering it to overturn local laws, customs, and traditions older than Confederation and to secularize public schools (In the last decade or so left-liberal commentators have taken to speaking without irony of Canada’s tradition of “separation of church and state” when we have no such tradition, separation of the two being a distinguishing trait of the American tradition).    The Charter, in other words, has all of the negatives and few if any of the positives, of the document Pierre Trudeau looked to for inspiration – the American Bill of Rights.

Now consider the response of the Canadian Left – the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, Jimmy Dhaliwal and the socialist party, the legacy media public and private – to the Freedom Convoy.    From their initial response as the trucks were heading towards Ottawa, through their commentary on the weeks long demonstrations, and their claims as the Emergency Measures Act was invoked and an ugly, militarized, police force were sent in to trample elderly women with horses, arrest protestors at gun point, beat people with batons and otherwise behave like the lowlife criminal thugs from whose ranks modern police are sadly often recruited, they have regurgitated every bit of the craziness that began afflicting the American Left in the United States’ 2016 presidential election. 

In 2016, Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth and lost the election by accusing the populist, Middle American, supporters of her opponent, Republican candidate Donald the Orange of being a “basket of deplorables” and threw every imaginable pejorative “ist” and “phobe” at them.    You can hear the echo of that in Captain Airhead’s now infamous remarks about the “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”,    When Clinton lost the election she then blamed her loss on Russian interference.

This is parenthetical but timely given the international events that have drawn everyone’s attention away from Captain Airhead’s vile actions, but notice how the same people who back in the Cold War used to accuse anyone who suggested that the Communist regime in the Soviet Union could not be trusted, was working to undermine constitutional government and freedom so as to enslave the world, and had spies everywhere of being paranoid “McCarthyites” started talking the exact same way themselves when the USSR was gone and Russia was Russia again.    Whatever one might think of Vladimir Putin, the present crisis is the result of a little over two decades worth of incredibly bad American policy towards post-Soviet Russia.    Their giving their support to every group wishing to secede from post-Soviet Russia and extending NATO membership to these countries in a period when NATO should have been contracting after the collapse of the Soviet regime and in a way that brought NATO ever closer to Russia’s doorstep – the expansion of NATO’s involvement in Ukraine and vice-versa is the immediate issue – was needlessly insulting and provocative to post-Soviet Russia. Nor was support for the coup about eight years ago in which a Russia-friendly elected Ukrainian government was overthrown in an armed coup that replaced it with a US-NATO puppet government in Kiev and placed de facto control of much of the country in the hands of Banderites (1) exactly helpful.   By doing these things, American governments, usually those led by left-liberal Democrats like Clinton, Obama and Biden, created the conditions that produced the present conflict.  

Just as Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on the Russians in 2016 – her claims have been long since thoroughly debunked – so a CBC commentator claimed with a straight face that the Russians were behind the Freedom Convoy.    The government in justifying its crackdown on the protesters maintained that the Freedom Convoy was backed by foreign funds, the implication being that a foreign government or some foreign organization hostile to the Canadian government was dumping huge amounts of money into it.   The further implication was that the money was coming from either Russia, some extremist group in the United States, or both.   FINTRAC has since demonstrated these claims to be nonsense.   The money supporting the protest came from good faith donors in Canada and abroad who supported the Convoy’s cause – the end of the public health restrictions and mandates that have severely curtailed basic personal rights and freedoms for the last two years.

The remainder of the insane and unsubstantiated allegations hurled against the truckers by the Liberal government, Jimmy Dhaliwal’s socialists, and the legacy media have been completely plagiarized from the American loony Left’s response to the incident that took place in Washington DC on the Feast of Epiphany last year.   As you might recall, that was the date on which Congress was scheduled to confirm the results of the previous year’s presidential election.   That morning, the incumbent president Donald the Orange, who was challenging the results, held a rally of his supporters.   A fraction of his supporters entered the Capitol building and it was treated as if it was an insurrection, an attempt to violently overthrow the American government and overturn the results of the election.   This was an extremely hyperbolic interpretation of what had actually happened – most of the participants, who rather atypical of insurrectionists were generally unarmed, seemed to be there to take selfies as if they were American versions of Captain Airhead.    It arose out of the paranoia about a supposed “far right” threat to American democracy which had been observably growing on the American left ever since the Charlottesville rally of three and a half years prior had drawn their attention to the fact that their ongoing campaign to tear down monuments, vilify admired historical figures, re-write the past in accordance with their present narrow obsessions about race, sex, and gender, and silence anyone who complains about all of this through the thuggish behaviour of Antifa thought enforcers was meeting with resistance and pushback.   As over-the-top as the American Left’s interpretation of the actual events of the sixth of January was, the Canadian Left’s attempt to impose this same interpretation on the Freedom Convoy is that much more removed from reality.   The Freedom Convoy protestors did not enter the Parliament buildings – they parked on the street in front and threw a block party – and clearly stated their intentions, which did not involve overthrowing the government, and they stuck to their single issue of personal, constitutionally protected, freedom.   Captain Airhead and the Canadian Left had far less on which to hang their accusations of insurrection, occupation, ideology-based extremism, and other such drivel against the truckers than Forgettable Joe Whatshisname and the American Left had for their identical charges against the Capitol Hill selfie-takers last year but they still tried to hammer that square peg into the round hole it so obviously did not fit.

There are many things that can be attributed to the Canadian Left.   Originality is not one of those things.   They should lay off imitating the Americans.   It never turns out well. 

