Tag Archives: Ricardo Duchesne

David Atkinson’s Argument Against Martin Collacott is Pure Defamatory Trash

Posted on by
David Atkinson’s Argument Against Martin Collacott is Pure Defamatory Trash
Martin Collacott, Old School Canadian, Facts and Analysis


David Atkinson’s article, “White supremacists ideas revived in Collacott oped,” spews out one defamatory label after another against Martin Collacott’s June 5 editorial, “Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness,” without caring to offer one single fact-based, analytically constructed argument.

Collacot effectively condensed in his article the following empirically oriented claims:

  1. that according to professor Eric Kaufmann, “almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.”
  2. that the cost of mass immigration “is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually.”
  3. that Vancouverites have been “crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals.”
  4. that “the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.”
  5. that “we are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.”
  6. that we should consider the fact that those who advocate mass immigration may be doing so for their own personal or political benefits rather than Canada’s economic and cultural well being. The “benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base.” 
  7. that these beneficiaries also include “leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence,” as well as “developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level”.
  8. that Canada did benefit in the past from periods of high levels of immigration, and that “a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant” [but] — “it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population”
  9. that “many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.”
  10. that “Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups.”

Atkinson, who is an academic at Purdue University, does not tackle a single one of these empirically oriented claims, but instead unleashes one vitriolic claim after another, starting with the title which identifies Collacott as a “white supremacist.” The first sentence then calls Collacott’s argument “chauvinistic” and “white supremacist” again. The second sentence says that Collacott’s argument is nothing but a “thinly veiled invocation of ‘Yellow Peril’ rhetoric”. The third sentence dismisses all the claims by Collacott as “antiquated racial ideas”. The fourth and fifth sentences accuse Collacott of reviving arguments for a “White Canada” in the manner of the “anti-Asian exclusion movement in B.C. (and elsewhere) during the early 20th century.”

 
The sixth sentence equates Collacott’s argument with those who warned in the early 1900s of a “rising tide of oriental immigration.” In each of the next three sentences all we find are the phrases “widespread fear of impending white elimination,” “the irrational fear of an overwhelming Asian influx,” ” Komagata Maru.” The tenth sentence brings up again the word the never heard phrase “white supremacists,” and the eleventh sentence accuses Collacott of using a label, “white genocide,” “derived from the writings of convicted murderer David Lane”. The same eleventh sentence claims that Collacott is merely trafficking in “alt-right… simplistic meme-driven distortions of history, ethnicity, and identity.”

Cultural Marxist School Canadian: Facts and Analysis don’t matter; only defamatory labels do.


Professor Atkinson, how about one argument against the claims of Collacott? Well, in the twelfth sentence he finally brings up one argument  (#9 above), but only to dismiss it as the “same kind of disingenuousness favoured by alt-right activists.” The next sentence accuses, again, Collacott of echoing “his predecessors and the modern alt-right in blaming” those who benefit from mass immigration.

Strange yet true: academics today don’t like it when you blame political leaders, bureaucrats, developers, and special interest groups. Atkinson, it should be noted, has made a a career out of promoting immigration and calling anyone who disagrees with him a “racist.” His “forthcoming book” is entitled The Burdens of White Supremacy: Containing Asian Labor Migration in the British Empire and the United States.

The last three paragraphs of his article more or less repeat the same labels while identifying Collacott with the “white supremacist” exclusionary activists of a century ago, “defending the whiteness of British Columbia.” His conclusion is more of the same: “in reality, Collacott’s commentary squarely reiterates these previous champions of white supremacy.”

There you have it, ladies and gentleman, this is the trash that passes for scholarship among leftist professors who can’t think for themselves, who can’t engage in analysis, in open inquiry, but only in accusations and defamatory statements.

The little bit that can be categorized as historically minded in Atkinson’s article is fundamentally wrong. Essentially, what Atkinson tries to do is equate any objections with immigration today with objections a century ago, which is rather odd for a supposed historian to do, since one of the cardinal lessons in the historical profession is to learn how to judge each historical period on its own terms, to be aware that history is not static, and that immigration patterns, and cultural settings, over a hundred years ago cannot be equated with immigration realities today. Collacott distinctly makes this distinction, stating that he understands that Canada has benefited from immigration in the past. Collacott is only asking for our elites to take seriously the 10 points outlined above. He knows that Canadians are not being allowed to debate this issue openly.

It is truly a disgrace that a professor who is supposed to be a firm believer in freedom of expression and critical thinking, has decided to close off all debate with the extremist use of one defamatory label after another.

Atkinson writes that “Collacott nostalgically yearns for an imagined homogenous past that only ever existed in the minds of the province’s most obstinate white supremacists.” This criticism is common among our poorly educated academics. It is flat out wrong, as late as 1971, Canada was over 96 percent White! Deceiving your students is not a good thing. Let’s have an open debate based on historical facts and empirically verifiable statements, rather than rely on trashy labels.

Canada Spiralling Out of Control, 4: Human Rights Legislation (1951-1954) and the End of “British Liberties”

Posted on by

Canada Spiralling Out of Control, 4: Human Rights Legislation (1951-1954) and the End of “British Liberties”

by Ricardo Duchesne
Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Part VII | Part VIII

Dominion of Canada bond

The spiral was driven by a set of norms with an in-built radicalizing tendency. This tendency was contained in the supposition that the ethnic inequalities of the world, the wealth of European nations and the poverty of non-European nations, the impoverished status of blacks and aboriginals in the United States and the West generally, were a result of the discriminatory policies, the colonizing and under-developing activities of Europeans, rather than a result of cultural backwardness, differences in aptitudes or geographical lack of resources. If only all humans were granted the same rights to life, liberty, and economic success, the world could be improved drastically in a more egalitarian and prosperous direction.

Fair Employment and Fair Accommodation Practices Acts (1951-1954)

Beginning in the 1940s and through the 1950s, a growing network of groups, academics, media, ethnic associations, and trade unions, operating within a liberal atmosphere, and endorsing a pluralist view of politics, in which the state was seen as just one actor among many others engaged in politics, rather than as the actor in charge of ensuring the collective identity of the nation, pushed for “equal citizenship” and for legislation that would protect the “human rights” of citizens against discrimination. Basing themselves on the UN Charter declaration that every human should have equal rights “‘without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion,” the groups worked tirelessly in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee playing the key roles, to bring legislation in Ontario, then in Canada generally, aimed at ending discrimination in employment, access to public spaces, housing and property ownership.

At first, in the early 1940s, the Canadian Jewish Congress was preoccupied with fighting domestic antisemitism and encouraging toleration and understanding between Jews and Christian groups. But after WWII, Jewish groups decided to go beyond fighting against the perception that they were unassimilable aliens, and instead designed a grand strategy against discrimination generally, through alliances with other liberal and minority organizations. With racism now tied to the actions of Nazis, these groups successfully instilled upon politicians, and the Canadian Anglo elite at large, the view that discriminatory practices were “fascist” and had no place in a liberal nation. By the early 1950s, these liberal groups managed to bring about the Fair Employment and Fair Accommodations Practices Acts (1951-1954), which declared Ontario’s allegiance to the principles of the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights in rendering illegal any discrimination in employment and in access to public spaces in Ontario on grounds of race or creed.

