CANADA'S MULTICULTURAL AND IMMIGRATION POLICY:

JUST NICE GUYS - OR BLIND INTIMIDATED SHEEP?

Myth # 1 "Canada is a nation of immigrants"

Feeling guilty yet? Well, you should be, at least that's the idea that drives these cliches. Of course, it's true. Whether we arrived by way of the Bering Land Bridge or in steerage, we all came from somewhere else. According to that logic, aboriginals are immigrants too. As the oldest, best-established group on the continent, they presumably owe an enormous debt of gratitude, moral support, time and money to all subsequent arrivals. But somehow it doesn't work that way. It is Canadians of European descent who are expected to subsidize - in perpetuity - those who came before us, as well as those who continue to roll in. In other words, we must assist those we displaced, while supporting efforts to displace us.

Aboriginal rights revolve around the idea that a standing population was first overwhelmed, then subsumed and forced to toe the line by new people(s) and new culture(s). We've heard the charges of genocide and cultural extermination. (Both concepts have been rather successfully marketed to Canadians of European descent under the guise of 'multiculturalism').

Noticing any similarities is rather forcefully discouraged. Aboriginals may balk at the the mere suggestion, but their ancestors crossing the Bering Land Bridge, had more in common with immigrant European arrivals than PC politics will admit. Aboriginal and European antecedants did not find their way here through the intervention of an immigration lawyer or consulting service. And both arrived in a wilderness. They most assuredly did not find welfare, educational, old-age or medical programs. Even the most hopelessly brain-dead liberal knows there is a WORLD of difference between today's immigrant and those (red and white) who created something of that wilderness. The liberal just doesn't want you to talk about it.

And while we're on the subject, not all of us came to North America as immigrants. Indeed, our two major founding European peoples -- the French and the English -- came to part of their homeland. The French came to "New France"; the English to a British colony.

Myth # 2 "Diversity makes us stronger

What is your definition of strength? A nation of people forbidden to discuss the very things which impact on their every action? What is your definition of diversity? True diversity is anathema to multicultural principles. The dictionary definition of diversity stresses differences, but as we're told - officially - there are no differences at all. And that's what makes this sham 'diversity' such a living hell.

Now that we are living in close proximity, you might think the learning curve would begin to climb steeply. Unfortunately, the Canadian government forbids debate and dialogue, characterizing it as 'hate'. So, Canadians are effectively and quite efficiently crippled. We are not permitted to talk about issues of diversity or immigration without being accused of racism. What this kind of 'diversity' does create is a phenomenon known as 'white flight'. As old communities accomodate new populations, the neighbourhood experiences a transformation. Soon it bears no resemblance to the former (now marginalized) community. Different cultural values and customs prevail. While it may be interesting to visit, would you really want to live there?

The elderly feel it first. They grow increasingly uncomfortable in their long-time homes. When people feel conditions have passed the limit of toleration, they simply give up, sell, and move elsewhere - usually well away. Those who do flee are characterized as wet-blankets - or dinosaurs. What our press disapprovingly calls 'white flight', is called ethnic cleansing elsewhere. People would never leave their homes and communities if they felt they had any real choice. We really have to begin to appreciate the distinction. As for diversity 'making us stronger', we're going to have to force ourselves to examine and confront feel-good cliches whenever some idiot clears his throat to recite a few. We've been eager and willing accomplices in our own demise.

Placing blind faith in a collection of hyper-ambitious lawyers masquerading as 'committed and caring' statesmen has brought us to a point where even THEY dare not criticize immigrant, refugee and multicultural policies:

"There is something wrong with a government that says a person or a party which disagrees with something like immigration policy is racist or when a party, groups or individuals disagree with the gay rights legislation that they are homophobic. There is something wrong with the message the government is sending out across this land," (MP Randy White, Ref.- Fraser Valley West, Hansard, May 28, 1996)




Myth # 3 "But there are no differences between the races"




Maybe not in Political Correctness Land, but there are in the real world. We can marvel at the 'natural ability' of Michael Jordan or Donovan Bailey and snicker at Tiger Woods showing us a thing or two, but the very idea that differences may extend beyond court, track or golf course makes women scream and collapse in a dead faint.




Let's concentrate on the physical aspect, because this willful ignorance does nothing to prepare us for the realities of our own racial legacy. Some diseases prey on specific races: Tay Sachs Disease (Jews), Multiple Sclerosis (whites), Sickle Cell Anaemia (blacks). And it may not be all bad; a single copy (from one parent) of Sickle Cell provides a degree of immunity to malaria.