(1)   Banderites take their name from Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who collaborated with the Third Reich in the Second World War.   In other words, they are in actuality the sort of people Captain Airhead and his followers have been falsely accusing the truckers of being.  The Azov Regiment, a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard formed in the 2014 coup, proudly displays its National Socialist ideology in its emblem which prominently features imagery borrowed from the Third Reich.   It is part of the regime that Barack Obama installed in the Ukraine and which is supported today by the same Captain Airhead who thinks that the presence of a single Nazi flag, one almost certainly being used ironically – i.e., to attribute that which the flag symbolizes to Captain Airhead – in a protest is sufficient to condemn the entire protest of thousands as being somehow Nazi and justify his use of excessive government power to crush it.   Captain Airhead’s deputy prime minister, a woman with the ability to appear both vacuous and Machiavellian at the same time, the granddaughter of the editor-in-chief of the Krakivs’ki Visti, a Ukrainian language Nazi propaganda tabloid that ran from 1940 to 1945, and the same woman who about a week ago was giggling to herself in glee at a press conference when asked about the plight of the Canadian families whose bank accounts she had frozen because they supported the truckers protesting for freedom posted to social media the other day, a picture of herself holding a scarf with the colours of the Banderite movement at a demonstration in support of Ukraine.    — Gerry T. Neal

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Erin is a Tool: The Conservative Party’s Latest Quisling Leader

The last time the old Conservative Party was led by someone whose political philosophy I would feel comfortable acknowledging as my own was almost a decade before my birth.  The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, who became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in Opposition in 1956, led it to victory (a minority government) in the 1957 Dominion election, shortly before winning the party’s largest majority in percentage of seats ever the following year.   Reduced to a minority government again in 1962, Diefenbaker’s government fell in 1963 when Tommy Douglas’ socialists and the right-wing Social Credit Party both supported Liberal leader Lester Pearson when he called for a vote of no confidence because of Diefenbaker’s refusal to allow Washington D. C. to dictate policy in Ottawa on the matter of the nuclear arming of the Bomarc missiles.  

Pearson, who had betrayed his country to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union when he was attached to our Washington embassy in World War II (see the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley before the American House of Un-American Activities Committee), and betrayed the entire Commonwealth to both the Soviets and the Americans when he sided with these powers against the alliance of Britain, France, and Israel in 1957 as a Minister in the government of Louis St. Laurent, was here acting on behalf of John F. Kennedy’s government in the United States.   Diefenbaker continued to lead the party in Opposition for the next four years, which saw the shining moment of his entire career, when he led the Conservatives in fierce opposition to the new flag of 1965, the first major step taken by the Liberals during the long period in which they were led by Lester Pearson and his successor Pierre Trudeau to radically re-invent the country, and strip it of the most visible symbols of its Loyalist heritage and identity.   In 1967, Diefenbaker was replaced by Robert Stanfield as party leader in a leadership convention that was the culmination of two years’ worth of effort on the part of Dalton Camp, then the party president (which is not the same thing as party leader) to oust him.

While I admit that Diefenbaker’s performance in the office of Prime Minister was far less stellar than his performance in the office of Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, his political philosophy was what I admire most about him.  He was a fierce defender of Canada’s Loyalist history and heritage, the traditional institutions derived from these such as the monarchy, Parliament, and the Common Law, and the symbols of all of these, such as the old flag.   While most if not all of his successors have paid lip service to much of this, it has never been with his passion.  He opposed all threats to Canadian freedom, whether it was the external threat posed by increasing American cultural and economic influence – or, as in the case of the Bomarc missiles incident, political influence – or the internal threat posed by the subversion of Parliamentary tradition, the exponential growth of the civil service, and the alarming way in which the government was increasingly treating the latter as a means of bypassing the former to govern by bureaucratic regulation rather than Parliamentary legislation.   His views are best stated in his own words in the speeches collected in his Those Things We Treasure (1972).  

This book and John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown (1956 – posthumously edited by Judith Robinson) are the two classic texts of the political philosophy associated with the old Conservative Party from Sir John A. MacDonald to John G. Diefenbaker, a Canadian version of classical British Toryism.  Sadly both books have been out-of-print for years, although Diefenbaker’s has been fairly easily and inexpensively obtainable through used-book stores.   (I first obtained a copy from Black’s Vintage Books in Winnipeg, sadly no longer around, when I was still a theology student in college.   I had to send away for Farthing’s book when my attention was drawn to it by Ron Dart several years later.)   The classic text of the religious philosophy underlying this political philosophy, expressed as a jeremiad over the latter’s failure, was George Grant’s Lament for a Nation (1965), which remains in print.

After Diefenbaker was ousted, the leadership of the Progressive Conservative fell alternately to people who were more-or-less socialists in Conservative garb, like Stanfield, and had little-to-no problem with increasing bureaucratization and its threat to Canadian freedom, or to people who were basically big business liberals in Conservative garb, like Brian Mulroney, who promoted free trade with the United States, which throughout Canadian history had been a Liberal Party policy, and who had little-to-no problem with increasing American economic and cultural influence over Canada.     It was while Stanfield led the party that a “conservative movement” outside of the party began to form to oppose what Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals were doing and lobby for conservative causes, obviously because it was felt that the Party was failing to do this.    While the organizations and publications that made up this movement fought for good things for the most part – to give one example, Colin Brown founded the National Citizens Coalition in 1975 to fight for government fiscal accountability against Trudeau’s huge deficits – it lamentably tended to ignore the classical texts of Canadian Toryism mentioned in the previous paragraph and look for inspiration to the American conservative movement.   

This led to a blindness in the Mulroney years.   They could perceive that Mulroney had little interest in combatting the sweeping social, moral, and cultural changes that were quickly being introduced as a result of Pierre Trudeau’s having given the Supreme Court powers similar to its American counterpart by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the constitution (although to give credit where credit is due Mulroney was the last Conservative leader to attempt to pass legislation restricting abortion after the newly empowered Court struck the existing laws down in 1988) and thus in that sense was way too far to the Left like Stanfield,  but failed to recognize that the problem stemmed from unnaturally grafting an element of the American republican system onto our system of Crown-in-Parliament where it neither belongs nor fits (a mistake Tony Blair would later make in the United Kingdom) and to see Mulroney’s reversal of traditional Conservative opposition to free trade with the United States for the betrayal it was.   It was during the Mulroney years that the conservative movement allied itself with a populism that had been growing in the Western prairie provinces in response to the exceedingly arrogant way in which they had been treated by Ottawa under Trudeau and how Mulroney had offered little in the way of redress.   Together they formed a new party, the Reform Party of Canada.