These Acts, and other similar legislative measures, culminated, firstly, in the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted by Parliament on August 10, 1960, which is seen as the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level, in declaring that all persons in Canada have “right to life, liberty and security.” Secondly, it culminated in the Ontario Human Rights Code, passed June 15, 1962, which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, ancestry colour, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation, age and family status.

The End of “British Liberties”

Canadian Flag, 1922-1957
Canadian Flag, 1922-1957

Now, while it can be reasonably argued that these human rights laws were within the bounds of classical liberal discourse in affording minorities the same legal status, in accordance with the principle that all citizens of a nation should be guaranteed equal rights in the eyes of the law, these acts and codes constituted a dramatic alteration in the traditional language of “British liberties” that had prevailed in Canada before WWII.

Before the Second World war, as Ross Lambertson has observed, “there was scant mention of human rights” not just in Canada but in international law. The idea behind the concept of human rights is that all humans enjoy equal natural rights by virtue of belonging to the human race, which is very different from the “British liberties” idea, which emphasizes one’s membership in a British national culture. These liberties included the principle of parliamentary supremacy, as the very keystone of the law and constitution, meaning that matters involving individual rights would be left to Parliament, which is to say that courts would defer to Parliament regarding issues about individual rights. (In Canada, be it noted, there was a plurality of parliaments within the federal-provincial division of powers).

The “British liberties” ensured by Parliament included such principles as fair play, which meant both fairness in the right of Canadian individuals to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and in being treated equal under the law, “no man is above the law,” everyone is subject to the same laws. However, as has been argued by James Walker, such British liberties in Canada as freedom of speech and association “were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including to hire them or to serve them.” Equality under the law did not mean that individuals were obligated to include within their free associations members regardless of race. Freedom of association was understood to include the right to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity, religion, and sex.

But I disagree with the standing argument that the human rights legislation constituted a break with libertarian liberalism, or classical liberalism. The standing argument says that Canadian liberalism before WWII emphasized individual freedoms rather than equal rights of citizenship. However, in my view, it was not simply that minorities were discriminated in their exclusion from restaurants, barber shops and many other public spaces. It was not simply, as Lambertson says, that the “ideal of freedom was accorded a higher importance than the ideal of equality” (p. 377). It was that the liberalism of this day was still ethnocentric, and this is why there were franchise laws that kept aboriginals in reserves and excluded them from the dominant British nation-state, as well as people of other races, through immigration laws that openly declared Asians and blacks to be unsuitable members of an official Canada intended to be British.

Red Ensign, version 1957-1965
Red Ensign, version 1957-1965

One does not have to agree with discriminatory measures to understand that it is wrong to project the libertarianism of today, devoid as it is of any appreciation for the importance of ethnic identity in its notion that we are all the same as individuals with rights, to understand that Canada’s emphasis on its British collective identity was crucial to the making of Canada, and that today Canada stands open to millions of immigrants encouraged to claim this nation as their own, and, therefore, encouraged to impose their own sense of the political, their ow collective tendencies upon a Eurocanadian people prohibited to have any collective identity.

The libertarianism of Canada before WWII, paradoxical as this may seem to us now, was collectivist in its belief that individual rights were rights which emerged from the British people, not from individuals as members of the human race, but from a particular British race, to which other ethnic groups that were White could assimilate but not people from very different races and cultures.

What made the acts and codes revolutionary was not simply that they were supportive of “equality of rights of minorities, at the expense of the libertarian rights of those wanting to exclude them” (p. 213). What made them revolutionary was that a new liberalism was being advocated in direct challenge to the ethnocentric liberalism that prevailed in the past, a more civic-oriented conception of the Canadian nation, based on universal values, was emerging wherein membership in the nation was defined purely in terms of values of equal rights rather than shared heritage, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. The traditional ethnic nationalism of Canadians was being discredited as racist and illiberal.

In the degree to which this ethnic identity was de-legitimatized, the concept of the political in Canada would be weakened, with Canadians of British and European descent having less recourse to the older argument that it is perfectly within Canada’s political right to decide its ethno-cultural character. Indeed, these legislative changes, which I have only outlined, were the beginning of an accelerating spiral that would bring about ever more radical legislative changes, the end of all immigration restrictions by 1967, the complete redefinition of Canada as a multicultural nation in 1971, and much more.

How Canada Got Immigration Wrong: A Reply to Jonathan Tepperman

Posted on by

How Canada Got Immigration Wrong: A Reply to Jonathan Tepperman

by Ricardo Duchesne

Happier Eurocanadians?

Dreaming about Canada’s Multicultural Model

Jonathan Tepperman, opines in an article in Wall Street Journal, How Canada Got Immigration Right (September 2016), that Trump and the US generally “could learn” from how Canada has been able to produce the happiest population in the world by importing more than a quarter million immigrants every year since the early 1980s. Canadians are so happy, he claims, that they want to keep this level of immigration for an indefinite future, if not increase it — a wish the current liberal government has granted by promising to increase immigration rates to 337,000 a year by 2018.

Apparently, White Canadians in particular are enthralled by the fact that “more than 20% of Canada’s inhabitants are now foreign-born — almost twice the proportion of residents of Sweden, Germany or the U.S.” They cannot wait till the day when most Canadians will no longer be White, Anglo and Quebecois, but a land occupied mainly by Asians, Muslims, and Africans.

Tepperman happily informs us that idealism has not been the only motivation behind this longing for a harmonious multicoloured future in which the “racist past” of White Canadians will be no more. Canadians have shown themselves to be a most “pragmatic” people in coming to terms with the “necessity” of finding new sources of immigrant labour once sources began to dry up in Europe in the 1950s. Not long ago they were a xenophobic people preferring European migrants but their pragmatic inclinations prevailed under the leadership of liberal politicians who devised a highly impressive system of immigrant selection based on a points system wherein applicants for residency were selected on their educational, linguistic and labour skills and their overall suitability in meeting Canada’s economic needs.

Moreover the multiculturalism Trudeau and subsequent governments devised, with every political party on board, involved a two way street in which immigrants were allowed to retain those elements of their culture that would contribute to Canada’s pluralism while encouraging them to integrate to a common modern liberal society.

Picking most immigrants based on their ability to make material contributions began paying dividends that benefited everyone. Indeed, the system has produced one of the most successful immigrant populations in the world. According to the OECD, Canadian immigrants are better educated than any other country’s foreign-born population (53% of them enter Canada with college degrees, compared with 39% in the U.S.). Their employment rate is among the highest in the developed world, and without them, Canada’s workforce would be shrinking and aging.

Tepperman concludes that Canada’s immigration experience has been “spectacular — a record for politicians everywhere to emulate.”

What the Polls Really Say

But this model is hardly spectacular. Canadians are increasingly showing signs of discontent with the immigration numbers and other related issues. Tepperman is wrong in stating point blank that “polls have shown that two-thirds of them feel that immigration is one of Canada’s key strengths, and the same proportion favors keeping it at its current level — or even increasing it.”