In August, 97, researchers at Bowman Gray School of Medicine announced that white and Hispanic populations with insulin- resistance face higher risks of 'hardening of the arteries' than do similarly insulin-resistant blacks. Given the fact that blacks actually face a higher risk for stroke and heart disease, the suspicion is that blacks somehow metabolize insulin in a completely different way.




In the same month, the Journal Cell reported that Jews, Turks, Armenians and Arabs share a 'fever gene' which leads to bouts of familial Mediterranean fever. Bone marrow donors for Leukemia sufferers are selected on the basis of the most rigourously narrow racial selection.
The discovery of 'Kennewick Man' has forced the American government to address issues of race and primogeniture. There is no politically correct explanation for the presence of a 9,300 year old Caucasian skeleton in North America.




Last August, the Aaron Diamond Aids Research Centre in New York announced the discovery of the CCR5 genetic mutation in the white population. Briefly, the gene fails to produce a certain protein. It is that missing protein which provides a 'docking point' for the AIDS virus to enter cells. Without the protein, a degree of immunity to the virus exists among whites.




However, in this most politicized of diseases, this remarkable discovery has been deemed decidedly 'incorrect' and is not aggressively pursued. Isn't it odd that while we are expected to subscribe to the currently trendy idea that race is just a cultural thing - people are 'born' gay? 




Myth # 4 "But we need immigrants"




The neo-con argument is that our population is shrinking and aging (and no doubt, shrinking as it ages), and that immigrants will cheerfully shell-out for our pensions when the time comes.




A recent study in the US suggests that immigrant populations will hear of no such thing. As of September '97, Canada's Liberal government is launching a major public relations campaign to soften us up for an over all 10% reduction in Canada's old-age benefit, as well as nearly doubling (by 73%) the amount of CPP extracted at source.




The concept of state-care for the elderly is unheard of in the Third World. Indeed, since June of 1996, wealthy Singapore has had a Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. The body merely requires children to care for aged parents. "Officials were surprised at the numbers of neglected parents" according to the New York Times.




Thanks to multiculturalism, recent arrivals are not only encouraged to do things the 'old' way, but force-fed a steady drip of anti-white rhetoric once they settle in. Canada is currently experiencing an exodus of wealthy Chinese returning to a less-taxed Hong Kong where, among the 1/2 the population that is actually required to pay taxes, the maximum taxation rate is just 15%. Liberal-types insist that immigrants pay more than their fair share of taxes - GREAT! - assuming that a completely revised infrastructure to accomodate the needs of recent arrivals didn't cost anything.




The "Common Sense Revolution" means to address chronic government over-spending. Hooray! Among a population which achieved zero population growth way back in the 70's -- exactly WHERE has the money been going? The government's chief actuary for the Unemployment Insurance Commission forecasts a bonanza of $12.8-billion in surplus funds by year's end. The feds mean to use the windfall to address the deficit (rather than paying it out to the unemployed who were forced to pay into it) -- yet another tax-swindle.




Rather than simply replacing the standing population and consistantly compromising Canadian expectations to accomodate recent arrivals, responsible government would implement programs to upgrade our own skills and stop importing them from countries which need those skills desperately. Moral government would encourage the growth of Canadian families with incentives, tax breaks, discounted mortages and assistance with schooling and associated costs of raising Canadian children. Our managable little problems have ballooned into massive bloated imponderables which we are not allowed to discuss. Case closed.




Myth # 5 "But we 'owe' it to the third world"




Each year Canada takes in about 1/4 million immigrants and refugees. Each year, births over deaths, the impoverished Third World adds another 80 million people to an already over-crowded, ailing planet where, after 30 years of family-planning and birth control programs, 1/3 of the global population is under 15 years old. (Visit our population clock)




In July of 1997, an official of the China Family Planning Commission reported that just 20% of China's 320 million families obey the one-child rule. The UN Child Fund reports that within the next few years the infant mortality rate in the developing world will match our own - 1 in 100. Thus, populations will continue to spiral out of control. And why not?




The sucker states will always manage to make room for one more and that one had better be a doctor or computer genius to satisfy bigotted notions of what 'kind' of immigrants we will be willing to 'accomodate'. What we most certainly do NOT 'owe' the Third World is a short-sighted policy where we remove the skilled and educated members of their nations to compete with Canadians for jobs. Those people are (or could be) the agents for real change in their own countries. Without them, the Third World can only sink into ever-greater misery.