This was not the first time conservatism and populism had been united in Canadian history.    John G. Diefenbaker, as explained above, was the last Conservative leader to fully represent in a way that did more than lip service, authentic traditional Canadian Toryism, but he was also a prairie populist reformer, a role that arose naturally out of his early career as a defence lawyer in Saskatchewan.   W. L. Morton, who was head of the history department at the University of Manitoba and the author of the Kingdom of Canada and a Canadian historian second only to Donald Creighton was, like Creighton, a traditional Tory, and, unlike Creighton, a strong advocate for fairer representation of the West in the Dominion government.   Diefenbaker and Morton, however, combined traditional Toryism with Western populism.   The Reform Party combined a neoconservatism that looked for inspiration to the United States with Western populism and this was not a good mix.   Ironically, they gave their party what had originally been the Confederation era name of their despised foe, the Liberals.   Also ironic, but in a less amusing way, their dividing the right-of-centre vote with the Progressive Conservatives kept the Liberals in government from 1993 to 2005.

Realizing that their division would only keep the Liberals in perpetual power, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party began “Unite the Right” discussions in the late 1990, partially merging into the Canadian Alliance in 2000 and then fully uniting into the present Conservative Party of Canada in 2003.  They have had four leaders since then.   The first of these was Stephen Harper, who became Prime Minister with a minority government in 2006, won a majority government in 2011, and served as Prime Minister until 2015.   When Captain Airhead led the Liberals back into government in the Dominion election of that year, Harper stepped down, was briefly replaced by Rona Ambrose as an interim leader, before Andrew Scheer was chosen as the next leader.   Scheer performed incredibly poorly in that role, being initially too cautious as Opposition Leader, then essentially throwing away an election that was practically being handed to him by Captain Airhead with his self-destructive heaping of scandals upon scandals, with his, that is Scheer’s, one shining moment coming in March of last year, when he resolutely opposed the Liberals’ attempt to use the pandemic to escape Parliamentary oversight for two years.   At this point, however, it was too late to salvage Scheer’s leadership, and Erin O’Toole was chosen as the next leader.

Erin O’Toole has now set the record for the shortest time it has ever taken for a Conservative leader to so disgust me that I vowed never to vote for anyone in the party as long as he led it.   It took Stephen Harper until the last year of his premiership, when he introduced legislation to enhance the powers of government to invade the privacy of Canadians and spy on them, to do that.   Erin O’Toole has not even been leader for a full five months yet and he has already managed to do so.

On Monday O’Toole announced that he would be seeking to kick Derek Sloan out of the party caucus.   Sloan is the Member who represents the Upper Canada riding of Hastings-Lennox and Addington in the House of Commons.   Although he is a quite young MP – he is in his mid-thirties and was elected for the first time in the Dominion election of two years ago – he was one of O’Toole’s rivals in the leadership race last year.   He had become a target of the Left earlier that year when he asked the question of whether Theresa Tam, the federal chief medical mandarin, was working for Canada or China.  The Left assumed this to be a racist question based upon Tam’s ethnicity, although the question naturally arises out of the possible conflict of interests between her position in Canada and her role in the World Health Organization over which Red China has held an inordinate amount of influence, especially under its current director.   Sloan, a Seventh Day Adventist, is also a strong social conservative who opposes abortion, gender-identity discrimination legislation, and the Liberal government’s current attempts to ban conversion therapy.   O’Toole’s announcement was based upon the revelation that Sloan had received a donation from Paul Fromm.   On Wednesday the party voted to expel Sloan from the caucus.

Sloan’s response to this, appropriately, was to call out O’Toole for his blatant unfairness and hypocrisy.   Sloan could not have been reasonably expected to have known that the donation came from Paul Fromm since he had used his first name, Frederick, in making it, nor, would I add, is it reasonable in a free country to expect people who receive donations to vet their donors to make sure they are not guilty of some sort of crimethink.   That is the unfairness – the hypocrisy is in the fact that the party took a cut from the same donation and had sold a membership to the donor. 

This incident illustrates the biggest problem I have with the post-Diefenbaker leadership of the Conservative Party whether of the Left-leaning Stanfield variety or the American neo-liberal Mulroney variety.   They have all been terrified of being labelled “Far Right” and since they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to define the “Far Right” and attach this label to whomever they wish without serious challenge, this has meant that they have allowed the Liberals and the socialists to dictate the acceptable parameters of thought within their own party.   Back in the period alluded to earlier, when discontent with the performance of the Progressive Conservatives had led to the creation of first a conservative movement and then the Reform Party of Canada, Dalton Camp, the party official who had orchestrated the backstabbing of Diefenbaker, was a regular commentator on the CBC.   He was frequently part of a panel with Erik Kierens of the Liberals and Stephen Lewis of the NDP as the Conservative representative to create the false impression of balanced commentary (like Kierens he very much represented the Left wing of his own party).  