Even if we were to accept polls as the only measurement of Canadian wishes (which they are not since one of the key aspects of this model is that Canadians are not allowed to question it lest they are willing to live with the label “racist”) there is polling out there showing that Canadians would eagerly welcome significant aspects of Trump’s immigration proposals relevant to the Canadian context:

  1. In this poll, as reported in September 10, 2016, they seem to agree with Trump that we should screen immigrants for anti-Canadian values: “Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for ‘anti-Canadian’.” This preference for immigrants who are more inclined to accept Canadian values holds across the political spectrum: “Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.”
  2. Canadians also seem to agree with Trump’s concern about opening our borders to Syrian refugees. According to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute: “More than 70 per cent of Canadians don’t support the federal government taking in more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, according to a new poll…Two in five respondents think Canada should stop taking in Syrian refugees immediately.”
  3. They also seem to agree with Trump that legal immigration should be cut in the future: In a survey conducted in 2013: “When asked whether ‘less immigration’ or ‘more immigration’ would lead ‘to a better future 25 years from now,’ 61.7 per cent of Canadians said less immigration would be preferable, compared to 34.4 per cent who said more immigration would result in a better Canada.”

The Soft Totalitarianism of the Canadian Model of Multiculturalism

A major flaw in discussions about the merits and demerits of Canada’s model of multiculturalism is the naive supposition that this model is all about tolerance and openness. It is not. It cannot be stated any other way: NO DISSENT IS ALLOWED IN CANADA AGAINST THIS MODEL OF IMMIGRANT MULTICULTURALISM.

The entire society has been structured to make this model work, all the educational and government institutions, media and businesses, are dedicated to making it successful. Therefore, almost all the reports, studies, dissertations, books, and articles produced about this model are biased in their determination to make the system work, show that it is working, and that it can be improved. Whenever problems are identified, they are about the lack of implementation of multiculturalism, obstacles to the integration of immigrants due to “racist attitudes,” “discrimination by White employers” or lack of resources to support newcomers. While some of these difficulties are identified as “problems” in the model, the preferred disposition is to framed them as “challenges” that can be overcome with further advancement of the model.

It is also the case that the method of polling about this model is flawed and does not give a true picture of the actual feelings of many Canadians for the simple reason that Eurocanadians have been brainwashed from the moment they are born to think of multiculturalism as Canada’s identity. They have been compelled to think they must accept immigration, and that if they don’t it is because of “xenophobic fears among Whites.” While positive feelings by immigrants towards multiculti Canada are deemed to be evidence of successful integration, negative feelings by members of the host culture are deemed to be “xenophobic” and thus automatically disqualified as evidence that can be used to show that immigration is not working.

The evidence that counts is of those Canadians who have “progressively” come to accept a multicultural Canada. Citizens with a strong sense of European identity are automatically categorized as “intolerant” and consequently ostracised.

Tepperman notes that a majority of Canadians in the 1960s, 67 percent, opposed any increase in immigration. Yet it does not occur to him to ask why then was mass immigration imposed upon this population? The fact is that even supporters of this policy agree that immigrant multiculturalism has proceededfor the most part by way of non-transparent regulations, executive directives, and administrative discretion rather than by legislative action and popular demand.

The Economic Evidence

Keep in mind that almost 100 percent of the academics in Canada are committed to research intended to the success of this model, “improving” it but never challenging its basic assumptions. Our side has hardly any academics with the means or with the proper political atmosphere to conduct research which focuses on the flaws of the model, and less so on the flaws of the ideology guiding it.

On the surface, looking at data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, it would seem that, since the mid-90s, that the points system has been a success, in that economic immigrants have constituted around 60 percent of the total, whereas family-class immigrants have constituted around a third of the intake, and refugee inflows about 10-15 percent. It would appear that Canada’s immigration policy has been relatively successful in bringing “quality” immigrants.

But included in the “economic class” are also the spouses and children of the principal economic applicants. For example, it was estimated that in 2005 only 39% of the immigrants classified under the “economic class” were principal applicants selected according to their language skills, level of education, and work experience. As a percentage of all the immigrants granted permanent residency in 2005, only 19.5% were directly selected on the basis of their skills and education.

Moreover, the so-called “highly trained immigrants” have come primarily from countries with educational systems and training standards that are either unfamiliar or lower than Canadian standards. Many have arrived with weak skills in English and/or French, and have not exhibited the credentials, education, and work experience required in high-level Canadian jobs. A survey carried out in 2003 by The International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey on some 18,000 individuals (of whom 3,700 were immigrants) showed that the cognitive skill distribution of immigrants was much lower on average than that of Canadian born individuals. Immigrants from countries in Africa, Asia, Caribbean, and Latin America obtained lower scores on cognitive skills and tests.

Immigrants have not found jobs as quickly as anticipated. Labor market studies in 2006-07, for example, indicate that immigrants who had arrived in the previous five years were less likely to be actively employed, and that higher percentages were unemployed compared to Canadian born workers.

The anticipation that average Canadians would benefit from mass immigration, with a higher proportion being “economic” immigrants, has proven false. It is well-established that Canadian workers’ purchasing power remained flat from 1980 to 2005. According to Statistics, Canada’s analysis of the 2006 census, the median earnings of Canadians (in inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars) have increased by 0.1% since 1980. Not only that, but the earnings of the poorest fifth fell dramatically in that time, by 20.6%, while the top 20% of earners saw their incomes rise by 16.4%.

There is no such thing as a labor shortage in Canada. There is an unwillingness to work for undercut wages due to cheap immigrant labor and imported contract labor. Canadian workers are proud of their political and economic gains against the harsh working conditions of the past, serfdom, peonage, or coolie labor. They do not wish to see an importation of these low-wage, anti-working class values, from the non-Western world just to keep the profits of global corporations high.

One has to consider as well the many elderly relatives of immigrants who use social services without ever having paid for those services during their working lives. Many immigrants hold Canadian citizenship but work abroad, paying no taxes in Canada, and only returning to Canada to use expensive government services. About 11 percent of immigrants have citizenship in Canada and one other country. It has been estimated that 8 percent of Canadian citizens, including those with dual citizenship, or 2.7 million people, live outside Canada.

Economist Herb Grubel of Simon Fraser University, and a Fraser Institute fellow, calculated, among other things, that the costs in services and benefits, in the year 2002 alone, incurred by the 2.5 million immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes they paid by $18.3 billion. He also found out that the average immigrant since 1985 has imposed an annual fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers of $6000, for a total of $25-billion annually for all immigrants. For the fiscal year 2005/06, he calculated that the “fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers was over $6,000 per capita” “because of the low average incomes of recent immigrants, the low taxes they pay and the government services they absorb.” More recently, he calculated that the total fiscal burden “has risen from $16 to $24 billion in 2005, to $20 to $28 billion in 2010, to $27 to $35 billion in 2014.”

I must add I have always been perplexed by the celebration of a model predicated on a system designed to entice the most educated individuals from the poorer nations where they are in higher need. This is known as “braindrain,” which is a form of imperialism, which goes to show how immoral and hypocritical the Canadian “humane” model of mass immigration really is; on the one hand, calling upon Canadians to cherish other cultures, while, on the other, promoting policies that weaken the economic well-being of these cultures.

Integration Versus Ethnic Enclaves

Sikhs in Canada
Sikhs integrated into Canada

On the question of integration: on the surface, it appear that immigrants are integrating into Canada insofar as only a very small number of them have engaged in terrorist activities, or illiberal practices posing an immediate threat to our liberal values. Immigrants are acquiring citizenship, learning one of the official languages, getting involved in Canadian politics, with some intermarrying outside their ethnic group, getting jobs, and participating in Canada’s educational institutions.

