Tag Archives: racism

The Anglican Church Seems to Hate White People

Posted on by
The Telegraph

Anger at Church archdeacon’s call for ‘anti-whiteness’

Hayley Dixon

Sun, March 24, 2024 at 1:07 PM EDT·4 min read

The Ven Miranda Threlfall-Holmes insisted she was 'not anti-white'

The Ven Miranda Threlfall-Holmes insisted she was ‘not anti-white’

A Church of England archdeacon has called for “anti-whiteness”, in comments which have been criticised as divisive.

The Ven Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, Archdeacon of Liverpool, also called for people to “smash the patriarchy” but insisted her comments were “not anti-white, or anti-men”.

Her statement prompted an angry reaction, with one person asking if it would be “safe to attend church” if Dr Threlfall-Holmes “holds racial prejudice against white people”.

Just weeks ago, the church announced it would be hiring a “deconstructing whiteness” officer as part of a new 11-person “racial justice unit” being set up by the Diocese of Birmingham.

Senior clergy have also faced criticism for calling for the church’s £100 million slavery reparations fund to be increased to £1 billion.

Dr Threlfall-Holmes wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “I went to a conference on whiteness last autumn. It was very good, very interesting and made me realise: whiteness is to race as patriarchy is to gender.

“So yes, let’s have anti-whiteness, and let’s smash the patriarchy. That’s not anti-white, or anti-men, it’s anti-oppression.”

In response, users of X suggested that if the Cambridge-educated priest wanted “anti-whiteness” then she should “lead by example and resign”.

Some described her comments as “racist” and one asked: “Why do you seek to divide when your job description is literally to bring people together?”

Her words were criticised as “divisive” and “nonsensical” and one user said it would appear she had “given up Christianity to join a new and sinister cult”.

Dr Threlfall-Holmes, who was appointed archdeacon last year, also holds a role advising church leaders on implanting safeguarding reforms.

Last October she revealed she was attending a conference on “waking up to and addressing whiteness in the Anglican church”.

The day-long “Racial Justice Conference” in Birmingham was organised by Reconciliation Initiatives, a charity working in partnership with Coventry Cathedral to help churches “contribute to reconciliation in wider society”.

The aims of the conference included: “To encourage white participants to take next steps in facing their own whiteness, and in addressing institutional racism within Anglican churches and provinces.”

The charity also runs a four-week “Being White” course aimed at clergy and lay members who “identify racially as white” to help them address “the ways we are caught up in a system of white superiority and white advantage in UK society”.

‘A way of viewing the world’

When asked about the apparent contradictions in her comments, Dr Threlfall-Holmes told The Telegraph: “I was contributing to a debate about world views, in which ‘whiteness’ does not refer to skin colour per se, but to a way of viewing the world where being white is seen as ‘normal’ and everything else is considered different or lesser.”

Dr Threlfall-Holmes, a historian, added: “I do however understand that this is not a definition that is widely shared as yet outside of academic circles, and regret that Twitter [X] was perhaps not the best place for a nuanced argument.”

She praised the comments of the Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd Dr Michael Volland, who last week defended the decision of his diocese to oppose a “deconstructing whiteness” officer on the basis that the phrase can be “misleading” and “has nothing to do with knocking or demeaning people who have white skin”.

The use of such terminology has previously been criticised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said it was similar to language used in the television sitcom W1A, which satirised BBC managerial jargon.

The Rev Dr Ian Paul, who is a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council, has warned that “importing” such language from the culture wars in the US risks “alienating ordinary members of the Church of England”.

Race Hucksters

Posted on by

The White Inferiority Complex

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, September 18, 2020

The White Inferiority Complex

For decades, hurling the epithet “racist” was the liberal’s go-to method of acknowledging anyone who disagreed with him from a standpoint somewhere to his right. In this same period this method served its purpose of discouraging disagreement with progressive liberalism well. Those who belonged to the mainstream of whatever was considered to be conservatism at the time, which was generally what had been considered liberalism a decade or so earlier, were, for some reason that has never really been explained, particularly sensitive to this accusation, and every time the liberal used this dreaded word they would rush to be the first to throw whoever was on the receiving end of the accusation under the bus. 
Eventually, however, this word lost most of its bite. It had simply been used too often and against too many people. When everyone is a racist, nobody is a racist, and people stop caring when you call somebody a racist. While it made something of a comeback this year, when used with the modifier “systemic”, for a few years now it has been largely replaced in liberal usage with “white supremacist.”