Indira Gandhi once scolded western nations for precisely these practises. The disasterous 1/4 million we accept each and every year can never make any real difference to the 80 millions born each year or the 99.9% condemned to stay in the Third World, but it does make an enormous difference to our own quality of life. With OFFICIAL unemployment running as high as it does, the last thing we need is anyone - skilled or unskilled - competing with hard-pressed Canadians for jobs.




There is a larger, moral issue at stake too. What kind of country do we want? The skilled people we extract from the Third World could stay home and fight to establish decent health care, democracy and every other perq Canada has on offer. Slowly but surely this nation is being reinvented and repopulated - not by a kind of can-do homesteading pioneer spirit, but with native Canadians who believe it is 'easier' to say and do nothing as this invasion continues (with no end in sight), as well as imported Canadians, who believe it is 'easier' to reap the fruits of democracy, education or health care someone else fought for.




Yet somehow we have been convinced that our first obligation is not to our children or our parents or our neighbours - but to the wretched of the earth (however, not so wretched they cannot scrape together several thousand dollars for air fares, and in some particularly desperate instances, adding another $20,000 to a snake head, 'jockey', or other flesh smuggler to 'lubricate' a refugee claim.) Over-taxed, over-burdened Canadians would like to know how.  




Myth # 6 "We have so much to learn from the third world oral tradition"




If you believe this one, you probably believe that the lowest ebb in human development was the Ozzie & Harriet, Leave it to Beaver model of a despised 'white-bread' North America. Would someone kindly explain why the promise of that very life spurred millions upon millions of immigrants to come in search of it.




Was it simply easier to ridicule at close quarters? The brutal realities of life in third world countries are enforced with a rigid caste-system and pecking-order. Let's be very clear: we neither mean to endorse, nor imply, that local implementation might be fun, but how do the 'haves' in the Third World ensure that the 'have nots' know their place - and stay there? The 'have nots' are given no quarter, no concessions. If that means stepping over bodies begging or dying in the streets, well there'll always be more where they came from. The rationale is that if you give some people 2.54 centimetres, they'll take 1.6093 kilometers. If this sounds like your local 'special interest' group, it's either a coincidence - or racist of you to notice.




Are Canadians equipped to compete with the ruthlessness born of such brutal realities? What is it exactly, that we 'know' about other cultures? Do multicultural values extend to marriage-by-capture? The Hmong may think it should. Does our committment to diversity include genital mutilation (politely, but inaccurately called female circumcision) when it's performed on four year old children? Does pan-culturalism mean that we must enthusiastically embrace the practice of suttee or slavery if that happens to be common practice 'back home'?




Dino picWell, we don't really know and never can know. We are not encouraged (or permitted) to discuss issues like this. It seems ridiculous to insist that newcomers to Canada abide by Canadian laws, when 'our arrogant, ethnocentric traditions' must not be 'imposed' on them. Indeed, both the Moslem and black communities have lobbied for special extra-mural legal systems 'more in line with our community standards'. The committee responsible for chaplaincy in federal prisons has recently called for 'aboriginal circle sentencing' and we all learned what jury nullification meant when OJ was found not guilty. We are informed that "only education can eradicate racism." What kind of "education" do we mean?




Indoctrination? So history has a 'Eurocentric' bias? The inescapable fact of the matter is that most histories were recorded by the people who had a written language. Must Columbus be: (A).- a saint, or (B.) - a monster?




Perhaps he was merely a man who beat the odds and crossed the Atlantic 500 years ago. That he did so with a hold full of small-pox bacillus seems unlikely. The liklihood that his ships carried a cargo of venereal disease on the return trip receives considerably less media-play. Again, what do we know of other cultures? Aladdin? Dances with wolves? Roots? Apart from the relentless anti-European sub-text , most of our 'knowledge' predicates on a set of cutesy cultural cartoons. It's easy enough to see why - underline twice for emphasis - all the positive virtues, but that does not tell us anything meaningful about who these people are, what they believe, what their real history might be, what is sacred to them and why. We just occupy the same hunk of real estate and pay our taxes. What a great country.