But these facts do not say much; they merely show that the majority of immigrants are integrating into a Canada that is officially defined as a multicultural place committed to mass immigration, and in which the traditional Anglo culture is no longer accepted as the official culture and in which Eurocanadians must accept their reduction to a minority and be forced to compete with skilled workers from the rest of the world as well as with students for university positions.

As it is, the evidence offered by proponents in these matters is flimsy and intrinsically subjective, based solely on the answers immigrants have offered in surveys created by proponents of immigrant multiculturalism. They say there is little evidence of “entrenched racial concentration in poor ghettos,” yet studies do show that Chinese migrants “tend to settle in established Chinese neighbourhoods.” In Richmond, BC, where six out of ten residents are new immigrants, and where half do not speak English in their homes, Chinese-language signs, unaccompanied by English, can be seen everywhere, with multiple incidents of Canadians protesting about the lack of visible English signs.

A comprehensive study of 17 ethnic groups in 12 Canadian cities by Eric Fong and Rima Wilkes (2003) offers reasons for, but does not deny, residential segregation among different ethnic groups in Canada. In February of 2012, the National Post contained an article, As Immigration Booms, Ethnic Enclaves Swell and Segregate, with the following finding:

In 1981, Canada had only six neighbourhoods with ethnic enclaves…Now, that number has mushroomed to more than 260.

Another study which looks into the future, published by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in July 2012, A New Residential Order? The Social Geography of Visible Minority and Religious Groups in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver in 2031, predicts that

…in Toronto and Vancouver, the degree of separation between Whites and Visible Minorities is projected to rise considerably, beginning to approach that in the average US city in 2010 between Whites and African Americans.While in Montreal the visible minority population is predicted to be spread out across “neighbourhoods of all types” (including ones mixed with Whites), it is anticipated that in 2031 “about nine out of ten Whites will live in White-dominated areas.”

Destruction of Canada’s Historic Identity

Ultimately the biggest problem with the Canadian model is that that projections are pointing to a future Canada in which “Caucasians” will be increasingly displaced by people who are “non-white in colour” — the terms Statistic Canada uses. This fact is never seen as an issue by the mainstream political parties and the media. Instead, Eurocanadians who lament their dwindling numbers are categorically denounced as “White supremacists,” while “non-Caucasians in race” who call for a majority Asian Canada are celebrated as vibrant and liberal-minded — regardless of their otherwise intolerant customs, hyper-patriarchal dispositions, and unwillingness to marry outside their race. So, even if many are “aware” that they will become a minority, they are prohibited from discussing this issue unless they wish to be labelled “racist.”

The entire multicultural system in Canada, the policies, hiring practices, grants, media announcements, education, is set up for the advancement of “diversity” and for the benefit of non-European immigrants, which means that many Eurocanadians also stand to benefit as advocates and employees of diversity, since the system offers many economic incentives, jobs within a massive bureaucracy dedicated to the integration of immigrants and the diversification of Canada’s entire society. Diversity ideologues go around parading as upholders of the highest moral principles in human history as they sell-out their heritage, celebrate the culture of foreigners, distort the history of Canada, living easily thanks to the hard labour of past Eurocanadians nation builders. But patriotic Canadians are unsettled by this fake morality, and do wonder whether a model that envisions their reduction to a minority, and that requires them to put down their own heritage, and that even requires them to downplay their foundational role in the creation of Canada, in the name of a fabricated history that would have this nation created by “diverse races,” is as “spectacular” as its supporters claimed it to be.

Eurocanadians: Pioneers, Settlers, or Immigrants?

Posted on by

Eurocanadians: Pioneers, Settlers, or Immigrants?

by Ricardo Duchesne

White Settlers clearing the land to prepare for planting

Leftist Newspeak

Leftists have been winning the war of words and setting the terms of political discourse for decades. Their discursive power was quite evident three years ago in the decision of the Associated Press to drop the term “illegal immigrant” from its style guide as an “offensive” term that did not accurately describe migrants who enter the United States without documentation. “Islamophobia” is another term used regularly to close down the claim that Islam is an inflexible faith that cannot adapt to Western values.

Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924) instructed his fellow Bolsheviks: “We can and must write in language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Today, the most frequently used epithets to smear opponents are “racist”, “sexist”, and “homophobic”. The Left has been so successful in projecting insidious motives on anyone disagreeing with their idiotic views that conservatives now devote considerable time playing up their “good intentions” or singing the same tune by targeting “two-faced liberals” caught making sexist or racist remarks.

Lenin also commanded his comrades: “The communists must be prepared to…resort to all sorts of cunning schemes and stratagems…to evade and conceal the truth.” Current leftists are consummate deceivers, Orwellian double-speakers and fabricators of bellyfeel words that carry a blind yet enthusiastic acceptance of an idea. They are quite apt at distorting the older meanings of words, even to the point of turning them upside down. “Discoverer” and “explorer of Canada” were once terms used in admiration; now they are used in quotation marks as untrue and laughable terms.

I will write about the replacement of the words “pioneer” and “settler” with the word “immigrant”.

Dictionary Definition

The replacement of the words “pioneers” and “settlers” to describe the founders of Canada with the word “immigrant” happened gradually without barely anyone noticing it. In the series of articles written on Canadian immigration these past weeks I have used the term “immigrants” in reference to the French, British, European men and women who arrived in Canada from the 1600s to 1914/21. I did so to show that even on its own terms the established interpretation that Canada is “a nation of diverse immigrants” is false, since most Canadians were either native born with strong ancestries in Canada or and internal migrants from within the British world of North America and the British Isles.

But it is time to question the way the word “immigrant” has been deceptively extended to include what were in truth pioneers and settlers. Almost all the men and women who came to Canada from the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe, and, if you like, from British America, before 1914, were pioneers, notimmigrants.

Immigrants started to arrive in Canada mostly after WWII. I am saying this in accordance with all the dictionary definitions I have examined. The New Oxford English Dictionary is very clear. Immigrant is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”. Settler, however, is “a person who settles in an area, typically with no or few previous inhabitants”. Pioneer describes “a person who is among the first inhabitants to explore or settle a new country or area”. “Pioneering” means “to be the first to use or apply a new method, area of knowledge, or activity, open up a terrain as a pioneer”.

Huntington: Settlers before Immigrants

The one academic I know who has addressed this distinction is Samuel Huntington in his book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004). He writes:

Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group in order to create a new community…Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society (p. 39).

What Huntington says about American settlers applies to the Canadians who came to Canada more or less before 1914/21. Huntington says that America’s “core culture” was created by the settlers who came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This core culture consisted of the:

Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, the British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy and music (p. 40).

While the early settlers were responsible for this core culture, future settlers were responsible for the extension of this core culture into the “American frontier” or the “Great West”. These men and women who opened the West were not immigrants. Immigrants only began to arrive in large numbers after the 1820s into the already created towns and cities.

In Canada, it can be said that the “core culture” was created by the time of Confederation in 1867, with French and English as the major languages, Catholic and Protestant values, French civil law and British parliamentary institutions and law. The “non-French and non-British” men and women who arrived in the 1800s and early 1900s were also settlers, insomuch as many of them settled in the new prairie provinces and British Columbia, or in new areas in Upper Canada and the Maritimes.