By trading the worn out “racist” for the fresh “white supremacist”, liberals exchanged an insult that had lost most of its meaning through overuse for one that was more powerful than the original had ever been, but in doing so they made themselves look absurd. For one thing white supremacist has a much narrower range of meaning than racist, with connotations of ideology, zeal, commitment, and activism that the word racist does not. There are very few actual white supremacists left and when liberals try to use this expression in the way they used to use racist they invite ridicule upon themselves. 


There is another aspect to the absurdity of the charge of white supremacism being flung around like so much monkey excrement. It is quite evident to anybody with open eyes that if any sort of bad racial thought presently infests the minds of the white people of Western Civilization it is not a sense of superiority over others, much less a feeling of supremacy over others, but rather a sort of inferiority complex. 
What other explanation can there be for the fact that even though the United States, after its Supreme Court abolished all de jure discrimination against blacks, established de jure discrimination against whites in 1964, and Canada, the United Kingdom, and all other Western countries decided to follow this foolish American precedent, and for over a generation anti-white discrimination has been the only established racism in Western Civilization, nevertheless white people have been willing to affirm the proposition that Western countries are “white supremacist” and that they therefore enjoy “privilege” on the basis of their skin colour? 
How else do we explain all the white people who are enthusiastic supporters of Black Lives Matter? BLM, despite the organization’s innocuous if also truistic and banal name, is not about a positive agenda of promoting the security and well-being of black people. Abortion rates have been disproportionately high among black people for decades, but BLM couldn’t care less about all the black lives lost to abortion. They are, in fact, allied to the pro-abortion, feminist cause. Nor does BLM care about all the black lives taken by black perpetrators of violent crime. Blacks are overrepresented among both the perpetrators and the victims of violent crime in general, which has been the case for as long as statistics have been kept about this sort of thing and shows no sign of ceasing to be the case any time soon, and this overrepresentation is even larger for homicide. The inevitable and natural corollary of this is that blacks are also overrepresented among crime suspects, arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. The black lives lost to black crime are not black lives that matter to BLM. BLM cares only about blaming the overrepresentation of blacks among suspects, arrests, etc., on the racism of white police. For this is what BLM is truly about – spreading hatred of police officers, Western Civilization in general but with a focus on the United States, and especially of white people. 


It makes about as much sense, therefore, for white people to support BLM as it would for black people to go around wearing white robes with pointy hoods. Yet this year, in which BLM has, ahem, removed its mask and revealed its true colours like never before, it would have been difficult not to notice the prominent participation of whites in the record-breaking wave of race riots and the “Year Zero” Cultural Maoist assault on historical monuments and statues. That is even without taking into account the lionizers of BLM and its cause among white newspaper and television commentators, white university professors, white clergymen, white corporate executives, white celebrities, and white politicians. 


There is a name for this sort of inferiority complex. It is called liberalism. While there are many different liberalisms with many different meanings, the one that I have in mind here is that of the liberal whom Robert Frost defined as “a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” Although I must say that when the poet penned that worthy diagnosis it probably never occurred to him that the disease would progress to the point where those infected actively take up arms against their own side. 
This, however, is the stage of the condition in which we find ourselves today and it may very well prove to be the terminal stage. 