Camp shared with his Liberal and NDP colleagues an abhorrence of social conservatism or “the Religious Right” as he called it, and regarded the phenomenon as both an import from the United States and the next thing to fascism.   This was utter nonsense, of course – most of the things that the Religious Right railed against – abortion on demand, the relaxing of laws and liberalization of attitudes towards sexual morality, the driving of the Bible and Lord’s Prayer out of schools – came to Canada much later than they did to the United States and consequently what social conservatives wish to return to had remained the status quo here much longer and had been the status quo much more recently(1).    Indeed, the first issue in the Culture War between the Left and the Religious Right in which the Left’s triumph in Canada preceded its victory in the United States was same-sex marriage, and Camp could hardly have claimed the Religious Right’s stance on this issue as an American import because he died of complications from a stroke the year prior to the first court-ordered alteration to the status quo of 1 man + 1 woman = marriage and three years before the Liberals introduced the bill in Parliament that generalized the change.    The leadership of the Conservative Party, however, was terrified of the accusations coming from the Liberals, the NDP, the Left-dominated mainstream media, and their own Dalton Camp, that the social conservative ideas of  the conservative movement and the new Reform Party were dangerously” Far Right”.

That by taking this stance they were helping to move the centre of the Canadian mainstream dangerously close to the “Far Left” never seemed to occur to them.

Everything I have just said with regards to the social, moral, and religious issues of the Culture War also applies to the issues pertaining to immigration, nationality, and race except that with these issues, the Progressive Conservative Party leadership was even quicker to concede to the Liberals and to the Left the right to define a consensus and the acceptable parameters containing that consensus from which all dissent would be excluded. The capitulation was more complete.   Furthermore, the leadership  of the Reform Party joined in this concession with regards to these issues.

What is the consensus that the Liberals and their further-to-the-Left allies, given this free reign, imposed upon Canada?

It amounts to this: if you are white, discriminating against someone who is not is about the worst thing you could do, and the law must protect others against your discrimination by giving the government the power to punish you with complete and total economic and social destruction, but you yourself must have no protection under law against discrimination, because you, being white, are incapable of being discriminated against, and if you complain about or even notice the unfairness of this then you are an evil, prejudiced bigot, a racist, a Nazi, who must either be re-programmed or completely excluded from society.

The Liberal Party worked hard at establishing this double standard which is utterly repugnant morally and completely indefensible intellectually as consensus, or rather state-imposed dogma,  during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   In 1970 Parliament passed a bill introduced while Pearson was Prime Minister that added sections 318-320 to the Criminal Code which created several new offences each having to do in some way with “hate propaganda”.   This was entirely unnecessary because anything criminalized by these sections that really ought to be against the law was already against the existing laws against inciting crime and violence.   The existing laws were superior in every way because they protected all Canadians alike.   In 1977, Trudeau’s Liberals rammed the Canadian Human Rights Act through Parliament.   Despite the title, this bill had nothing to do with ensuring that such basic rights as life, liberty, and property were guaranteed to all people in Canada or in protecting anybody in Canada from the abuse by the state that is the first thing that pops into most people’s minds upon hearing “human rights violations”.   The Act was entirely about dictating to Canadians that they could not discriminate against each other on the grounds of race, sex, etc. in their private lives.   It established an investigatory body to look into accusations of discrimination, and a tribunal to hear the charges.   Since it is considered “civil law”, the accused are denied the rights they would have as defendants under criminal law.   The reality, however, is that it punishes the “crime” of wrongthink.   Although the law is written in such a way as to make the offence reside in the act of discriminating rather than the race/sex/whatever of the complainant and the accused so that in theory, the white person turned down from a job by an employer who only hires people from his own Asian or African nationality ought to have just as strong a case as someone in the reverse situation, that is not how it works in practice.   The Commission that investigates and the Tribunal that hears these cases operate on an Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others” basis, which is, of course, how the Trudeau Liberals instructed them to operate from the beginning.   In the few instances when anybody has ever bothered to question the uneven way in which this law is administered, the answer has always been to point back to the intent behind the law, to protect “vulnerable minorities”.    It is, of course, incredibly bad practice to allow the intent behind a law that is worded in such a way as to suggest that it protects everybody from racial discrimination to overrule the wording and turn it into a law that protects people from some races and not others, but then, the law itself is bad because it unnecessarily extends government control into the private lives of Canadians to the point of telling them what they can and cannot be thinking when interacting with others when all that was really called for was for the government to lead by example in not practicing colour discrimination itself.   That, however, would have required going back to the policies of John G. Diefenbaker, the Conservative Prime Minister who  militantly opposed racism and whose vision for the Dominion of Canada was one of national unity, which he believed in so strongly that he made it the title of his three volume memoir One Canada, instead of following the bad example of the Americans, who at least had the sense to call their earlier and equivalent law a “Civil Rights Act”. 

The protecting “vulnerable minorities” justification for all this bad legislation and practice has grown in its rhetorical force from then until now and Pierre Trudeau’s foul offspring has just trotted it out again in support of his upcoming efforts to seize even more control over what Canadians are allowed to think and communicate to each other.   Its rhetorical force should have shrunk.   At the time it was first evoked, 96% of Canadians were white.   This is no longer the case today, indeed, we are at the point where whites becoming a minority is on the near horizon, but the voices from the Left telling us that everybody else belongs to a “vulnerable” or “disadvantaged” minority that needs increased government protection against whites are becoming louder, more stringent and more hysterical by the day.   Don’t expect  those same voices to come to the defence of whites when they become a minority and one far more vulnerable than any other in Canada has ever been due to decades of this anti-white propaganda.   The demographic transformation just alluded to is the direct result of immigration changes introduced by Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.   I don’t mean the points system introduced by Order-in-Council in 1967.   It is itself an admirable and fair way of processing applications based upon individual merit, although the Pearson Liberals do not deserve the credit for eliminating racial discrimination from immigration policy that the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History – what Donald Creighton dubbed “the Authorized Version” – assigns them because Diefenbaker had already done that in 1962.   I refer rather to a number of changes introduced quietly, unannounced, and with no fanfare, whereby the civil servants charged with processing applications were told to give priority to applications from non-traditional source countries over those from traditional source countries with the result that “traditional Euro-British sources of immigration were effectively shut off in favour of migrants and their extended families from the Third World” (Kenneth McDonald, A Wind in the Heath: A Memoir, Epic Press, 2003).  

