Tag Archives: Tim Murray

Civil War in the Supermarket

Posted on by

Civil War in the Supermarket

by Tim Murray

Civil War!

Today I mourn the death of a delusion. The delusion that by putting down my verbal weapons and offering an olive branch, I could co-exist peacefully with the social justice warriors in my midst.

It was a dream hatched in 2013, when, exhausted from six years rancour and confrontation, I thought I should give peace a chance. So I tried a new approach. Rather than engage them with words, I engaged them with smiles. And then they began to smile back, however contrived those smiles may have initially been. I built up relationships one person and at a time, until their numbers reached a critical mass and suddenly the word was out: I wasn’t so bad after all. In other words, the strategy seemed to be paying off. I was making progress. Then it happened.

Without warning or expectation, I found myself in a no-holds-barred shouting match with an evangelical Leftist in the village supermarket, locally famous for his boorish intrusions and unwanted observations. On this occasion, I attempted to quickly brush by him in my urgent journey to the bathroom at the back, but I failed to dodge one of his gratuitous anti-Trump remarks. This time it was about his desire to shoot the President. That was the spark. The lighted match was my quick retort that I would rather shoot him, the pious preacher of progressive depravity. An explosion followed. I left the store shaken, contemplating the potential fall-out as I walked to the car. News of a verbal fracas can travel twice around this island community before my counter-narrative would have a chance to put its boots on. That one incident could undo three years of fence-mending. It’s back to square one folks. So ends my experiment in inter-faith dialogue.

In the days that followed, I tried to make sense of the incident, but it didn’t take me long. I came to realize that it was just one skirmish among millions across a broad front stretching from Europe to North America and Down Under. Battles that are being fought not only in parliaments and on the streets, but within families and between friends. It is a culture war that became an ‘uncivil’ civil war with ominous indications of becoming something much worse.

Welcome to the Last Stand of Western Civilization, everywhere on the brink of breakdown and chaos. Our nations are the venue for the eradication, displacement or absorption of resident Europeans and Euro-North Americans. It is hard to imagine that any vestige of our Western heritage can survive a human tsunami of the frightening proportions that some predict. Think not of millions or even tens of millions, but rather hundreds of millions of migrants and refugees who may descend upon us like locusts to strip our cupboard bare, crushing our already straining welfare state under the weight of their insatiable demands. All with the aid of the rootless cosmopolitan elites and the politicians and media hacks who do their bidding. Think Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail’s nightmare. We are only seeing the first instalment of an ongoing migration of epic scale.

But the demographic shake-up is not simply a matter of mass immigration, but of migration within nations themselves, and within cities as well. What Bill Bishop called “The Big Sort.” What is interesting is that unlike former times, in America at least, more and more internal migrants are motivated to move not for economic considerations, but to seek out communities of people much like themselves. In fact, almost one in three Americans (100 million) have moved from one place to another in the last decade alone. Not only by region, or from Blue State to Red State, or from city to city, but from one neighbourhood in a city to another, all to congregate with like-minded people in homogeneous pockets that are becoming more homogeneous over time. In other words, a nation that progressive politicians proudly proclaim to be diverse is, upon closer inspection, a federation of nations which consist of ideologically inbred clusters of self-segregated believers. To paraphrase Robert Putnam, Americans, among others, prefer to “bowl” not only with people who resemble them, but people who agree with them too. Mobility is not promoting diversity, but quite the reverse. So much for the melting pot and the myth of assimilation.

The question is, why?

Simply put, we are a species of tribes. Even Leftists who spout the cant of “inclusivity” and deracinated “values” are tribalists. Like flies drawn to a lamp in a darkened room, they gravitate to beacons of ‘enlightenment’ where they can cocoon with other moral paragons feeding out of the same trough of progressive news sources. Most amusing are White-flight Californian liberals who flee diversity only to preach it once they are safely established in white-bread towns of the western northern border states or small Canadian havens like mine. They are the first to virtue-signal their strident opposition to racism, which of course, is exclusively a White affliction (choke).