Today, whether they seriously believe it to be true or not, a sizeable portion of whites are willing to affirm that racism is a moral offence for which light-skinned people of European ancestry bear a unique guilt, that they are guilty of it even if they are not conscious of having thought a racist thought, said a racist word, or committed a racist act, that this unconscious racism supposedly built into the very fabric of society is worse than the overt racial hatred that is often directed against whites by blacks and others with an anti-white axe to grind, and that it is their moral duty, therefore, to express contrition or shame whenever any non-white person chooses to take offence at something they have said or done or merely the fact that they are living and breathing, and to ignore or excuse explicit expressions of racial animus directed against them, even when these are violent in tone. 
Western liberalism has clearly undergone a mutation from when its humanitarian and universalist ideals merely generated a blindness to the legitimate particular interests of Western nations and peoples. It now actively opposes those interests. 


Think about the implications of the ubiquitous calls to end “systemic racism.” Many, perhaps most, white people have been jumping on board this bandwagon. Perhaps they do not understand that “systemic racism” is a technical term, from neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory, and that it designates this idea of an embedded racism which all white people and only white people are guilty of whether they are conscious of racist thought and actions or not. Perhaps they think it means institutional policies and practices that explicitly discriminate on racial grounds. If the latter is what they think, however, then they are mistaken if they think that racism of this sort, other than the kind that is directed against them, exists in Western countries today. This crusade against “systemic racism” in the Critical Race Theory sense of the term can only have the result, if successful, of making the explicit discrimination against white people that has been institutionalized in all Western countries since the ‘60’s and ‘70s of the last century, worse. 


There is a far worse manifestation of this mutant strain of the liberalism virus. Taken together, a number of liberal policies that have been in place in most if not all Western countries for over four decades, constitute an existential threat to white people. One of these policies is the use of large scale immigration from non-Western countries to offset the declining fertility that has been produced by, among other factors, the anti-natalism of social liberalism’s pro-contraception, pro-abortion, views. The result of this policy having been in place for decades has been the massive demographic transformation of Western societies to the point where in several countries that in living memory were almost entirely white, whites are on the verge of dropping to minority status. When you add to this the introduction in the same time frame of the aforementioned anti-white institutional discrimination, and the vilification of whites in the news media, popular education, and the revisionist educational curriculum, what you end up with is a recipe for a sort of self-inflicted genocide. Indeed, for decades now, Critical Race Theorists such as the late Noel Ignatiev have couched their anti-white ideas in explicitly genocidal language such as “the abolition of the white race”. When called out over this they have defended their rhetoric by saying that the “white race” they are talking about is a social construct, but their arguments have a rather hollow ring to them when we consider that these people would be the first to cry genocide if the same language were used about any other race and that the activist movement that has been built upon the foundation of their theory has translated such rhetoric into even cruder terms and actions that are not so easily explained away. These same people insist that “it is okay to be white” is a dangerous and offensive racist slogan. 


Yet despite all of this, liberalism has been largely successful at convincing a large segment of the white population to regard anyone who dares to speak out against this suicidal combination of policies as being a bigger and more real threat than that combination itself. Indeed, there are several liberal organizations in North America that do nothing else except identify those who speak out against white liberalism’s racial suicide pact and wage a campaign of character assassination against them. 


Liberalism is usually wrong about everything and it is certainly wrong about this. The West does not have a “white supremacist” problem in this day and age. What it is suffering from is rather that many, perhaps most, white people have become infected with a sick-minded racial inferiority complex in which they regard their skin colour as a badge of racial guilt which can only be atoned for through racial suicide. You will be waiting a long time, however, for liberals to acknowledge this. That would mean admitting that liberalism is the problem. Liberals would sooner demonize all those who share their own skin colour than admit that liberalism could be wrong. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:15 AM Labels: abortion, antiracism, Black Lives Matter, contraception, Critical Theory, feminism, immigration, liberalism, Noel Ignatiev, racism, systemic racism, Year Zero

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— BRAD SALZBERG

 

 

THE ETHNOSTATE, WITH WILLIAM JOHNSON, PAUL FROMM & KENN GIVIDEN: WHY JAPAN ISN’T HUNG UP ABOUT RACISM

Posted on by
THE ETHNOSTATE, WITH WILLIAM JOHNSON, PAUL FROMM & KENN GIVIDEN: WHY JAPAN ISN’T HUNG UP ABOUT RACISM

 
 