Myth # 7 "Canada has to make up for its racist past"




What racist past is that? The very idea that all men are created equal did not arise in Asia, India or Africa. In a viper's nest of resentments, Canada's history has been rewritten without the inconvenient intrusion of facts. Europeans came here and built a nation. That used to be something to live up to.




When did it become something 'we must try to live down'? If anyone cares to remember, Canadians did not wage war on aboriginal peoples. Indeed, the discovery of Kennewick Man and a half dozen other pre-Columbian Caucasian skeletons in North America, has lead some scientists to (very carefully) speculate that a very different kind of genocide may have taken place here before the European voyages of discovery brought Europeans back to North America. Again, not that it's of any real interest, but Canada served as the terminus of the Underground Railway. Coolies may have died in the construction of the CPR. Will we be permitted to know how many European bones are laid along the same track? They say there is an Irish body buried along every mile of the Erie Canal.




Canada's record is a couple of notches above the model familiar to some of our most outspoken critics, many of whom have arrived from nations where female children are routinely murdered or circumcised; or where surviving children may have their limbs bound for a period of adjustment to make more effective beggars of them. Last year, Saudi Arabia sent scores of children home after they were abandoned to their fates during the Haj.




The buying and selling of human beings is still routine stuff throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa and China's new wealth has contributed to a resurgence in the same practice. An Asian brothel-slave operation was recently broken in Toronto, as was the grotesque exploitation of deaf Mexican nationals by their own countrymen in the U.S. Widows may be tossed on their husbands funeral pyre after a lifetime shut away in purdah, but, by all means, remember one thing: while it's unthinkable to criticize other races and peoples for their cultural values, it's always open season on Canadians.




Our so-called racist past has been seamlessly replaced by a virulently racist present. In the Ontario school system, under a new program, children are encouraged to 'analyze a body of work for the percentage of white men portrayed in power positions compared with the number of women and racial minorities' and to 'check story lines to see whether all problems are resolved by male or white heroes acting as sort of "benevolent masters".




In other words, the achievements of Canadians (which made all this possible) are the bones on which immigrant children are expected to sharpen their teeth. Today's Canada is indeed a cauldron of racism and hatred. Anti-white rhetoric charges that traditional Canadian societal norms are ethnocentric where they are not Eurocentric, but once again, noticing this phenomenon is called racist, xenophobic proof of white-supremacist tendencies.




Some people get all the breaks. Some people are above reproach and beyond criticism, and other people had better shut up if they know what's good for them. In other words, "As long as we both hate me, everything's fine." All this begs the question: was anti-racisim such a big deal 'back home' - or is this a recently acquired "tool"?




If Canada is unbearably 'racist', why would anyone deprive themselves of the genocidal tribal hatreds innate to the enlightened African or Asian experience? If fighting racism is a priority, by all means let's learn from the experts.




Myth # 8 "It's 'hate' to oppose immigration"




Canadians were never consulted about changes to our national immigration policy. Nor have we ever been permitted to permitted to vote on this issue. Polls consistantly show that despite years of propaganda, Canadians are just not convinced that they like, or want, even more immigration.




The response to this discontent has been the insidious appearance of op-ed pieces fretting over the cataclysmic possibility of a referendum. "Referenda further marginalize minorities, lobby groups will become impotent" and (Eek!) the loathed majority will determine policy - kind of like a democracy. In one of the most recent polls commissioned by the immigration department, (as usual, obtained only when the media resorts to the Access to Information Act) a spokesman for Immigation Canada said, "the surveys are used for setting his department's communications strategy and not for setting policy." How gratifying to discover that our concerns will directly affect the quality of propaganda we see next year.




What kind of government forces an absolutely fundamental change on the standing population and subsequently enforces that policy with ever-more restrictive legislation? Canada reached the hog-wallow of lows when it decided to demonize 'free speech' to a point where there is something vaguely suspect about anyone unwise enough to endorse 'the idea of it' usually qualified by "but of course, there have to be limits".
Why? What kind of truth needs so much protection? A healthy society with prospects for the future welcomes debate in the spirit of fine tuning a precision machine. No political party is committed to reforming Canadian immigration and multicultural policy. It's become a sacred cow NO ONE really likes to see wandering about and defecating, but saying so is 'racist', 'hatred' or, even worse, 'insensitive'.