All is good though. Good fences make good neighbours and all of that. The problem is, as pockets of uniformity become more uniform, their inhabitants become more insulated and more fixed in their beliefs. Clustering becomes self-reinforcing. Confirmation bias reigns supreme. These pockets become an echo chamber of narrow opinions, or to use another metaphor, progressives form their views in a hothouse environment, hypersensitive to the cold draft of conflicting opinion. Not yet able to make the whole country a safe-zone by muzzling politically incorrect speech and punishing thought criminals, they have attempted to make their immediate environment safe by not inter-mingling with ‘deplorables.’ That is what made Thanksgiving and Christmas this year so challenging. Suddenly they were sitting face-to-face with people whose opinions shocked and violated their sensibilities to the core. Horror of horrors, the formerly stifled normal views of normal people became normalized at the dinner table. It was not as if ordinary working people had removed their masks. It was that progressives had never bothered to look at their faces — or listen to their words. Until 2016, patriotism was the love that dare not speak its name, especially on college campuses and NPR.

This in-state polarization reflects the polarization in Congress, and vice versa. Over the last two decades, the number of “landslide” states has been increasing dramatically (from 40 to 50%), as has been the vote margins between the incumbent party and the opposition. That’s fine if you are a supporter of the winning side, but between 20 to 40% of Americans are trapped behind enemy lines, and in social situations they can find themselves out-gunned.

SJWs

That is exactly my predicament too, in this far-left west coast Canadian community of Bernie Sanders clones. As Colin Woodard said in his depiction of America as a balkanized country of 11 nations, “It isn’t that residents of one or another nation all think the same, but they are all embedded within a cultural framework of deep-seated preferences and attitudes — each of which a person may or like or hate, but has to deal with nonetheless.” Obviously, in my case, I am having a tough time “dealing” with it. But I am not alone.

A Monmouth University poll found that 7% of Americans lost or terminated a friendship over the Presidential race, while 40%, according to an ABC poll, confessed that the 2016 race triggered tension with friends and relatives. Some 41% of the more than one in five spouses who voted for a different candidate than their partner reported that they had arguments, often heated, over politics. It is a clear that the rage that voters felt toward candidates was also directed on those who supported them. This vitriol and the tension have impacted family dynamics in an important way.

A veritable industry of professional mediators, psychologists, clergymen and self-help gurus have come forth to offer guidelines and prescriptions to bridge the ideological divide. Some call for civic disengagement. Others for call for establishing ground rules, avoiding political subjects, accentuating the positive, respectful listening, and avoiding the temptation to impose one’s political beliefs on friends. This seems to be a difficult discipline for the self-righteous and self-proclaimed champions of inclusion, equality, peace and justice. Trying to change value-based beliefs is a futile enterprise because our core values and beliefs actually take up physical residence in our brains. It is part of who we are. But that has never discouraged zealots.

This conflict has all the hallmarks of a religious war, which by nature is resistant to compromise or mediation. The call for “unity” seems highly unrealistic when one side — like my nemesis in the supermarket — regards the other as ignorant, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and an enemy of the planet, while the other side regards them as vile traitors, enemies of national sovereignty and Western Civilization itself. As Dennis Prager asked:

How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism — there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt — supposed to unite with “educators” who instruct elementary school teachers to cease calling their students “boys” and “girls” because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America has fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its Black minority that the greatest problems afflicting Black Americans are caused by White racism, “White privilege” and “systemic racism”? With those who think that the nuclear family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term “Islamic terrorist” is an expression of religious bigotry?

And I would add, how am I supposed to unite with those who want to turn my country into a Third World shit hole? Or who want to break the back of the working class through the relentless flow of cheap labour from failed states?

How am I supposed to unite with so-called ‘environmentalists’ who refuse to acknowledge the manifestly negative ecological impact of rampant immigration-driven population growth? Or unite with people who want to destroy both our natural and cultural heritage by reducing our two founding peoples into mere fragments of a multicultural dog’s breakfast?

And above all, how I am supposed to unite with people who want to curb free speech in the name of ethnic and religious harmony? Free speech which was dearly paid for in blood? How am I supposed to unite with ethnic quislings and the morally debased? I will repeat what “Zapollo” said.

If the Left can’t let go of identity politics, then let me be clear. What comes next is on THEM. A lot of us did not want to live in a world of tribes and we never asked for it…(but) if the Left wants tribes, I am siding with my own tribe.

After this latest row I have had with the enemy, I have concluded that peaceful interaction between globalists and patriots is impossible. I shall realign my social network accordingly.