This distinction between settlers/pioneers and immigrants, which was recognized (at least implicitly) by past historians, has been explicitly obfuscated by current historians. The two standard history textbooks I have referenced often in my series on Canadian immigration, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (2000), and A History of the Canadian Peoples (2011), avoid the use of the words “settler” and “pioneer”, but always use the words “immigrants” or “diverse immigrants”. Consider this: “immigration” enjoys the longest entry in the index of J.M. Bumsted’s A History of the Canadian Peoples, after the words “Canada” and “Aboriginal Peoples”.

It is not that historians did not use the word “immigrants” or “immigration” in the past. George Bryce’s book, A Short History of Canada, published in 1914, a solid book of 600 pages, uses immigrants often, but he also regularly uses “settlers” and “colonizers” (without the negative connotation this term currently carries). The same is true of Donald Creighton’s Dominion of the North: A History of Canada, first published in 1944, revised in 1957, which I greatly enjoyed reading in a tiny room at summer residence, University of Toronto, this past May. Both these books portray Canada as a nation fundamentally shaped by the French in Quebec and the English, not as a “nation of immigrants”. J.M.S. Careless’s book, Canada: A Story of Challenge (1959), subtitles the first period of large scale immigration to Canada as “Immigration, Development and the Pioneer Age, 1815-1850″.

Canada’s Pioneers

If I may disagree a bit with Huntington, it is more accurate to identify the settlers who created the core culture as “pioneers”, in contrast to those who extended this culture into new areas in the West, who should be identified as “settlers” proper. The word pioneer carries two key meanings; one is very close to the meaning of settler, that is, a person who is among those who first enter or settle a region. But another meaning is uniquely about pioneering in the sense of being the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or cultural development. The French and the English were the earliest settlers and originators of Canada’s core culture and therefore the true pioneers, while the Europeans, including English, who settled the West from about 1867 to 1914/21, were setters both in the sense of extending farming to the prairies, as well as extending Canada’s political culture to this barely settled area of Canada.

The earliest settlers, say, up until Confederation, were the ones who pioneered Canada’s institutions, churches, legal system, curriculum, and basic infrastructure. Clearly, they brought with them the customs, values, and know-how of Europe, and in this sense they were not originators of what we have come to identify as British representative government, Protestant values, French civil law and Catholic doctrine. But there is no question that they adapted these values and institutions to Canadian conditions. This is most evident in the rural and urban landscapes that pioneers created in Canada. R. Cole Harris and John Warkentin explain well what was uniquely new about Canadian pioneers (and settlers) notwithstanding their European ancestries. Writing about the period from 1800 until about the 1860s, they note:

In only three generations the whole peninsula of Southern Ontario was occupied by people of European [British] descent. During this time the forest was cut; the geometry of roads, fence lines and fields was stamped across the land; and the prosperity achieved by many was reflected in ample brick farmhouses and in bustling towns. Everywhere the human landscape was new. In the most recent frontier regions settlers still lived in tiny cabins on patches of cleared land; in the older areas there were still some stumpy fields and many people alive who had known the first pioneers. Whereas the human landscape of Western Europe often reflected centuries of human toil, this landscape reflected the recent arrival, the energy, and the apparent wastefulness of its creators. That Europeans had created the landscape there could be no doubt — the architectural forms, for example, were entirely of European origin. But although components of it existed in the British Isles, the human landscape of Southern Ontario could not be found anywhere in Europe (Canada Before Confederation: A Study in Historical Geography, 1974, p. 164).

Edwin Guillet’s Pioneer Days in Upper Canada (first published in 1933, with new editions in 1963, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1973, and 1975, but now discarded), is quite good in bringing to light how the first settlers pioneered the very meaning of “Canadian living”, starting with the immediacy of clearing up heavily forested lands, lumbering against huge oaks, umbrageous elms and stately pines, to open up lands for settlement. Indeed, the clearing of land involved a new co-operative principle of work known as “bees” in which neighbours would gather together to help each other; as no one family could do the work alone in many instances. These bees were also organized for house building, barn raising, and making quilts. The log and sod houses pioneered by these settlers were adapted to local materials in order to withstand long harsh winters.

White Pioneer school, teacher and students, Muskoka Lakes, Ontario, 1887

The first settlers pioneered many types of home-made foods using local products, including buckwheat cakes, rich batter puddings, berry pies, molasses, gelatin, ciders. The diet of the settlers — wild asparagus and berries, chestnuts, ducks, partridges, cucumbers, celery and turnips, roasted pig, boiled mutton, rice pudding, fishes of several kinds — was far superior to the current overrated food of dirty Chinese restaurants with their artificial sticky sauces and rootless globalist menus. They also pioneered city halls, fire-fighter’s organisations, theatres, Temperance Societies, sports and inter club games (curling, bandyball, lacrosse, softball, hockey, horse racing), public libraries, debating societies, mechanics’ institutes, agricultural associations, literary societies, private schools and colleges, circuses, brass bands.

Conclusion

The goal of the globalist left and corporate right is to destroy the national identities and heritages of European peoples. They want to equate the Canadians who pioneered and settled Canada with the immigrants who came to a ready-made nation after 1921/1945. The fact is that, as we will see in a future article, the immigrants who came between 1921/45 and 1971 were mostly Europeans who came to be part of an already created Canada, worked hard and assimilated without any ulterior motives. The immigrants who have been coming since multiculturalism was announced in 1971 are very different from these European immigrants, and the reason for this is not only that they are from Third World cultures; it is that they are arriving into a Canada that is under the tutelage of an ideology that celebrates their non-European traditions and encourages them to affirm their group rights in ways that will eventually undermine the Canada created by the White pioneers, settlers and hardworking immigrants who came before.

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Posted on by

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Nottingham miners in 1948
Nottingham miners in 1948
Current liberals with socialist leanings have deceptively extended the concept of “social rights” to foreign immigrants in direct opposition to the original ethno-nationalistic meaning of this concept intended by the early European proponents of welfarism.

UN Covenant on Social Rights

The beginnings of this extension may be traced back to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966. Articles 6-15 of this “international covenant” include rights to work, to form and join trade unions, social insurance, paid parental leave, adequate standard of living, health care, free primary education and generally available secondary and higher education.

These social and economic rights, however, were first formulated within the context of the nation states of Europe intended for the native population. The key rationale in their formulation, by socialistic liberals in the late 19th century to early 20th century, was that civil rights on their own (equal rights to freedom of expression, equal treatment under the law, religious freedom) were inadequate since many members of the nation were too poor to make full use of these civil rights, and only government assistance would it be possible for all citizens to enjoy a level playing field in “the full development” of their “human personality”.

But in the aftermath of WWII, Western liberals began to argue for the extension of these rights to humans across the world, leading to the formulation of this treaty in 1966. Although this was an international covenant, the proponents of these rights were Westerners. Non-European nations, to this day, have generally ignored these rights. And those nations like Japan, which developed the wealth necessary to afford them, could not care less whether other nations live up to these rights. Only Western liberals have made it a matter of principle and conscience to work for the successful application of these rights around the world.

The New Ideology of the Equality of Races after WWII

Social rights are consistent with liberalism and Western ethnic nativism. The problem is that the enactment and application of these principles came in tandem with the spread of a new ideology of the equality of races.