Massive, crippling taxation, corrupt patronage appointments, treacherous acts by faithless politicians, nest-feathering immigration lawyers cashing in at both ends, all contribute to an oppressive climate of hopeless despair. All of which seems little enough to demand of us. After all, it's easier to live on your knees as a slave and face extinction, than it is to stand up and speak out. Per capita, Canada accepts twice as many immigrants as does either the US or Australia. Thus, the impact on Canadians is presumably twice as great, and yet, it is the US and Australia where large, well-funded, grass-roots immigration-reform lobbies flourish. Is that because of Canada's government-sponsored climate of moral indignation and intimidation?

Myth # 9 "Immigration opponents are all 'white supremacists"

Under multicultural legislation, Canada guarantees and protects the survival of all cultures, whether they are hostile to traditional Canadian values or not. Under the weight of all this competition, something has to give, and it is, unfortunately, demoralized Canadians who consistantly offer the least resistance. There is a theory that there always exists a chronically disgruntled class in any society. Constant agitating and lobbying has catapulted this type to positions where their desires and decisions affect all of us. Lovely. Governance by kooks with a grudge or kooks with an inferiority complex. And policy reflects it.

Apart from the weirdo element, there is the huge non-agitating majority who go to work, pay their taxes and do their best to unobtrusively celebrate shameful events like Christmas. They may not like what Canada has become, but they are not professional agitators (funded by government grants), and wouldn't know where to start. And if they did, you can be sure someone would call them a white supremacist. Of course the weirdo element has never known how to be a good winner.

Dino picSo, despite huge 'gains', they will continue to press for ever more ludicrous concessions. Traditional European values are mocked, dismissed as 'intrinsically hateful', and generally deemed unworthy to maintain. As for 'white supremacy', is that really possible among a people so dispirited and disheartened? Any evidence of pride in your culture or heritage is encouraged and (frequently) subsidized in Canada. However, if you happen to be white, that same impulse is shameful and promptly hailed as conclusive proof that you are a 'white supremacist'. We have permitted this this to happen to us and we have not demanded a halt.

All people have a right and obligation to exist, but something vital has been vacuumed out of Canadians. It's an enormous price to pay for hosting a party. The disenfranchised majority is constantly slapped around by someone whose other hand is extended for a tip. Is it possible that we like it? Or have we been so thoroughly suffused with manufactured guilt and a sense of self-loathing that we have begun to think we 'deserve' it? 

Myth # 10 "I don't like the term 'politically correct', but we have to be nice!"

"Have to" being the operative words. It was the Leninists who coined the term 'poltically correct'. It meant someone who had digested the party-line and could be relied upon to regurgitate it on command. Then a funny thing happened. In short order, it came to indicate someone who was so hide-bound, inflexible and doctrinaire as to be a liability. All this is to suggest that some ideas are just so fundamentally rancid in and of themselves, that no amount of repackaging can ever rehabilitate them.

Today, even the most rabid liberal knows that 'political correctness' is a public relations disaster. There are scores of other wrong-headed notions approaching the same emetic saturation point. We really have to begin discrediting every illogical precept we've been gulled into repeating ad nauseum, without troubling to examine the concept. Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) there is often a superannuated Marxist curled up beneathe that 'anti-racist, pro-immigration, special interest' veneer.

It's absolutely essential to remember that for corrupt reasons of its own, our government desperately wants this immigration and multiculturation to proceed. There's government grant money for anti-racist, pro-immigration and sufficiently noisy 'special interest' lobbies. The government has sent a clear message again and again: much will tolerated from these 'loyal' shock troops.

This has the additional advantage of looking to mainstream, decent Canadians as if they are in the minority, since all the noisy, (influential) people think the current arrangement is 'just great.' (Why not? They're getting paid for it). Let's begin to exercise a little logic and properly think these things through: Who is likely to benefit from an exaggerated 'racial intolerance problem'? Immigration reformers? The Heritage Front?

On the contrary, these people have paid dearly for their convictions. Who is likely to cash-in? Who can depend upon an annual raise? Who will see that mortgage paid off just so long as 'the race problem' remains 'widespread, 'threatening', 'ominous'? And hapless Canadians are cast as 'bad puppy', always and forever down on all fours, having their noses rubbed in it at every opportunity, and sometimes just for the hell of it.
Forget immigrant gratitude. It's as good as criminal to suggest any such thing. Gratitude ended with the European immigrant pulling stumps from homestead land. The reward for our generous miscalculation is all too often sneering derision and resentment. As the nearly forgotten saying goes, the advantages don't mean a thing unless you've earned them. 