And if the Left wants a shooting war, let me assure you, it will not be the Left who finishes it. The Supermarket Crusader should be careful about what he wishes for.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags:

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada by Tim Murray Canadian Shield Canadian Shield To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources. Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests. No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support? Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs. The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby. It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.” “Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that …farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways. Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population. The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production. And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.” Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’ It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay. Climate There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate. The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north. Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north? I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission. Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

Posted on by

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada

by Tim Murray

Canadian Shield
Canadian Shield

To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests.

No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn

The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support?

Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs.

The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby.

It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.”

“Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage

Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that

…farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways.

Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population.

The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production.

And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.”

Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’

It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay.

Climate

There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate.

The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north.

Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants

Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north?

I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission.

Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

The Cult of the Immigrant: Oh Canada, We Came to the Hockey Game for Thee

Posted on by

Oh Canada, We Came to the Hockey Game for Thee

 
News item : March 18, 2017:The federal government and the Edmonton Oilers partnered to welcome 12 new Canadian citizens at Rogers Place Saturday afternoon as part of Canada 150 celebrations. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Amarjeet Sohi and Mayor Don Iveson attended the swearing-in ceremony at Rogers Place.

oilers
As an introduction to Saturday night’s NHL hockey game in Edmonton on March 18th, a dozen “New Canadians” were honoured after their swearing-in ceremony by being called out on to the  ice wearing bright orange Edmonton Oilers’ jerseys. They waved to the applause of the crowd, and then joined in on the singing of our national anthem. How stirring.

Message: We are a land of immigrants, and no matter where immigrants come from, they will become good ordinary Canadians like you and me, eager to share their ‘diversity’ by partaking in ours. I mean, what could be more Canadian than wearing the home town’s hockey jersey at a hockey game?

 

“This is a special one because Rogers Place is a hallowed ground for hockey,” Edmonton Mayor Iveson said. “It’s such an important part of Edmonton’s story and history, so to know that these Edmontonians and new Canadians will always associate their citizenship with this place and the heart of our city is just an exciting memory for us to all carry.”

Thus the myth of Canada as a welcoming country that needs more and more and more immigrants is firmly cemented into the mentality of all those in attendance, and the viewing audience at home as well. The fact that people from India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Somalia are so happy to settle here in this largely cold wasteland flatters us. It is as if we were the owners of a restaurant who regard the line-up of patient customers outside as a compliment to our fine cuisine.

But there is a difference. Restaurant owners know that their restaurant has a limited seating capacity, just like Rogers Place.  Neither Canadians nor their political representatives understand that there are limits to growth. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we have limited resources. Even drinkable water is in short supply, never mind arable farmland.  And as far as affordable urban land goes, well, as Mark Twain would have said, “they’ve stopped making it.”  http://womenmakenews.com/content/story/myth-canadas-underpopulation-lay-it-rest)

Now don’t get me wrong. I think we are right to honour the immigrants who helped to build this country. Just as I am right to be grateful to the carpenters who built my house. But guess what. My house is built. Done. With little room or need to grow.  And while it needs ongoing maintenance, it doesn’t require that I bring in an army of carpenters every year, especially if they are going to wake me up in the wee hours by praying in the direction of Mecca.

The Cult of the Immigrant is an absurd anachronism for a mature nation that may well see robots doing half the work by mid century. The smokestack era and family farms are gone. We have no need for 300,000-450,000 extra bodies each and every year.  Unless of course it is to fill the seats of our hockey arenas.  Still, I don’t recall getting a dividend cheque from NHL hockey team owners for having to put up with rising house prices, unconscionable  rents, appalling traffic congestion, deteriorating infrastructure,  lower wages and sprawl that comes with growing the population and increasing their fan base.

potential fans

Above:  Potential Edmonton Oilers hockey fans,  just one swearing-in ceremony away from becoming full-fledged Canadian citizens.  Complimentary Liberal Party membership cards to be part of the Welcoming Package.

 

 

Tim Murray

March 19, 2017

PS We can always outfit our androids with Toronto Maple Leaf hockey sweaters and program them to watch mediocre hockey at atrocious ticket prices for 50 years without a championship in sight.

— “There’s nothing more dangerous than a shallow-thinking compassionate person.” Garrett Hardin

The End Game: What the Immigration Lobby Has in Store for Us

Posted on by

The End Game:

What the Immigration Lobby Has in Store for Us 

 

 

It has been an ongoing story that never lets up.  Ordinary working metro-Vancouverites, including double-income families, are being displaced by big foreign money and in-migration.  Not only can they not afford a down payment or qualify for a mortgage, in a growing number of cases they can’t even  pay the rent, assuming they find an apartment or basement suite.