This new ideology, which is not intrinsic to the concept of social rights, found full expression after WWII in three major political movements:

  1. “the struggle for decolonization” in the period from about 1948 to 1965, that is, the demand by colonies of the West to be granted national self-determination;
  2. the struggle against racial segregation in the United States, or the civil rights movement for equality under the law between Whites and Blacks from about 1955 to 1965;
  3. the struggle for the elimination of White-only immigration policies in the settler states of Canada, America, and Australia during the 60s and 70s.

All these movements were driven by the new ideology of the equality of races. This is not to say that the right of all peoples to national or ethnic self-termination, the movement against the division of the world into colonized and colonizer nations, can’t be supported without acceptance of the ideology of the equality of the races. Just as the concept of social rights is conceptually independent from the notion of racial equality, so is the principle of national self-determination conceptually independent from both social rights and the equality of races. One can agree that all peoples have a right to self-determination on the grounds that the racial and ethnic differences of peoples is a good thing. One can accept, on liberal principles, the notion of civil rights and economic rights within a nation, and argue for separate territories for different races. One can also argue that there is nothing in the principle of civic and social rights that calls for racial integration.

Likewise, there is nothing in the concepts of civic and social rights that precludes nations from excluding foreigners from enjoying these rights. It was only with the spread of the idea of the equality of the races that Westerners came to think that to be a true liberal believer in civic and social rights requires one to extend these rights to all humans across the world. The notion of the equality of races would transform the meaning of civic and social rights into human rights to be enjoyed by all humans regardless of nationality. Misusing Kant’s concept of “cosmopolitanism”, Western liberals in the last decades have brought about this conceptual change without any nationalist opposition.

One of a number of liberals involved in this conceptual transformation is the Turk Seyla Benhabib, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University. In The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (2004), she redefines the notion of civic rights to mean human rights, from which point she then argues that insofar as everyone on the planet has human rights, it is “impermissible from a moral standpoint” to deny incorporating aliens and strangers, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers into the existing liberal polities of Europe. Europeans, if they are to live up to the principles of civic and social rights, must extend these rights as human rights to immigrants wishing to come to Europe. The Europeans who reject this extension are fascists.

This is what socialists are arguing today. Socialists used to be for the protection of nationals against the importation of cheap labour; but now they have accepted the notion that all humans have human rights as equal members of the same human race, and that insofar as they have human rights, they have a right to migrate to Western nations and enjoy the same social rights as the natives.

This evident in David Abraham’s article, Immigration, Majority Rights, and Welfare State Solidarity, which is an assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”. Abraham, Professor of Law at Miami University, has an extensive publication record dedicated to the promotion of economic rights for immigrants, against “neo-liberal globalization”, as the best way of integrating diverse ethnic groups within Western nations. Abraham wants his readers and students to believe that this extension of social rights to immigrants is what the liberal tradition calls for.

In what follows, which is a continuation of my assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”, I will counter Abraham’s claim by relying on the “Anglocentric” socialist ideas of T.H. Marshall (1893-1981), a first formulator of the concept of social rights. The principle of social rights was never intended, and does not in principle entail, social rights for humans across the world and for immigrants. The latter is a cultural Marxist idea that was infiltrated into Western socialism by hostile elites.

The Flaw in Orgad’s Theory — Again

Orgad’s thesis is that the peoples of Europe have a legitimate right to restrict immigration in order to protect their majority culture. Orgad is correct that in the face of mass immigration, and the ever demographic growth of minorities, and the projected reduction of European majorities into “majority-minority” status, it would be absurd to keep pressing for the rights of minorities.

But Orgad’s theory amounts to no more than a call for the assimilation of immigrants to those cultural attributes of the majority culture that bespeak currently of tolerance, diversity, and constitutionalism.

Not long ago, roughly before WWII, one would be hard put finding calls for diversification in the Western liberal tradition. But liberalism has now been thoroughly colonized by hostile concepts; and so what Orgad, associated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is defending is a cultural Marxist version of liberalism. His theory of majority cultural rights basically says that Western nations can continue to be immigrant nations as long as they protect the majority liberal culture, and that this is the best way to fight off “extreme nationalism”.

We believe at CEC, to the contrary, that civic rights were postulated in the context of highly homogeneous European states, and that these rights are being threatened by diversification and extension into peoples lacking a history and a disposition for these rights. Civic rights presuppose European ethnic self-determination, which is not inconsistent with the acknowledgement of the rights of historically rooted minorities to the degree that these minorities have shown a natural predilection to live up to the principle of civic rights. By the same token, liberal rights are consistent with the separation of peoples into different territories within which they may find their own national means of ethnic self-determination.

David Abraham’s Multicultural Social Rights

David Abraham’s objection to Orgad is simply that it is preferable to emphasize additional socialist spending as a way of integrating everyone within the nation’s multicultural setting, rather than promoting the cultural rights of majorities. A more open, broader, and tolerant sense of “we”, he argues, can be nurtured more effectively through “social equality” measures than through “normative principles, values, and institutions”. The best medicine, which would encourage the majority culture to feel at home, in their increasingly diversifying nations, is to fight neoliberal economic policies, which weaken immigrant integration.

In other words, what the majority tax-paying culture needs to do is fork out more money for the growing immigrant populations. The massive welfare states of Europe should forego whatever “neoliberal” economic policies they adopted in recent decades and expand welfare spending. Orgad’s call for greater majority protections, Abraham warns, is “very slippery” and can quickly create a climate in which illiberal views, such as those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, become acceptable. The way to overcome the illiberal immigrants is to support them economically, educate them, given them pride in their heritage, and make them feel a home in Europe.

Many may think that Abraham is arguing in a consistently socialist manner; a social liberal who believes that welfare rights are essential to the integration of previously excluded groups into a common national culture, a patriot calling for national integration and loyalty. The truth is that all the welfare states of Europe were created for the sake of making the native White working classes feel that they were part of the national culture, by integrating them into the national economy and the educational system, in order to nurture a sense of ethnocentric identity with the heritage of their nation.

T.H. Marshall’s Anglocentric Social Rights

 

T.H. Marshall

One of the theoretical strategies early socialists used in justifying the creation of welfare programs was to argue that liberalism was consistent with the inclusion of “social rights” into the concept of civic citizenship. The best known proponent of social rights in England was T.H. Marshall; an idea he first espoused in his 1949 essay Citizenship and the Social Class. Marshall observed that the British working classes lacked a sense of identity, national in scope, because they were existing on the margins. He further argued that the best way to nurture a British national identity was to afford workers with social rights, by which he meant a modicum of health care and educational facilities. Civic rights were not enough for workers since they lacked the means to participate fully as co-creators of the national culture beyond their localities.

It should be noted, if we are to keep Marshall’s ideas in historical perspective, that state spending on education started in Europe after the 1850s, on compulsory and free education for children, and on public health and sanitation, focusing mainly on the lower to middle classes, but then growing and benefiting the less skilled working classes through the first half of the twentieth century, though it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that Western countries saw full fledged programs, guaranteed income supplements, pensions, child welfare, disabled person’s benefits, etc, to establish an “adequate” living standard beyond bare subsistence.

Marshall was advocating ideas that would rationalize this expansion in the 1950s and 1960s. But he was not original in this respect; socialists had been arguing for these policies for decades. What was new about Marshall was his effort to argue that civil rights were not enough to integrate the working classes into the nation’s culture. Liberal theory needed to be expanded to include social rights as a matter of principle to give workers a sense of identification with the nation’s culture by giving them a fairer chance to develop themselves as individual members within the nation.