Myth # 11 "But - it's the LAW"

It sure is -- and don't you ever forget it. As mentioned above, Canadians were (and continue to be) forbidden open discourse on this most crucial issue. There was a time (not so very long ago) when we pitied Soviet children forced to attend indoctrination sessions. We shook our heads over the thought of Soviet adults forced to join the party and espouse party views if they wanted to get on in life.

We shuddered at the thought of fanatical Red Guards performing character assassinations on those who didn't conform to Mao-thought. Now that our own children attend mandatory multicultural indoctrination sessions, now that we are espousing multicultural rhetoric (OR ELSE) the rest of the world pities us. In August 1996, Congressman Robert Goodlatte (R-Virginia), addressed the US Congress in these terms:

    "Ghetto mentalities, the destabilization of Quebec. Reverse intolerance by immigrants for Canadian culture and institutions and the devaluation of the very idea of a common nationality. Are we headed the same way in the United States?"

While it's some consolation to think our sacrifice may have served some greater purpose, it's not encouraging. Laws can be repealed. This has happened to us because (just as in the Soviet Union) decisions were made by a rigid ideological elite without common concensus or consent. Since WWII, people have felt that 'immoral' law must be resisted, but the problem with immigration is that we have been very carefully inculcated in the belief that immigration is 'one of the just causes'. The 'morality' of the issue is one of our great stumbling blocks. We've lost sight of the fact that in protecting and preserving other cultures and ethnic ends, we've forfeited our own. Yet, this is supposed to a source of real pride and celebration.

Dino picThe United Nations Convention of 1948 (Article II) defines genocide in these terms: (a) Killing members of the group (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It may seem spurious to level charges of outright genocide against the good old government of Canada, nor does our experience conform to the terms in every particular, but what does the persistant pandering to an introduced population over the desires and expectations of natives amount to otherwise? Given the oft-proven fact that the introduction of competing plant or animal species spells extinction for native varieties, genocide is not putting too fine a point on official policies. Need to get the birthrate up? How about giving us a reason to live?

Myth # 12 "Canada has no culture - has no identity"

In 1995, then Multiculturalism Minister Sheila Finestone said that Canada has no culture. For thirty years Canadian tax dollars have supported this insidiously nasty message. And in terms of robbing a people of their identity, this hate slogan has proven to be a stroke of evil genius. The subtext, of course, is that Canadians must hasten to import active, viable cultures and identities, being so hopelessly bereft of one of our own.
Remember the other two cliches about Canadians? We were polite and we saved our money - neither of which are any longer true. Why is that? It is only now, that our culture has been effectively eradicated (subsumed) that we remember the golden days with a pang of regret. The irony is that as Canada is fundamentally 'revised', it bears less and less resemblance to the place immigrants themselves had bargained for. As an immigrant, you may have been intrigued with the prospect of wilderness, water and winter sports, chances are you hadn't foreseen a huge and influential community of your traditional ethnic enemy. Oh well, why should anybody be happy?

Robbed of a core identity, Canada becomes a cacophony of cultures and a babble of languages all jostling for a bite of the pie. Canadians born, bred and betrayed cannot lay claim to a common culture and identity any more than recent arrivals. Patriotism is a 'threat' which must be ruthlessly put down before it properly draws breath. As the politician says, "Heavens above. If the 85% (and overwhelming majority) of this population ever discovered what I've been doing to them for thirty years, I could lose my Mercedez." As always, intelligent discussion of cultural issues will not be tolerated, our government and dependent agencies have told us how we should think about this one too: the 'threat' to Canadian unity is Quebec and Quebecois culture - nice people don't discuss the forced introduction or preferential treatment that Canada's other 120 distinct societies enjoy. Cultural sovereignty means advertising revenue gleaned from special Canadian runs of magazines -- at least that's what our "Heritage" Minister tells us.

It is thus that Canada becomes a lacklustre artificial construct defined by dotted lines on a map. In our enormous, unproven social experiment, disparate (but culturally viable!) factions occupying the same petri dish pursue their own ends without cohesive vision or loyalty to anything but the almighty dollar. No wonder Quebec wants out.

Myth # 13 "Canada has to help refugees"

The human smuggling trade is expected to generate nearly $10-billion this year alone. That's twice as much as the Medellin cocaine cartel saw in its best year. According to the RCMP, since 1983, fully 90% of successful refugee claimants have been 'handled' by human cargo merchants. Canada is the internationally notorious soft-touch, allowing refugee claims from within our borders. (Elsewhere, such 'refugees' are referred to as 'illegals').