 

This housing crisis has provided ample fodder for local news media.  In fact, rare is the night when it doesn’t  pop up  as a news item. Or so it seems.  Case in  point:

 

Yesterday evening, November 21, 2016,  a BC Global TV news reporter asked real estate magnate Bob Rennie about how he would address Vancouver’s lack of affordable housing. His answer: increase supply (surprise, surprise).  How do you do that? By changing zoning laws so that houses could be converted to multi-family suites.  Another form of densification.

The following night, November 22nd, BC Global TV news made Premier Christy Clark’s announcement to create affordable housing its top news story. Her plan?  Spend $855 million to create 5,000 social housing units involving 68 new projects.

5,000 units. That sounds like a lot. Except when you consider that in addition to the number of foreign-born migrants coming in from other provinces, 30,000 freshly minted New Canadians are settling in the city every year via the airport express.  Repeat.  While 5,000 units are being built, 30,000 extra people are inserted into the housing market each year.  This conjures up the image of Charlie Chaplin in the factory scene in “Modern Times” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGs2Y5WJ14  . No matter how hard Charlie tries to keep up with the flow,  he can’t move fast enough to deal with the stuff that it is coming at him down the conveyor belt.

 

Let’s do the math.

 

Let’s err on the conservative side and assume that each unit will be occupied by 4 people.  That would  mean that those 30,000 extra people would require 7,500 units,  or 625 units every month for a year.  In other words, just 8 months of business-as-usual immigration would wipe out the benefit of 5,000 social housing units.  This is not to say that these immigrants will dwell in the new units, but that they will increase the pool of city residents looking for housing, thereby bidding up real estate prices and pushing more Vancouverites out of the market.  Premier Clark might as well use the $855 million to pay for their moving vans.

Bottom line: Increasing the supply of housing in the context of continuing large-scale immigration is FUTILE. It is the Labour of Sisyphus. Like bailing water out of a leaky boat. Even a cretin should understand that, but apparently politicians and realtors have failed to reach even that modest mental bench mark.  Or could it be that the rewards of not understanding it are too great to resist?

Obviously the solution is to reduce demand. How do you do that? Simple. You lower the federal government’s immigration and refugee intake. “But wait”, they will say, “immigration policy is not in our jurisdiction”.  True. But do you ever hear a Vancouver Mayor or a city councillor call for a halt to immigration? Or at least a moratorium to allow Canada’s urban centres to catch their breath? A pause that would buy some time so all levels of government can repair infrastructure or improve social services or expand medical services or train more doctors or build more residential care facilities?

The answer is “No”.  Not now. Not ever. Immigration is the Elephant-in-the-Room .  The love of mindless  growth that dare not speak its name. The very idea of reducing demand is outside the box.

Instead, what we have heard from city politicians across the land is a perennial demand  that Ottawa cough up federal funding to cope with the growing demands that immigration-driven population growth inflicts upon their property taxpayers.  Taxpayers who are not only expected to fork over the money for infrastructure,  transit and social service costs and  ESL  training——but move over and squeeze tighter  and tighter for an endless queue of migrants whom the self-serving immigration lobby insists we need.

 

In essence, the Conference Board of Canada, the federal cabinet, the Mayor, the city council and the Bob Rennies of this world are issuing city residents an ultimatum:  Either submit to ever increasing density and live in a shoebox—-or leave.  Make Vancouver a “Sanctuary City” for illegal migrants, but offer no sanctuary for Canadian Vancouverites who cannot afford shelter.

Growth mongers need to answer several questions.

 

What is your end game?

 

What is your population target?  How many people do you want to live in this country?” 40 million? 50 million? Or is it John McCallum’s wet dream of 100 million citizens?

 

If so, where do you intend to fit them in?  The wetlands that comprise 14% of Canada? Or the lakes that make up 7.6%? Or the permafrost tundra, or the boreal forest upon which global climate stability depends, or the mountains which together account for another 73% of this “big” country of ours?   The Canadian Shield alone occupies 48% of the land. Think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat,  and thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes—not an ideal site for the town home accommodation of ten million refugees and 50 million immigrants,  wouldn’t you say?