Instead of opposing all of this, as they ought to have done, the Progressive Conservatives whether the socialist Stanfield types, the moderate Joe Clark types, or the neo-liberal Brian Mulroney types embraced it.   Indeed, when Brian Mulroney took over the leadership of the party he basically sent out the message that opposition to the Trudeau agenda on these issues would not be tolerated and that discrimination against whites would be continued.   As Prime Minister, in fact, he set out to out-Trudeau Trudeau himself with regards to immigration.   Perhaps some of the Conservative leader were dense enough to think that Pearson and Trudeau had been continuing Diefenbaker’s “One Canada” vision rather than subverting and inverting it.   For the most part, however, they were terrified of being labelled “Far Right” by the Liberals and the press.   The Liberals, in the Pearson-Trudeau period had attempted the frighten the public into accepting their measures as necessary to fight a non-existent “Far Right” threat, by creating a fake “Canadian Nazi Party”, which their media allies then splashed all over the headlines and the television news.   The Mulroney Conservatives, having received the message, proceeded to pass it on when they gained competition for the right-of-centre vote in the Reform Party.   They ordered CSIS, the spy agency created in the last month of the Trudeau premiership, to create another fake neo-Nazi group, the Heritage Front, which the media again went wild over.   This was in 1989, two years after the Reform Party was formed.   The purpose seems to have been to smear the Reform Party by association, a goal towards which they received assistance from lawyer, activist and Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella in his 1997 book Web of Deceit, which, in my opinion ought to be categorized as fiction, under which genre it might actually deserve an award for its creative plot about the imminent threat of  a neo-Nazism working through the  conservative movement  and  the Reform Party to take over Canada.   Note this is the same Warren Kinsella, who should not be confused with the late novelist W. P. Kinsella (W. P. stood for William Patrick, Warren is, I think, a middle name), but who was, according to a Globe and Mail article conveniently timed to come out just before the last Dominion election, hired by Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives to sling mud of a similar nature against Maxime Bernier, Scheer’s chief rival in the previous Conservative Party leadership race, and his new People’s Party of Canada.

Erin O’Toole has now followed the shameful examples of Mulroney and Scheer.   His motive is obvious enough – only a few weeks ago he was jumped on by Captain Airhead, for giving an interview to Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media.   Captain Airhead, who thinks that only media that he subsidizes and which express views of which he approves, should be allowed to exist, condemned the Rebel as being “Far Right”.   If he had Ludwig von Mises’ concept of “Left” and “Right” as a spectrum moving from total government control on the Left to an absence of government on the Right, he might have had a point, as The Rebel is quite libertarian, but I very much doubt he has read Mises or that he possesses the capacity to do so.   The interview, however, came shortly before the incident on Epiphany when, as Donald the Orange was addressing half a million of his supporters before the Washington Monument, a smaller group entered the Congress building on Capitol Hill, took selfies and, unfortunately in a handful of cases, got into violent skirmishes with the Capitol Hill Police, all of which was blown up by the same media that supported the BLM and Antifa anti-white hate riots that produced far more destruction, violence, and death all across America, into the ludicrous lie of “Trump incites insurrection”.   O’Toole, pissing himself, immediately proceeded to proclaim how much he and the party he leads are against “white supremacists”, by which the media seems to mean anyone who opposes anti-white racism and certainly everyone – all 75 million American voters of them – who supported Trump.   He also took the opportunity to throw his own rival from last year’s leadership race under the bus and out of the party.

Well, perhaps he can instruct his party to stop soliciting me for funds.   I have not received a campaign contribution from Paul Fromm, as I have never stooped so low as to run for office, but I have donated to the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, all of which were founded or co-founded by said Paul Fromm, whom I have known for years.  The first mentioned, which is also, I believe, the oldest is “a group of aid reformers who eschew guilt and believe that population control and free enterprise are the key to development”.   I took that definition from the Glossary in my personally inscribed copy of Down the Drain? A Critical Re-examination of Canadian Foreign Aid written by Paul Fromm and James P. Hull and published by Griffin House, Toronto in 1981.  Fromm and Hull’s approach to foreign aid has always made more sense to me than the Liberal policy of taxing poor people in rich countries to subsidize rich people in poor countries, never more evident than under the current Prime Minister.   The Canadian Association for Free Expression was founded shortly prior to when Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister which was also around the time that Canada’s two most publicized trials for crimethink began, those of Ernst Zuendel, the German born graphic artist and publisher who resided in Toronto and James Keegstra, the school teacher and mayor from Eckville , Alberta.   CAFE is committed to the classical liberal view of John Stuart Mill that speech, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in between, ought never to be suppressed.   While there are many who would think that the cases of Zuendel, whose publications included The Hitler We Loved and Did Six Million Really Die?, and Keegstra, who taught his students that the Jews were behind a conspiracy to dominate the world, stretch that principle past its breaking point, these are, in my opinion, wrong.   Cases like this are not the breaking point of freedom of speech, they are its test.   Only those willing to stand up for freedom of speech, when it is opinions that the vast majority find loathsome that the government is trying to suppress, can truly be said to have passed that test – men like Paul Fromm and the late Doug Christie, who was the lawyer in both of these cases.   If the state is allowed to get away with suppressing extremely unpopular opinions, it will move on to suppressing less unpopular opinions.    In Canada we have moved from the government persecuting a man for saying that Hitler’s victims were significantly less than six-million in number all the way to where the government is trying to tell us that we cannot say that someone born with a penis and testicles and who has XY chromosomes is a man if he self-identifies as a woman.   Give the state censors an inch and they will take a mile.   Pastor Martin Niemöller said “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a socialist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me”.  It astonishes me that there are those familiar with this poem and the story behind who miss the point completely and will get offended at the application I am about to make.  In 1984 – a rather significant date don’t you think – they came for Ernst Zuendel and James Keegstra, and Doug Christie and Paul Fromm spoke out!   Everyone who values the freedom our country was built upon – Richard Cartwright famously expressed the spirit of Confederation by saying that he preferred British freedom over American equality – and for which we have always been told our country went to war against Hitler, would do well to look to that example.