Marshall did not frame this argument in economic terms, in trade-union or Keynesian terms, but insisted that social rights would work to integrate the working classes into the national liberal culture of Britain. Moreover, when he spoke of the working class in Britain he meant the native-born English, by ethnicity, religion, and culture generally. Not surprisingly, as liberalism was taken over by cultural Marxists in the 1960s, and a new breed of feminist/anti-White liberals was born, Marshall’s conception of social rights was “criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man”. Members of the hostile elite, in full control of academia in the 1970s, announced that Marshall was too “Anglocentric” (PDF) and no longer a “true” liberal.

This is a subject requiring further study; suffice it to say that major conceptual alterations and additions transpired within liberal theory after WWII, from the time of Marshall to the time of Abraham.

One can certainly find reasonable objections to Marshall’s concept of social rights on economic grounds and on libertarian grounds. The point at hand is that the concept of social rights is not inconsistent with a nation that believes in civic rights, freedom of expression, separation of church and state, representative institutions, and at the same time opposes open borders and encourages ethnic pride in their citizens. What is inconsistent is the notion that social rights presuppose the creation of nations dedicated to the integration of foreigners as immigrants with social rights. The historical and theoretical evidence does not support this extension.

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

Posted on by

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

by Ricardo Duchesne

Canadian Soldiers in WW I
Canadian Soldiers in WW I

One of the most powerful memes in Canada is that “Canada is a nation of immigrants”. Millions of individuals have indeed migrated to Canada since John Cabot first claimed either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island for England in 1497. But the intended meaning of this phrase goes well beyond this simple fact.

This phrase, continuously repeated by the media, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting students from primary to higher education, is intended to fashion an image of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds, in order to portray the Third World immigration patterns we have been witnessing since the 1970s as if they were a natural continuation — continuation naturelle — of past migration patterns, rather than as what they are: a radical departure aimed at the termination of Canada’s deep-seated European ethnic character.

What follows is a statistical refutation of this deceptive meme. The historical record, the facts we have about the people who came to Canada, the racial makeup of the immigrants, the proportion of Whites to non-Whites, the birth rate of Eurocanadians, the rates of immigration versus the domestic fertility rates, demonstrate, to the contrary, that Canada was a nation created from top to bottom by immigrants from Europe and by Eurocanadians born in Canada, with next to zero contributions by non-Europeans.

The Facts

Facts
Facts to lean on
  • In 1871, according to the first census after Confederation, of the total population of 3.2 million, 32 percent were of French ancestry, 24 percent Irish, 20 percent English, 16 percent Scottish, and 6 percent German. Notice, therefore, that we should acknowledge the immense importance of the Irish and Scots in the first centuries of “English Canada”. There were only 21,500 blacks and 23,000 natives in 1871; by contrast, there were 202,991 persons of German origin.
  • Canada cannot “accurately be portrayed at Confederation as a nation of immigrants”. In 1867, 79 percent had been born in Canada. Over the 400 years before Confederation, there were only “two quite limited periods” of substantial arrivals of immigrants: from 1783 to 1812, and from 1830 to 1850. In these two periods, the immigrants were “overwhelmingly of British origin”. Immigration was not a major factor in population growth from 1850 to the end of the nineteenth century. From 1871 to 1891, “a high rate of naturalincrease allowed the population of Canada to grow from 3.7 million to 4.8 million”.
Ukrainian Farming Family, Saskatchewan
    • From 1608 to 1760, immigration to New France consisted of only 10,000 settlers, and thereafter it was “almost non-existent”. The French-speaking population numbered about 90,000 by 1770s, and thereafter, until the late 1800s, the population expanded rapidly with women having 5.6 surviving children on average. The increase in population in Lower Canada from 330,000 in 1815 to 890,000 in 1851 “was mainly attributable to the continuing high birth rate within the French-speaking community”. By 1950, the Quebec population was almost 4 million. This increase was not a result of immigration, but primarily of the still continuing high fertility rates. It was only in the 1970s that Montreal saw an increasing inflow of non-European immigrants.
    • Between 1896 and 1914, Canada experienced high immigration levels with more than 3 million arriving within this period. However, the ethnic composition of the nation remained 84 percent of British and French origin, while the European component rose to 9 percent. Between 1900 and 1915, the high mark in “Asian immigration” before the 1960s, 50,000 immigrants of Japanese, East Indian and Chinese descent arrived, but this number comprised less than 2 percent of the total immigration flow. In contrast, in 1914, there were nearly 400,000 Germans in Canada, the largest ethnic group apart from the British (which includes the Irish and Scots) and French.
English Immigrants
English Immigrants
  • The total intake of immigrants between 1946 and 1962 was 2,151,505. At the same time however, between 1941 and 1962, the population of Canada increased from 11.5 million to 18.5 million, “largely accounted” by Canada’s “extremely high domestic birth rates”, the so-called baby boom generation. Ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain.
  • It was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia at large started to arrive in large numbers. During the 1970s, the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, whereas the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa.
  • In the period 1991-2001, immigrants of European origin fell below 20 percent at the same time that Asian immigration soared to nearly 60 percent. From 1991 to 2000, 2.2 million immigrants were accepted, the “highest ever for any decade”. In recent years, Canada’s visible minority population has been growing much faster than its total population: 22 percent growth from 1996 to 2001 versus 4 percent growth in the general population. Today, roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority.

Fight Against Multicultural Revisionism!

George Orwell 1984 on control of the past
George Orwell (1984) on the totalitarian method of manipulating history

Don’t let them deceive you! Copy these facts and use them against the deceivers occupying our educational establishments. Don’t believe the globalist claim that your nation was a creation of diverse races and that “White racists” were supposedly hiding away the equal contribution of non-European immigrants. This is a historical falsehood of major proportions. Canada was created by people of British and French descent, and other European ancestries. All the institutions, legal system, educational curriculum, transformation of wilderness into productive farms, all the cities, the parliamentary traditions, the churches, the entire infrastructure of railways, ports, shipping industries, and highways, were created by hardworking Eurocanadians.

Sources

It should be noted that the following authors try to portray Canada as a nation that was from its beginning created by diverse immigrants leading to the official enactment of multiculturalism by P.E. Trudeau in 1971. Nevertheless the facts they bring out, which are the ones contained in the documents, show that Canada was a nation homogeneously White from its very beginnings.

  • J. M. Bumstead, Canada’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook, 2003
  • J. M. Bumstead, The People’s of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History, 2003 and The People’s of Canada: A Post-Confederation History, 2004
  • Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, 1998
  • Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada, 2007

Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I

Posted on by

www.ImmigrationWatchCanada.org

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I
by Ricardo Duchesne

Inline image 1


Kerry Starchuk

Afew days ago the Canadian Race Relations Foundation sent an invitation to Kerry Starchuk to “two very important events” being hosted by this organization in the Greater Vancouver Area. The first event, “The Urban Agenda Vancouver. Creating a Great City of Communities”, is taking place at UBC Robson Square on January 19, 2016. The second one, “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, is taking place in Richmond, on January 21.

These two events, and other similar ones, have been occasioned by a need to reinforce among Vancouver residents the blessings of diversity in response to the dissenting actions of Kerry Starchuk, a fourth-generation resident of Richmond, which is sometimes identified as a city itself, or as part of “greater” Vancouver, against the usage of Chinese-only signs in businesses.