 

And then there is that one little detail, that provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees freedom of movement.  How do you intend to command so many millions of newcomers to make these God-forsaken regions their home? Answer: You can’t.  And if you can’t command them or direct them, how would you entice them? And if enticed, how would you make them stay?  There is a reason so few Canadians live there. Other than the sub-zero temperatures and the black flies, that is.  They need a viable economy.

 

Economics compels 80% of us to live in cities. The trouble is, only 5.2% of Canada is arable, and of that , only .5% is classified as “Class 1”, half of which is found in Ontario. And wouldn’t ya know it, most of it is close to that  beacon of mass immigration, the GTA.  B.C.’s Fraser Valley is also in the cross-hairs.  Canadians have already lost one fifth of this priceless Class 1 farmland to development. Do you propose that that continue? No?

 

OK then.  We’ve ruled out the uninhabitable 94%, and we don’t want to lose any more of our prime arable  land.  And mass immigration is off the table.  So that leaves us with but one option.  Pack’em into urban sardine cans.

 

That’s it, isn’t it? The end game.

 

Tim  Murray

November 22, 2016

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.

DOING THE PRUDENT THING

Posted on by
DOING THE PRUDENT THING
 
by Tim Murray

As time progresses, I am getting more and more of those “senior moments”. I am forgetting the names of people whom I have recently seen, the names of people I grew up with, the names of books and authors that I have long admired, the names of movies that had a great impact on my thinking. I forget  where I left my car keys (damn it I had them in my hand 10 minutes ago!). I forget that I left my sunglasses on the roof of the car before I drove off. I forget, well, you get the picture.

Inline image 1
So maybe you can help me out here. Tell me if I am wrong. Tell me if my memory is failing. I seem to recall that a couple of years ago, when three Western African nations were threatened by a frightening outbreak of the Ebola virus, nations like Australia, Jamaica and the United States placed an immediate ban on travellers from those nations. The decision was founded on the common sense belief that while the overwhelming majority of citizens living in Sierra Leone and Liberia were not carrying the Ebola virus, some were, and that at that point no one knew who they were. Therefore the safe play was to place an embargo on all of them, all of them who wanted to leave their countries and find safety here. It would have been phenomenally and criminally stupid to risk the welfare of our own citizens in order to genuflect to “migrant rights”, would it not?

What I don’t recall, however, is hearing any outraged liberal or Social Justice Warrior denounce this temporary measure as bigoted and ignorant. I don’t remember any of them calling public health officials “racist”, or lashing out a politician who backed the decision of the Center for Disease Control to act swiftly to protect Americans. After all, the first responsibility of elected leaders is to ensure public safety.

Yet, just over a year later, after the San Bernadino murders and the terrorist attacks in Brussels, politicians and commentators of every stripe denounced Donald Trump’s call for a ban on all Muslim immigration as outrageous and appalling. Banning all Muslims from entering this country, Mr. Trump? All Muslims? Really? Why that runs counter to everything this country stands for!

Yet, the rationale for Trump’s proposal was founded on the very same considerations that led to the blanket ban on the entry of people from regions afflicted by Ebola to the United States.  Trump argued that Muslim applicants had not been vetted. True. He argued that even if 99.9% of Muslim applicants were OK, but 00.1% were not OK, we couldn’t take the chance that a hundred terrorists, or even one terrorist was among them. After all, it took what, just 19 Muslim conspirators to bring down the Twin Towers? Moreover, he emphasized that the ban he proposed would be temprorary. A fact that the liberal media seemed to have missed Once the dust had settled, and potential threats clearly identified, the ban would be lifted. Sounds reasonable to me.

Think about it this way. The ideology that inspires ISIL is communicable. It is a virus that afflicts a relatively tiny portion of the total Muslim population abroad, but nevertheless has spread with enormous speed and scope. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have not been able to keep on top of it. Who many ISIL operatives are out there? Who are they? Where are they? We don’t know.

Health officials in Liberia and Sierra Leone were possessed of the same kind of  questions. And they didn’t have the answers. All that they knew, all that we knew, was that the virus had to be contained. But how do you contain a virulent and seemingly unstoppable virus like that?  Well, there is one thing you don’t do. You don’t throw the borders wide open. You don’t wave everyone through the gate because to do otherwise would be a violation of their “rights”. You don’t forget that the primary obligation of any government, any President is, to repeat, protect public safety, not the people who seem to think that they have a divine entitlement to emigrate to your country. These are all things you don’t do. But then what do you do in the face of a threat like this?