Sanders panders ►Bernie wants to redo USA’s racist justice system
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2019/09/sanders-panders-bernie-wants-to-redo.html
Sinead O’Connor calls white people “disgusting” (then apologizes)
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2019/09/sinead-oconnor-calls-white-people.html
8th illegal charged with rape in Montgomery County, Maryland
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2019/09/8th-illegal-charged-with-rape-in.html
U of Alabama official quits after associating flag with “systemic racism”
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2019/09/u-of-alabama-official-quits-after.html
2nd-generation migrants more likely to commit crimes than their parents
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2019/09/2nd-generation-migrants-more-likely-to.html

THE ETHNOSTATE: IS “RACIST” A COMPLIMENT?

Posted on by
THE ETHNOSTATE: IS “RACIST” A COMPLIMENT? 
 

With Bill Johnson, Kenn Gividen, Paul Fromm & Pastor Tom RobbIs “RACIST” a compliment? Are young people rejected Cultural Marxism and adopting race realism?

https://youtu.be/j3QAl0Cw_a8

YOUTUBE.COM
Looking for old videos? Find them here ► https://www.bitchute.com/channel/iouRs4aNC04f/ Note to flag bombers: When YouTube deletes a video due…

 

Misery is a Choice

Posted on by

Misery is a Choice

Hijab and the New Indian Muslim Woman | by firoze shakir photographerno1

March 18, 2017
The sad truth is that so many people are in a state of love, and not together with someone, and yet so many people are together and are not in love but trudging on the age of misery. Misery is almost always a choice of the mind that has other very available options, like ‘not to be miserable’! There are legions of miserable like Don Quixotes jousting with windmills and pretending that the trivia they obsess over gives meaning to their victimhood-centered lives.

Misery makes you a victim. Nobody of any race makes you choose to have unprotected sex and get pregnant at 16. Nobody makes you choose to have three kids by three different baby daddies. Nobody makes you flunk out of school. Nobody makes you spend money on partying instead of your rent. Nobody makes you assault a police officer. Nobody makes you rob a house and get a criminal record. It’s not oppression. It’s a sub-culture that says you can make every mistake in the world, but your screwed-up life is still someone else’s fault?! 

Misery loves company! The company the misery possessed would really want in their heart of hearts are positive people who make the choice to not be miserable, but why would ‘they’ want to be around someone who ‘cries in their soup’ and brings clouds into the room. ‘’Out, out brief candle’’ is part of a quote from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth …  Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Ring a bell?

Blaming all your troubles on anything or anyone is a disingenuous inversion of the affirmative side of life. If you don’t like how something in the world is, try to changing it, but don’t whine and cry  and talk about how terrible life is for you because you were born the wrong race or sex. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that. Look for the opportunities that often get missed because they require some work. Be a better person and stop lying to yourself about oppression in the least racist, most welcoming country in the history of humankind. 

Having a PhD in misery is returnable by making a choice. Let go of negative attachment memories that you lug around everyday in your life. More love energy will rise when the negative is let go of. Love is diluted where negativity is occupying the space. If you choose misery, be happy with your choice! If this is not your choice, drop all patterns that create it and start making new patterns! Open the doors of positivity and a new bliss will flow. You have a choice – deal with it, and don’t forget to smile!
Arhata~
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Paul Fromm — The Trump Phenomenon

Posted on by

Paul Fromm — The Trump Phenomenon

https://youtu.be/HzBeipaGP78

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented
Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 2016

See More

Part 1 The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 201…
Part 2 The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 20

So what if I am a Racist?

Posted on by

So what if I am a Racist?

by Tim Murray

Burnaby, BC – real estate density to accommodate massive Asian immigration
There are many in the environmental movement who have chosen to take the coward’s way out. They know that population growth plays a crucial role in environmental degradation. And they know that in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom it is immigration which drives population growth and that it will play an even more decisive role in the future.
But they have chosen to take the Fifth Amendment. They have chosen to remain silent and look the other way, focusing instead on campaigns to reduce consumption, promote renewable technologies, greener lifestyles and sideshows to defend this or that threatened habitat, forest or species. By Mark Twain’s definition, they are liars of the silent kind. They know in their hearts thatimmigration-driven population growth has a profoundly negative ecological impact, but they say nothing. This is ethically equivalent to knowing that someone has planted a bomb in the subway and not saying anything to the police.