The progressive media, of course, in their lust to help O’Toole crucify Sloan, has been calling Paul Fromm such names as “white supremacist” and “neo-nazi”, as have those members of the neo-conservative press who have defended Sloan on the same grounds on which he defended himself.   Mr. Fromm has never applied such terms to himself, which the media have thrown against him for decades, but has always eschewed and disavowed them (I once witnessed him do so to someone who actually was a self-proclaimed National Socialist).   He has referred to himself as a “white nationalist” but I remember that when he started doing this the term had not developed the connotations it now has and simply meant something along the lines of an advocate for the rights of white people, similar to what groups like the NAACP are for black people in the United States, and I have never gotten the impression that he meant it in any other way.   He should, perhaps, have foreseen the way the term would evolve.   I never liked the term, although I believe that now more than ever, open advocates for the rights and liberties of white people, who are demonized by racist hate groups such as BLM and Antifa with the full support of the media and the politicians and who are officially discriminated against, are needed.   It confuses “race” with “nation” for one thing.   

For another, nationalisms of any sort tend to conflict with my Tory political philosophy.   One’s monarch is the proper object of political allegiance, not a people, race, or nation, and in association with one’s monarch, one’s country, which is a place, one’s home writ large, although not merely in the sense of a location on a map, but a place vested with tradition and history, expressed in its institutions, and including, of course, those who live there.   This is what the old patriotic cry “for King and country” meant.

This brings me back to Diefenbaker.   

Diefenbaker, because he was the last Conservative leader – and the last Canadian Prime Minister – to really embrace “King and country” or “Queen and country” Toryism in a wholehearted way, was the last Conservative leader and Prime Minister capable of taking the strong stand against racism that he did, without replacing it with racism of another sort, as the Liberals who governed after him did.   This is precisely because “Queen and country” is the only object of allegiance which can truly provide civil unity and harmony.   As W. L. Morton put it “Any one, French, Irish, Ukrainian or Eskimo, can be a subject of the Queen and a citizen of Canada without in any way changing or ceasing to be himself.” (The Canadian Identity, University of Toronto Press, 1961, 1972)   If that sounds like Pierre Trudeau’s “mosaic” vision of “multiculturalism”, understand that Trudeau’s doctrine is actually a mockery of this.  Instead of uniting diverse people in loyalty to their Royal Sovereign so that they can all participate in the country over which she reigns in a way that makes the history, traditions, and legacy of freedom of that country their own, Trudeau’s doctrine turned diversity itself into an object of cult worship that keeps them divided so that bureaucrats can increasingly manage their lives and rob them of the freedom that is the property by right of all Her Majesty’s subjects.   If Erin O’Toole really believes that “racism is a disease of the soul” then he would do better to lead his party back to what it was when Diefenbaker led it rather than to win Captain Airhead’s approval by repeating his totalitarian rhetoric about “It has no place in our country” and opportunistically ejecting a rival from the party’s caucus, over his unknowingly having received a donation from the man who has for decades been the most courageous opponent of the only racism that is truly a problem in Canada today, the racism that has been enshrined in law since 1977, anti-white racism.

(1)   This also shows how utterly absurd the expression “Red Tory” is.   Originally, Gad Horowitz coined the term to refer to traditional Tories like George Grant who had some positive views of socialism.   Grant, a strong social conservative who warned that in the legalization of abortion the essence of fascism was coming to North American under the guise of liberalism, did not like having this label applied to him.   Dalton Camp, who was a Mulroney Conservative until Mulroney became a free trader – it is to Camp’s credit that he abandoned the Mulroney camp over this – embraced the label.   Grant wrote his Lament over the fall of the Diefenbaker government, Camp was responsible for ousting Diefenbaker from the party leadership.  Any term coined to refer to the one and appropriated by the other cannot possibly express anything meaningful.    Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 2:02 PM Labels:

Dominion Day Dolour

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Gerry T. Neal

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Dominion Day Dolour

It has been my custom for Dominion Day over the last few years, to write either sketches about specific individuals who exemplified the Canada of Confederation and her traditions or jeremiads lamenting the present state of the Dominion. I had not realized, until I checked the last six years, that this has followed an alternating pattern, in which this would be a year for a jeremiad. This suits me as the next individual I had on deck for a sketch was the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton, and while I read Donald Wright’s biography of him as recently as last year – I much prefer the chapter on him in Charles Taylor’s Radical Tories, since Wright’s political correctness infuriates me as much as it would have his subject – I would need more time than I had available to re-read Creighton’s own books in order to do him justice. So a jeremiad it is.

There is plenty for someone from my point of view to lament. There have been two traditions of thought that have borne the rather inaccurate label “conservative” in Canada. There is the old Tory tradition of Loyalism and royalism, which is monarchist rather than republican, holds the Westminster system of Parliament to be the best form of government ever to evolve on the face of the earth, dissents from the narrative of the rebellion of 1776 and is suspicious of the United States, utterly rejects socialism without fully embracing capitalism, and is socially, morally, and culturally traditionalist. Then there is neo-conservatism, which is very pro-American, holds to the basic political and economic views of nineteenth century liberalism, and regards anything from outside eighteenth to nineteenth century liberalism which has been traditionally associated with conservatism as dispensable. While the extent to which the official Conservative Party has ever really stood for either of these traditions is questionable, it was associated with the first until 1967 and the latter from about 1983 on, especially after the merger with what began as the Reform Party. I have belonged to the first tradition from the moment political thoughts first formed in my head, and am very much a representative of its right wing. Most other surviving members – David Warren is a very notable exception –speak for its left wing. In other words, I speak for a point of view, which the Liberal Party, egged on by the further left parties, and aided and abetted by the Conservatives, has striven to make as unwelcome as possible in Canada.