You lock that damn gate and slam your front and back doors tight, that’s what.

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canad

Posted on by

This Land Is OUR Land: Euro-Canadians Will Not Surrender Canada

by Tim Murray

What diversity lobbyists hate: Canadian family life in 1950.

It has often been argued by the talking heads of the multicultural and immigration lobby that Canadians of European descent have no well-founded historical or moral case to assert that their culture should enjoy a predominate place or special status in our nation.

Many go even farther than that. Many argue that Europeans and their Canadian descendants invaded and brutally colonized this country, forcibly appropriating aboriginal land. We are what some radical native activists scathingly call “settlers”, occupiers who have no legitimate right to be here — even though many of us are third or fourth generation Canadians. We are told that Europeans did not “discover” or create or build Canada. The land was here before Europeans even conceived of it.

Multicultural Arguments Are Inconsistent

These arguments are fraught with a logical inconsistency and a confusion of terms.

Firstly, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that European colonizers and their descendants have no right to live here because they are occupying “stolen” land, and then to argue on the other hand that newcomers fresh from the airport should share that “stolen” land as full-fledged Canadian citizens with equal rights and opportunities. If Euro-Canadians have no legitimate right to remain here, why then should the latest batch of foreign migrants be exempt from this same judgement? Why should they be given a pass? If Euro-Canadians can be told, in effect, to “go back where you came from”, why shouldn’t “New Canadians” be told to do the same thing?

There is another contradiction in this line of reasoning. Multiculturalists accord Aboriginals a special status. They are “First Nations”. After all, they were here first — even though a great many tribes came to occupy land by the “ethnic cleansing” and displacement of other tribes. But if Aboriginal Canadians have “seniority” rights over Canadians of European origin, why then should not the latter have “seniority” rights over “New Canadians”, the great majority of whom hail from “non-traditional”, that is, “non-European” countries? Either there should be a hierarchy of citizenship — or cultures — or there should not. But the multicultural lobby is having it both ways, and Euro-Canadians are not “having it” at all. They are not acknowledged to be a founding culture, nor are they accorded the right to compete for job placements based on merit — recently arrived “visible minorities” are able to leap-frog into coveted positions in the name of employment “equity”. In other words, Euro-Canadians have neither seniority rights nor equal opportunity. They are the “ham” in the ham sandwich of “diversity”.

The multicultural “Party Line” needs to be de-constructed.

Yes, the ‘land’ was here before Europeans arrived. In fact, it was here before aboriginals first crossed the Bering Strait. But the “land” is not the nation. The “land” is not “Canada”. And one can’t credibly deny that the British and French were the primary founders of the nation called “Canada”. It should also be noted that the newcomers from “non-traditional” sources who arrived in the wake of the pivotal shift to Official Multiculturalism more than four decades ago most probably did so because they found this “nation” of Canada superior to the countries they left. That is to say, it appears that those accursed “White settlers” and their descendents didn’t do such a bad job of building this nation after all.

Multiculturalism is a social engineering project that turns Canada into a country resembling those that immigrants to Canada have fled fromYet it is the multicultural project to transform this nation, the nation that immigrants have found so attractive, into something resembling the nations that those immigrants have fled. And it looks like they are half way there. In 1981, there were 6 ethnic enclaves in Canada. By 2010 there were 260. Obviously Canada is in the midst of a vast experiment in social engineering. The question we need to ask, as lab rats, is, “Is this really a good thing?” “Diversity”, we are constantly told, is a strength. In a masterpiece of Orwellian double-speak, the multicultural lobby assures us that there is “unity in diversity”. A look at the rest of the world, however, would not confirm this belief.

Diversity Is Disunity

You don’t believe me? Then ask the people of what used to be Yugoslavia. Ask the people of Syria or Iraq. Ask Ukrainians. Ask Ruandans. Ask Sri Lankans. Ask just about every people in the world. You don’t even have to look far. Take a look at America’s experiment with “integration” right now. Look how it is descending into tribalism. Look beyond soap operas and movies and the make-belief world that the American media presents. Look at America at the ground level. Look at cities, towns, neighbourhoods and college campuses. You will see clusters of African-Americans over here, clusters of Hispanics over there, and clusters of “whites” sitting or standing alone in the corner. This is not a function of mandated “apartheid”, but voluntary segregation. For many parts of America Martin Luther King’s dream has not come to pass. In fact, America is growing further apart, and “Coming Apart”, as Charles Murray’s book of that title suggests. In the words of Coloradan writer Mike Folkerth, “The United States is the most fractured society on earth — the most fractured culture.”