That 90% of refugees CAN afford to pay an exhorbitant fee implies that these claims may not be legitimate. The further fact that identification documents (required to board the plane) have frequently vanished by the time the plane arrives should be enough to send that individual back to the point of embarkation (but is not). The papers may be trashed mid-flight, but the cost-effective solution is to pass them to a confederate for profitable recycling. Legitimate refugees are left twisting in the wind while spurious claimants eat up quotas - and we turn a blind eye. It's ironic that the sensitivity patrol is effectively abetting this lucrative trade in human misery when it insists that Canada continue to accept so-called spontaneous arrivals.

In 1997, Czech television aired a documentary limning Canada as a giant welfare-trough. While it's true enough, the author of the documentary rather sheepishly admitted he had not managed to speak with immigration officials in Canada. His rosy reports of welfare-handouts and free housing depended upon interviews with an immigration lawyer, who, coincidentally enough, was later identified as legal council for no less than 50 Gypsy families.

The case of the Gyspy influx is most telling. There are no lingering doubts about Canada's international-chump status now. Canada felt such confidence in a progressive Czech Republic, we ushered them in NATO just weeks before we were admitting hundreds of their citizens here. Amnesty International spokesman John Tackaberry said the organization has NEVER criticized the Czech government's treatment of Gypsies (Amnesty's 1997 report criticized Canada however, on four separate counts). Once again, as per ordinaire, when the Roma came calling, dissenting voices were immediately pummeled as 'racists'. 

Myth # 14 "Immigration is our only hope for the economy"

The "Common Sense Revolution" in Ontario and similar clones elsewhere have degraded and downsized every surviving shred of the tattered social safety net Canadians paid into and supported. Everything from hospitals to libraries have been hit. More and more resources have fallen into the hands of private enterprise to 'manage' on our behalf, as we're colonized by private industry. We all deplore government excess and welcome welfare downsizing as a sign of positive action - at last. However, be advised: any hint that the immigrant and refugee system or services should be revised is denounced as "hatred".

Somehow, it is native-born Canadians who seem to be making a 'home' on the streets. New guidelines have made it preposterously difficult to qualify for UIC - and only for truncated benefit periods. Ever wonder why? If you're one of the few Canadians looking to hire someone, you will notice that all government assistance/work reentry programs target UI recipients, not the long-term unemployed collecting welfare.

Ever wonder why? Why are we importing 'workers'? Official unemployment figures are savagely manipulated to appear deceptively low. The official 'story' is 9.5% (that's still 1.4 million Canadians). Of course, that figure does not reflect those surviving on welfare, surviving on their savings, surviving on their wits, or surviving on the streets. Canada's own economists predict no real improvement for the foreseeable future.
In fact, the anticipated $12.8-billion surplus in 1997 UI funds is viewed as a hedge against the next (apparently) inevitable downturn. Why do we continue to import 'workers'? There's no knowing what the legitimate unemployment figures might actually be in Canada, but why are provincial governments imposing workfare when we so obviously have a huge pool of the chronically unemployed? Why are we importing 'workers' who are taking jobs from Canadians? And if the argument is that Canadians can't or won't DO these jobs, a responsible government would emphasize retraining and self-sufficiency -- OUR immigrant tradition.

When the Immigration Minister announced Canada's (increased) intake level for 1998, she admitted the government would like to further increase levels but the goal is one "that cannot be achieved while so many people already in Canada cannot find jobs. She also said increased pressure by immigrants on social services in urban centres is a concern." (Globe & Mail, October 24, 1997) "The National Academy's study and Harvard's pre-eminent immigration economist, Prof. Borjas' work argue that countries must choose. They can either offer generous welfare benefits or open their borders to immigrants. But if they attempt to do both, in a world in which most people are poor and most countries are an easy plane ride away, they will bankrupt themselves." (David Frum, Toronto Sun, August 30, 1997)

Myth # 15 "But immigrants are so rich!"

That's nice. If it really is true, why aren't they helping their own people in a real hands-on, financial sponsorship kind of way? (Or, once again, did that just apply to Europeans?) Agitating for more and expanded immigration programs just doesn't seem as meaningful. Traditionally, immigration didn't COST the 'beneficiary' nation a thing.