Then there are the environmentalists who not only tell the silent lie, but are determined to silence those brave enough to tell the truth. Many of them draw salaries from “green” NGOs whose primary goal is to maintain and grow their bureaucracy. Cynics can be forgiven for regarding them as essentially fund-raising tools which not only solicit donations from credulous innocents, but from corporations seeking ecological dispensation and good publicity. These organizations are case studies of Roberto Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. Success transforms fledgling grass roots movements into organizations with salaried staff and directors with a vested interest in the financial viability of their employer. Consequently they will pursue goals to promote the maintenance and growth of the organization even when those goals run counter to the original aims of the movement. Green crusaders become money-grubbing corporate lackeys.

If this wasn’t morally reprehensible enough, some go further. They enlist the services of the Merchants of Smear, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the Center for New Community. Hired guns whose mission is to destroy reputations, especially the reputations of environmentalists who campaign for population stabilization.

And finally there is another category of population deniers — those who choose the path of least resistance. Those who are terrified of being found guilty of guilt-by-association. So they distance themselves from sustainable population campaigners to avoid being tarred with an ugly brush.

They do so for fear of the “R” word. Racism. A word that is seldom precisely defined, but always brandished as a weapon of fear and intimidation to shut down debate. It permanently marks the accused with a stain that can never be removed. Ask the widowed husband of the late June Callwood, a famous Canadian journalist who championed progressive causes. Unjustly smeared by an identity group, she spent the remainder of final years a broken woman. To be labeled “racist” and have it stick is professional suicide and the death knell of one’s credibility, no matter how broad and sound one’s perspective may be.

Vancouver, BC, real estate development to accommodate massive Asian immigration

In Canada, more so than in America, Australia or Britain, such is the cult status of mass immigration that to challenge any facet of it is thought in most quarters to be intrinsically “racist”. Mass immigration and the deification of the immigrant is part of the national DNA. As we witnessed in the Republican Primary contest, political candidates love to trot out rags-to-riches, immigrant-makes good stories of how their father came to this country a humble, hard-working man of meagre means and saw his son rise to achieve the American dream. Democratic Presidential nominee candidate Bernie Sanders hit that key too. Many times.

Canadian politicians pull the same emotional string. And it works. It all lends credence to the false narrative that Canada is a nation of immigrants, that immigrants “built this country”, and must continue to build it. The idea that Canada is “over-built”, that we have exceeded our ecological carrying capacity, is inconceivable. It is not on the table — and the growth lobby, in collusion with the media cartel — is determined to keep it there. Obviously, the useful idiots of the Left are party to the plot. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the working man or woman’s best friend is a tight labour market. But then the Left no longer is no longer the advocate of the working class, but the champion of identity groups and migrant rights. “No One is Illegal” is a slogan born to serve the corporate bottom line.

So how does racism come into the conversation? It’s like this. If you are drawing a third of a million people into your country every year and most of them are from “non-traditional” sources, then most of them — an overwhelming number of them — are going have a skin pigment other than white. Therefore, to propose any restriction, or God forbid, a moratorium on immigration for any reason, is “racist”, and the one making the proposal is a “racist” who automatically is beyond the pale of polite discussion and deserves to be consigned to oblivion. He certainly will never see the inside of a CBC studio.

Well, I’m an environmentalist and I have chosen to make a lot of noise about immigration. In doing so, as one could predict, I am just about as popular as flatulence in an elevator. I talk loudly about the ugly “I” word because I would rather be right than politically correct. I know that if we grow our population by 18% we can’t expect to cut our GHG emissions by 3%. It can’t be done. And I know that if we have covered 20% of our Class 1 farmland in sprawl with this kind of growth that we haven’t a hope of feeding ourselves if immigration rates persist and affordable oil runs out.