Earlier this year, our provincial governments, with the full backing and support of Ottawa, essentially eliminated what was left of our most basic freedoms. These freedoms are part of the Common Law tradition which we inherited when we became the Dominion of Canada on this date in 1867. They are not something which Pierre Trudeau gave us in 1982, despite the fact that our lying schoolteachers and our lying newsmedia commentators, most of whom sold their souls to the Liberal Party and its true leader in hell at the beginning of their careers, have been instilling that impression among the younger generations ever since that year. Although the Charter did not give us those freedoms, it does name four of them in its second section. The freedom of conscience and religion is the first named. The third and fourth named are freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. There is no freedom of conscience and religion when the provincial government forbids us from going to Church for four months. There is no freedom of peaceful assembly when the same government tells us we cannot gather in groups larger than five or ten or whatever number. There is no freedom of association if the government tells us we must be six feet apart from each other in public at all times. The provincial governments got away with this totalitarian power grab with the help of a media-generated panic over the spread of a virus with a low fatality rate that produces mild to no symptoms in the vast majority of those who contract it, information which has been available all along to anybody willing to check out the facts.

In the meantime, the Liberal Party which was reduced to a minority government in last year’s Dominion election, took full advantage of this situation to seek, in an underhanded attack on the Magna Carta and the foundational principles of Parliament, unlimited tax and spend powers, and to prevent Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition from doing their job of holding the government accountable in Parliament.

Then, about a month ago, when Marxist organizations in the United States found a pretext for launching a race war against white people, the Prime Minister, despite his own hands being far from clean when it comes to matters concerning race as we discovered in the election campaign last year, jumped on board the bandwagon. Even though the public health restrictions at whatever stage of easing they were at from province to province remained in effect for everybody else, they were lifted completely for the anti-white hate rallies that were organized in Canada’s major cities. The Prime Minister, who has never given the slightest indication of sincere contrition over his many personal failings, but who is always ready to give an apology on behalf of the entire country to whatever designated victim group happens to feel the most offended at any given moment, showed up for a photo op of himself “taking the knee” in a gesture of false humility at the rally in Ottawa. A few days later on his syndicated morning television show he berated our country over its supposed “systemic racism.” This was the cue for everyone else to ritually acknowledge this systemic racism, whether they understood the concept or, more likely, did not, and for the “woke” to start “cancelling” anybody who failed to participate in this now mandatory ritual.

This requirement that everybody accept this ridiculous narrative, taken from the neo-Marxist Critical Theory, is, of course, an assault on yet another of our basic freedoms. As with the others, this too is a freedom from the Common Law tradition which is named in the second section of the Charter, where it is called the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” If all Canadians are now required to confess the neo-Marxist narrative that our country is systemically racist, upon threat of being cancelled if we dissent, then it is a joke to say that we have freedom of thought, belief, opinion or expression. If the Crown broadcaster and all of the other news stations and newspapers that have been subsidized by this government are pushing this same narrative, while the government has been applying pressure to big tech social media companies to censor dissent, then there is no “freedom of the press and other media of communication.” The assault on this basic freedom has been going on since the premiership of the first Trudeau. It has been carried out in the name of combatting prejudice and promoting diversity, even though the most essential kind of diversity for a free country is the diversity of thought that is under attack.

All of Western Civilization is now threatened by these neo-Maoists who wish to raze history to the ground and bring us to Year Zero. They have the support of most of the mainstream media, the corporate world, academia, celebrities and a wide assortment of elected officials, civil servants and even the police forces they wish to see “defunded”. In Canada, they have demanded that the prestigious McGill University disown its founder and namesake. Worse, they are demanding that our country disavow the leading Father of Confederation and our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Hilariously, they managed to get a newspaper or two to put trigger-warning labels on the flag. The reason this is so funny is because the flag in question is not the traditional, historical, flag of Canada, the Red Ensign, but rather the bland Maple Leaf which the Communist traitor, Lester Pearson chose to replace it with in 1965 precisely because it said nothing about Canada’s history, heritage, and legacy. Indeed, the Liberal Party’s assault on the traditional symbols of the Canada of Confederation during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, starting with the old flag and ending with Dominion Day, could pretty much be said to have been the first wave to which the present wave of neo-Maoist, Year Zeroism is the second.

The Liberal Party rejected our country’s traditional symbols and was determined to replace them with ones bearing its own stamp. Today’s neo-Maoists demand a wholesale repudiation of our country’s founding and history. Symbols and history are important. Almost a century ago, the Mackenzie King Liberals attacked the Crown’s legitimate and necessary right to refuse an improper dissolution request (see Eugene Forsey, The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament, 1943). This undermined Parliament’s right to hold the Prime Minister accountable and set the stage for Prime Ministerial dictatorship (see John Farthing, Freedom Wears a Crown, 1957). This year, we have seen the largest assault on Parliamentary prerogative since then, and on the part of a minority Liberal government to boot, while all the provincial governments ran roughshod over our most basic Common Law rights and freedoms. If we had valued our traditional symbols and our history more, we would not have so willingly acquiesced in this.

While I weep for my country, I wish you all a Happy Dominion Day!