The make-believe world that the media presents and the unrelenting torrent of state propaganda will not long conceal these facts. The spin-machine will not ultimately succeed in perpetuating the “Diversity Illusion”, as British author Ed West calls it, no more than the communist state of Yugoslavia succeeded in convincing its citizens and the world at large that its ethnic blocs were living in blissful harmony.

Multiculturalists, of course, insist that Canada is unique. That Canada can make multiculturalism work: That so far it is a roaring success, and is a model for the world to follow. That those who say otherwise are a delusional fringe without credibility, people who need to be excluded from public forums, ostracized or even punished for spreading “hateful” messages. Rather than acknowledge the inherent division that exists between incompatible ethnic groups, they accuse those who point out this division as divisive!

The communist establishment in the Soviet bloc said similar things about dissidents: That they were insane. That they should be detained in prison or confined to mental asylums. They were tiny anti-social elements who disputed what was obvious: That the socialist state was a Workers’ Paradise where all ethnic groups got along.

But suddenly in the late 1980s and early 1990s the truth came out. The command economy had been a failure, socialism wasn’t working and ethnic nationalism was alive and well.

The silenced majority never did buy into the state myth. Seventy years of trying to change human nature proved futile. “In-group” favouritism, a manifestation of which is “ethnic nepotism”, is built right into our brains. As Australian sociologist, and author of Genetic InterestsFrank Salter, might say, we are “hard-wired” to bond with people very much like ourselves, to identify with them, and to join with them in pursuing our collective interests.

One would think that Canadian politicians would have taken notice. No Canadian government ever had a mandate to change the ethnic profile of the nation. What Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1947 is still true today: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Unfortunately, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Prime Ministers who followed him paid no heed to public opinion in this area, or affected any interest in what the majority of Canadian wished. Once Trudeau instituted Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it soon became a bipartisan policy, a state religion that could not be questioned. And for good measure, it was even entrenched in the Constitution and in the mandates of federal public sector institutions, including, most crucially, the CBC.

Objective observers of recent Canadian history could be forgiven if they concluded that multicultural lobbyists are intent on denying that Canada’s European heritage has any significance, or that Euro-Canadians have any claim to represent the foundational core of the country. The aim is to marginalize them. That’s why many of these multicultural propagandists are conditioned to think of Europeans as interlopers, a bunch of land-robbers — nothing more, nothing less.

It’s time that Canadians know the truth. Europeans founded this nation. And their descendants have no intention of surrendering it.

The Name Game: The Erasure of European Canada’s History

Posted on by

The Name Game: The Erasure of European Canada’s History

by Tim Murray

BC Ferries
BC Ferries, here Queen of New Westminster

Shortly on the heels of news that a petition was circulating calling for the replacement of the name of coastal B.C.’s highest peak, Mt. Waddington, with the name of a former Chief of the Chilcotin band, the B.C. Ferry Corporation announced in July 2015 that three new vessels were going to benamed in honour of Coast Salish history. They were “Salish Orca”, “Salish Raven” and “Salish Eagle”.

The announcement came after the Corporation received 7,000 suggestions from citizens who were asked to participate. Of course, the Corporation was careful to emphasize that the selection was made in consultation with native representatives.

Earlier, the Victoria Times Colonist ran its own contest, in this case receiving 550 suggestions. As two of their journalists reported, “Aboriginal names were prominent…and the word ‘Salish’ appeared 72 times…The winner of our contest was based on the popularity of names and themes submitted by readers. Queen of the Salish Sea, as suggested by Victoria’s Laura Weston, combined the desire of entrants to retain the old class names with a swell of support for all things Salish.”

Of course, one Indian, that is, “Indo-Canadian”, Suki Grewa, wanted to get in on the action too. His suggestion? “Spirit of Multiculturalism”. I have a more apt name. “Spirit of Eurocanadian Displacement”. A submission by one Sharon Sinclair captured the spirit of Cultural Marxist collaboration, enablement and white self-abnegation with her suggestion of “Shores of Diversity.” How about “Shores of Ethnic Quislings”?