Greenfield acreage cannot be adequately preserved by land-use planning (ask Portland, Oregon). We have the highest growth of any G7 country and with Australia, the highest per capita immigration intake in the world. Biodiversity is on the ropes, especially in the killing zones on the perimeter of our bursting cities. It cannot coexist with the tens of millions of extra consumers that Ottawa plans to import in coming years.

In advocating an immigration moratorium, I find myself in the same predicament I did while working in a theatre in a largely Chinese Vancouver neighbourhood. The movies were often times so popular that there were more people waiting on the sidewalk to get in than there were seats available to sell to them. One of my unhappy duties was to close the door when the theatre was full.

Canada is such a theatre. It has a limited carrying capacity, not established by a fire marshal, but by ecologists and biologists who have offered educated guesses as what it might be. Now a theatre manager or owner might propose that more people be admitted off the street and be accommodated as standing-room patrons. He may even propose that newcomers sit on the laps of those already seated. Taking a cue from fake greens, he might even call it “smart growth” or “eco-density” — but.his motive would be purely mercenary.

Similarly, an economist from the Royal Bank would argue that Canada could admit millions, tens of millions more, and the Real Estate Industry would echo his sentiments. Again for commercial considerations. But neither the theatre owner or nor the economist is governed by the concept of limiting factors, of carrying capacity. Just as it takes a fire marshal to impose reality on the theatre owner, it would take an ecologist or a biologist to introduce the Canadian government to the reality of biophysical limits.

One might recall when, in the face of dwindling stocks, the politicians of Newfoundland protested that the cod fishery must continue because the “economy” of the province depended on it. So the boats went out until the cod ran out. Ultimately the issue was not about what the economy of Newfoundland required, but what the cod stocks could sustain — and in this case, they obviously couldn’t sustain any more fishing. That economist from the Royal Bank, and any number of federal politicians, will protest that our “economy” requires these massive annual injections of immigrants, but our environment will simply not continue to sustain it.

At some point, we will have to establish as a nation, a population plan, an optimum population for this country. When we do, someone will have to close the theatre door. Now, I would put it to my critics, when I closed that door was I “racist” in doing so because 75% of the people left standing outside were of Chinese ancestry?

Ecological Vancouver before Asian Immigration-Invasion

Let me ask another question, suppose I was. Suppose I closed the door for two reasons. One, because the theatre had filled its seating (carrying) capacity and for safety reasons it would be dangerous to allow more people in. And two, because I didn’t like Chinese people. Would the second reason invalidate the first reason? Should the revelation that I am a mean-spirited, nasty, hateful guy who hates children, kittens and little old ladies discredit my argument that the theatre is full?

I want to see the development of a Sustainable Population Plan for Canada, one that would factor in the variables of net migration, births over deaths and refugee quotas. The imperative would be to stay faithful to the desired population target by adjusting any of those variables up or down.

The goal would be to stop biodiversity loss and save biodiversity services. Stop the diminution of farm acreage and wildlife habitat, and meet carbon-emission targets.

But there is another reason for my opposition to hyper-immigration. The one I keep in the closet. I hate right-handed people. I hate the way they have treated me and organized the world for their convenience. Right-handed people make up 90% of the global population. By cutting back on immigration by 90% I know that most of the excluded people will be right-handed. Does this hidden agenda invalidate my previous arguments?

In Canada of late there seems to be a great pre-occupation not with an idea or an action but the alleged motivation behind it. The hate-crimes laws are a case in point. Their logic confounds me. Someone hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I have a wallet full of cash, and the judge gives him a year. If the same thug hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I’m gay, the judge gives him a much heavier penalty. Whatever the moron’s motives, my medical condition is the same.

But such is the political culture of Canada. My “motive” for anti-immigration views warrants more scrutiny and attention than the views themselves. I could only wish that critics would take my arguments on their own merits rather than subjecting me to psychoanalysis. And I wish that the network that I pay for, the state broadcaster, the CBC, would entertain the possibility that today’s heresy might become tomorrow’s truth.