God Save the Queen!
Posted by

Trudeau Senior & the Monster Mao

Posted on by

 Trudeau Senior & the Monster Mao

Stéphane Courtois et al.
P 493 f, Wei Jingsheng, a witness of famine in China, 1968:
“Before my eyes, among the weeds, rose up one of the scenes I had been told about, one of the banquets at which the families had swapped children in order to eat them. I could see the worried faces of the families as they chewed the flesh of other people’s children. The children who were chasing butterflies in a nearby field seemed to be the reincarnation of the children devoured by their parents. I felt sorry for the children, but not as sorry as I felt for their parents. What had made them swallow that human flesh, amidst the tears and grief of other parents – flesh that they would never have imagined tasting, even in their worst nightmares? In that moment I understood what a butcher he had been, the man ‘whose like humanity has not seen in several centuries, and China not in several thousand years’: Mao Zedong and his henchmen, with their criminal political system, had driven parents mad with hunger and led them to hand their own children over to others, and to receive the flesh of others to appease their own hunger.”
TRUDEAU AND MAO
Most researchers into the history of famine say that famine in China under the Great Leap Forward (1958-61) of Mao Zedong was the greatest in history. Probably about 30 million people died of hunger there, and there were about 33 million “lost births,” meaning that, because of the weakness caused by hunger, the number of births was reduced by 33 million. (The Soviet Union had famine deaths of about 5 million in 1932-34, largely because of misguided political policies.)

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

Posted on by

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Omar Khadr

Arecent payout of $10.5 million dollars to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr represents a watershed moment in the history of political correctness in Canada. As endorsed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mr. Khadr has hit the jackpot and can now settle into a life of luxury upon Canadian soil. Not bad for a terrorist convicted of murder.

While there isn’t a politician past or present who has disgraced our country with the vigour of Justin Trudeau, the road to the loss of our national dignity did not originate with our current prime minister. This we can attribute to the founder of Canada’s collective self- loathing — his father.

Pierre Trudeau is the most misunderstood figure in Canadian history. A maverick political figure from day one, Trudeau Sr. thumbed his nose at western institutions of his day while embracing socialist ideology discovered during his travels as a student in Asia.

Some where between the opium smoking and the communist manifesto, Pierre discovered his true ideological calling — as an irreverent intellectual with a pre-disposition toward his political nemesis — British colonialism, and the institutions created in its image.

From his first term as prime minister in 1968 to his final curtain call in the early 1980’s, Pierre worked to erode Canada’s connection to Britain and the Commonwealth. For the purpose of empowering minority communities — as well as the legal industry who support them — Trudeau introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In an effort to advance the rights of special interest groups, Trudeau created the Court Challenges Program, enabling these entities to take legal action based upon perceived social injustices.

The outcome was a fundamental transformation within society. Power and influence shifted away from the Canadian majority and into the hands of tax-payer funded interest groups, multicultural organizations, human rights tribunals and other leftist institutions. Thus, a new Canada was born —though it would take decades for the general public to understand exactly what had occurred. It is arguable most still do not comprehend the full picture.

To understand the roots of the re-imagining of our nation, we look to the fateful day in 1971 when Pierre Trudeau introduced multiculturalism to Canada. Without any form of mandate or approval from the Canadian people, Pierre Trudeau cancelled our bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity and replaced it with multicultural policy. Few at the time were aware of the pending side effects—namely, that multiculturalism would not be inclusive of Anglophone or Francophone identity. Indeed, it was and remains the exclusive domain of migrants from Asia and the Middle East.

As decades passed and Third World immigration began to alter our demographic make-up, a powerful diversity industry came into existence. This collective of immigration pundits, academics and media — as well as government itself — began to alter our national destiny. By way of an accusation of historical racism toward Third World and First Nations communities, our diversity warriors were able to convince the Canadian majority to question, and ultimately dislike, the heritage of their own nation.

At present, we see this manifested in Prime Minister Trudeau’s litany of apologies to our LGBT, Chinese, Muslim and Sikh communities. Never mind the fact that Italian, German and Ukrainian- Canadians were sent by the thousands to internment camps under the War Measures Act. Racism in Canada is an exclusive of the Third World, and these forces intend to keep it that way. Waving a collective finger at the descendants of the founders of our nation, we are informed by politically-oriented new arrivals that Canada is built on “stolen land,” and if we don’t cooperate — or perhaps even if we do — they will work to steal it back.

Naturally, Justin Trudeau is all-in on this campaign. Raised within an environment of malevolence toward English Canada, as well as within ear shot of father Pierre’s admiration for communism, Justin is the perfect pitch-man for what he refers to as a “post-modern” Canada — which really means a Canada devoid of Anglophone identity.

Canada has seen its share of the Trudeau family’s disdain for both democratic process and the will of the majority. Multiculturalism, which became official policy in 1988, was a unilateral decision on the part of government — if not on the part of Pierre himself. Both father and son share an affinity for believing their personal will equates with public will — a personality trait bordering on the delusional.

Pierre Trudeau began Canada’s long day’s journey into cultural demise, but it is son Justin who will finish off Anglo-Canada for good. By way of mass immigration — another nation-changing policy devoid of public input — Justin is leading us down a path toward a complete societal inversion. By way of measures such as “Islamophobia” motion M103, our so-called minorities are today the preferred communities of choice, while “Old Stock” Canadians are rendered perfunctory at best. “Out with the old, in with the new” appears to be the maxim of PM Trudeau and his sunny gang of cultural eradicators.

Recently, Trudeau Junior informed us Canada belongs more to immigrants than Canadian-born citizens, as the latter “take Canada for granted.” This reveals what general society should have understood decades ago — that the concept of equality for all Canadians by way of multiculturalism is a myth. The true diversity agenda is not unlike what is found in George Orwell’s classic political treatise on communism, Animal Farm — “all are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

If and when Canadian-born citizens wake up to the fact that an injustice of grand design is at the heart of the Trudeau agenda, perhaps the dignity lost in a whirlwind of diversity and political correctness can then be returned to the descendants of those who built our country.