They were several suggestions that the ships be named after people like Rick Hansen, Terry Fox, Hanna Day and newborn Princess Charlotte, but apparently they lacked the ethnic credentials to be considered serious candidates in this year of Truth and Reconciliation. One man even suggested that the three vessels be named after pivotal battles like Vimy Ridge, Dieppe and Normandy. But it turns out these trivial events did little to shape Canadian identity and history in comparison to the contributions of hunter-gatherers.

I think it is only appropriate that “First Nations” nomenclature should be substituted for any locality, vessel or institution named after a wicked White ‘settler’, even if he happened to have been born in Canada. After all, what did Canadians of European origin ever do for this country, except build it?

Yes indeed, the name changers are on a roll.

They took down South Carolina’s Confederate battle flag, they’re intent on taking down Mr. Waddington’s reputation and they have a whole host of statues to take down too. There’s been talk that even Thomas Jefferson isn’t safe anymore, and in Canada, I hear that Wilfred Laurier is on the hit list now. Round and round she goes, where she’ll stop, nobody knows. No doubt if the Statute of Limitations was the “Statue” of Limitations, it would topple too, because the Grievance Lobby wants to keep going further and further into the past so it can “out” more and more Dead White Racists. Perhaps a merger is in the offing. “Racists Getting Fired” will become “White Racists Getting Fired or Retroactively Discredited Dead or Alive.”

Who knows, maybe centuries hence, when there is not even a trace of European-Canada to be found, paleontologists will posit the existence of a “missing link” between the pre-Columbian peoples and conquering Asian supermen. Dubbed “Homo Eurocanadas”, it will be widely thought of as a figment of the imagination of Crypto-zoologists who insist that a few remnants of this species are hiding in the wilderness. All they have as evidence, skeptics will claim, is the skeletal remains of a hominid without a backbone.

The Missing Link, Homo Eurocanadas
The Missing Link — Homo Eurocanadas: Fact or

The Surrender of Europe September 5, 2015: A Day that will Live in Infamy

Posted on by

The Surrender of Europe September 5, 2015: A Day that will Live in Infamy

The walls have come tumblin’ down. The Germans and Austrians have thrown their borders wide open. Syrian migrants in their tens of thousands are pouring in. Soon there will be almost a million of them, with an endless queue forming behind them. Word will get out to Africans and Asians: “The West is weak. They have given up. Their resistance is broken. Pick up your bags and let’s  join the stream.” Jean Raspail’s nightmare has come to pass.

The Camp of the Saints

[French journalist Jean Raspail’s prophetic novel The Camp of the Saints predicted the Third World “refugee” invasion of Europe, aided by political traitors and a rotten anti-white ruling class.. Available for $25.00 postpaid from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.]

We will remember this day for the rest of our lives. 

This is the day we lost our civilization. The enemy is within our gates, and more and more will pour in. We are finished. This is the end. Or at the very least, the beginning of the end.  And to think that it took just one image, one photo of a three year old boy lying dead on a Turkish beach, to shatter our resolve and turn the tide. One image was the straw that broke Europe’s back. 

I can’t find any words to describe my feelings at this point.  A composite of impotent rage, despair, fatalism? It is hard to say. 

 What does one say when he bears witness to the unfolding displacement, conquest or extinction of his tribe, and the destruction of a legacy that reaches back to ancient Athens? What do say when you realize that the people in your family who gave their lives to save Europe seven decades ago evidently died in vain? And what of the heroes centuries ago  who beat back the Muslim invaders at Tours and the Battle of Vienna? It seems in retrospect, that their victories were just a holding action. Europe survived the Muslim and Mongol invasions, but it has succumbed to an incursion of an unarmed army of wretched refugees. 

It is as if, before our eyes, European-based culture in North America, Australia and Europe is being torn apart by a pack of wild dogs. One dog is Middle Eastern, one dog is African, one is Central American, another is Chinese and another is South Asian. And many of them are Muslim. 

Some of us are fighting back. Donald Trump. The Prime Minister of Hungary. The President of the Czech Republic. Populist politicians who are vilified by the mainstream media and shut out of power.  But they are the beleaguered few.  Will this be their Last Hurrah?

We could have stopped the flood. But our leaders lacked the will, and too many people were making money selling out their country. There is no conceivable punishment that could be meted out to these despicable traitors that would be commensurate with their crimes. What retribution would be fitting for Angela Merkel? What is the penalty for betraying one’s people and murdering their heritage?     

Tim Murray
September 5, 2015

--