Starchuk has drawn local, national, and even international media attention. She is not a designated speaker at any of these events, but is expected to sit and listen to officially approved diversity ideologues. I will be writing about these two “very important events” in Part II.

I have spoken to Kerry a few times, and she is extremely upset and psychologically depressed about the way Asian immigration has ransacked the Anglo identity of Richmond. Her questioning of Chinese-only business signs poses no threat, and yet it has frightened the establishment for fear that her objections may open the door to a groundswell of discontent against the impending marginalization of Anglo-Europeans in Vancouver.

She has been an keen eye witness to an extreme demographic shift in Richmond, from a congenial and harmonious British city to a crass immigrant land-lot plastered with ugly Chinese commercial signs in just a matter of three decades. The Chinese proportion of the population has grown from 34% in 1996, 40% in 2001 and 45% in 2006, to 47% in 2011, and still rising. Overall, more than 70 per cent of Richmond’s population is currently categorized as a “visible minority”. The 30 percent White residents are still categorized as the “majority” and in need of learning to cope with diversity. 

 
Inline image 1

Journalists have flown in from places such as South Korea, Germany and Japan to spend days with Kerry Starchuk, to talk about the dramatic demographic changes occurring in Richmond, B.C.

Community Engagement: Language on Commercial Signs

What she, along with other and Richmond residents, has been pursuing in the last few years is a simple bylaw requiring English-only signage. But a few months ago, May 2015, Richmond Mayor Malcolm said there would be no language by-law. Instead there would be “education programs” “to facilitate community harmony”. The “two very important events” are a continuation of this effort. A preceding first effort, “Community Engagement: Language on Signage”, took place on March 2015, organized directly by the City of Richmond, described in the official website as “a multi-pronged outreach and education campaign to explore the issue of language on signs in the context of community harmony”. 

This workshop is worth examining in some detail. Innocuous a gathering as it may appear, a mere local affair, it is actually a salient embodiment of the ruling ideology of our times across the West. 

The workshop “presentation” is totally committed to further diversification, with the signage issue turned into an opportunity to “enhance intercultural harmony and co-operation in Richmond”. In order to make Richmond “the most appealing, liveable and well-managed community in Canada”, the presentation states that Richmond citizens need “to better incorporate a value for and understanding of diversity into all its planning and services.” Never mind that every other town and city in Canada has exactly the same mandate, celebrating each city as “unique in its diversity,” while making everyone feel that this is what all Canadians are doing, what is normal everywhere else. Every inhabitant ofevery city in Canada is being told that diversification is a unique component of their city’s vitality; making it the “most appealing and liveable” city. Not just in Canada, but in every country in the Western world. 

Richmond residents will be educated to have “pride in and respect for diverse heritages and traditions”. Be assured that this is primarily directed at White residents; the whole workshop, after all, was occasioned by the Anglo residents in Richmond who objected to Chinese-only signs. Richmond is already 50 percent homogeneously Chinese, and over 70 percent Asian, and the objective is to encourage the remaining White minority to accept the further expansion of Asian residents in Richmond. This is why the mandate looks to the future and speaks in terms of making Richmond “the most welcoming, inclusive and harmonious community in Canada”. 

There is stuff about “inter-faith dialogue” and, of course, about natives, with a brilliant new idea to hold “the first National Aboriginal Day Celebration at City Hall”. Natives are now regularly exploited as mascots by diversity promoters. 

There are two videos; in the first one we see the participants, mostly Whites and Chinese, with a few other Asians. They are all adults. Everyone gives pre-packaged answers, everyone is an agreeable participant in the diversity project; they are all “accepting” people; it is all about making diversity “work.” No one in the audience actually debates the merits of immigration or diversity itself. Whites are expected to be “accepting” about this “intercultural” state of affairs. This is why the new lingo of these promoters is “dialogue”, not “debate”, as we will see in more detail in Part II. 

Debating, a singularly Western trait, the spirit of inquiry, questioning, not accepting the claims of powerful elites, is now deemed by academics and leftist bureaucrats as too disruptive and not conducive to “community harmony”. These are the same arguments elites made in Communist and Nazi controlled societies. 

The second video consists of pro-diversity answers about Richmond and the signage issue. Most of the respondents are non-White, and they all love diversity; some say it might be a good idea to add English in the Chinese-only signs, but the fact that Richmond originally an Anglo community and is undergoing a radical demographic transformation with no end in sight, is not even an issue. Everyone interviewed was a conformist or a minority enjoying multicultural welfare. Diversity is great, and it does not matter if it means less Whites, that is the objective. One Asian in the video is sympathetic to the presence of Chinese-only signs, for, after all, she noticed that this “community” is mostly Chinese; so why should non-Chinese immigrants expects the Chinese majority not to use only their language? 

This is the “ideas board”: 

 
Inline image 3

This is what politics among adults in Canada has been reduced to; child like images and child like slogans interpreted as “ideas” — all amounting to the acceptance of mass immigration and the displacement of Whites from their homelands.

Artistic Rendition of Canadian/Western Values

There is an “artistic rendition of workshop discussion,” which is even more revealing in capturing all the central tenets, feelings, and cliches of the diversity regimen. This work of “art” is the front image for this article, which can be foundhere. According to this artist, “community harmony” was agreed upon by the participants, and by this they meant “multiple sounds”, “empathy”, “inclusive”, “capacity for difference”, “understanding before judgment”, “addressing racism”, “multiculturalism”. These values are inherently inclusive and everyone agrees that they are good; capacity for difference does mean a capacity to think whether diversity may be entailing the radical dissolution of Eurocanadian communities, whether Richmond was already harmonious and democratic before the Asian invasion. 

No, it means a capacity to accept the dissolution of Canadian communities, to accept on your knees millions of immigrants, their different customs, languages, even if this brings an Asian ethnic majority in many cities in Canada. One of the values stressed in this workshop is “good conversation” and “shared vision”; sharing, that is, the diversity vision, and talking about issues in a way that is not disruptive, through amicable dialogue, amicable acceptance of the goals. 

There is “rendition” of questions about assimilation: should new immigrants assimilate the same way Eurocanadians did, learning the English language? I am sure there were participants in this harmonious workshop with queries, comments about what exactly multiculturalism entails; does it mean retaining one’s culture, or do new immigrants assimilate to “Canadian values”? But in reality this question is deservedly on the margins of the artistic rendition, since “Canadians values” have already been predefined by the harmonizers as “multiculturalism”, “respect” for “difference”, for the Chinese language. 

“How do we learn from other ethnic leaders?” It is a done deal: Diversity = Canada, and it means accepting it, and those who want to debate the principles will not be tolerated, accepted, included in the workshop, but instead will be labelled as beyond the pale of acceptable dialogue, ostracized in the most damaging ways, with labels intended to avoid any discussion with them. 

This artistic rendition sums up the entire philosophical outlook dominating the West today. It is the same view Justin Trudeau continually voices when he says that Canada is not really a nation but a place in which humans from multiple cultures around the world hold the same common values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness. It is the view every leader of the West, be they socialist, liberal, or conservative, expresses whenever they make a general statement about their most deeply held beliefs as leaders of their countries.

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

Posted on by