For example, while we're informed that our Chinese community is unimaginably wealthy, we also discover that the new Chinese Canadian Cultural Centre in Toronto (costing $5.2-million) will receive major funding from the big five banks, the near-bankrupt Canadian Airlines, a radically down-sized Bell Canada and a cool million each from the hard-pressed provincial and federal governments. In a September 1997 poll, 78% of Canadians felt immigrants shouldn't be allowed to sponsor their families into the country until they're off welfare.
Note the presumption that welfare is an intrinsic part of the immigrant process. Thirty years ago, as we celebrated Canada's centenary, we had every reason to believe that by now we would be routinely travelling to the stars. We got immigration instead. We got a stagnant, dying economy where one of the few 'growth' (in the malignant sense) industries feeds on the identification and suppression of 'hate' and, just co-incidentally, free speech. The assurances of Medicare, pensions and welfare plans (created BY Canadians FOR Canadians) are extinct and none of us really expects an old age with security by the time we get there.

Dino picThen, there's the fundamentally unsavoury issue of 'spreading 'em wide' for an infusion of cash. There's a term for it and it isn't 'refugee haven'. In the process of slurping up real or imagined Third World wealth, there's another unsavoury question: under the desperate and difficult conditions 'back home', how was that money was accumulated in the first place? Given the number of recent apprehensions of triad and gang leaders, maybe we shouldn't ask. Canada's 'Investor Class Immigrant Program' is a classic case of wrong headedness. Just recently reanimated following an 18 month moratorium in the face of widespread fraud and corruption, Ontario has honed the program to not only offer citizenship, but guarantees 100% repayment of the 'loan'. (Lucienne Robillard, Minister for Immigration boasts that this program has brought Canada the princely sum of $3.6-billion since 1986. She did not mention that foreign investors withdrew $3.5-billion from Canada during the month of May 1997, alone).

Some investor class immigrants who made poor investments are considering launching a class action suit against the federal government to recoup their losses. OF COURSE, NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN WHY AN INVESTOR 1/2 A WORLD AWAY IS SOMEHOW BETTER PLACED TO RECOGNIZE A "GOOD" CANADIAN INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY SEE ONE. The welfare of the average Canadian has been callously compromised by elected swine to an extent that Canadians have grown so supine and enfeebled, we are terrified to speak up in our own defence for fear of being labelled 'racist'.

Myth # 16 "Canada is a big country with a big heart"

You can say that again. Five per cent of Canada's land is arable. Does that put things into perspective? Unlike Europeans who were prepared to make something of nothing, most of today's immigrants head straight for Vancouver or Toronto (33% of all immigrants to Canada settle in Toronto) - with predictable ecological repercussions, including the ongoing paving-over of that small percentage of arable land. In August 1997, in the wake of reports that southern Ontario is one of the most polluted regions on the continent, the provincial government announced plans to improve drinking water.

Even so, officials admit that spending $200-million to upgrade overburdened sewage treatment plants will not even come close to covering what's needed. In November 1996, the Globe and Mail's Report on Business magazine noted that Vancouver's urban sprawl was chiefly responsible for pollution in the Fraser Valley, so much so that scientists warn that water in some aquifers may never be drinkable again. Far from addressing the real cause of this collapse, none of our politicians would presume to suggest we look at the effects of unchecked immigration.

Quite the reverse, they are agitating for even more, because, as always in Canada, immigration boils down to an (essentially suspect) economic argument. They have generated - or may generate - money. Therefore, we need them. Therefore, you'd better shut up, or we'll have to assume you're a racist, and we wouldn't want that, would we? Will we ever know (or be permitted to know) the actual costs associated with revising our infrastructure, the demands on the land, the ecological impact, the expense in terms of health, education and welfare?
Unlikely. The very notion that it is somehow 'honourable' to trade citizenship for cash is repugnant. Apart from theoretically calculable costs, there is another question looming larger all the time. The almost incidental possibility that this may just be a self-imposed act of genocide. Generally speaking, nothing concentrates the mind quite so readily as the threat of imminent death, but Canadians have been so thoroughly lied to, mistreated and misled, we no longer dare trust or follow our instincts. Like a nation of Stepford Wives, harsh realities send us hurrying into the kitchen to do a little baking. "How about a little dessert?" 

Myth # 17 "But we have so much"

Well, we did. That's not really accurate any longer, but let's assume it is. Why must we open our nation to needy and/or incredibly wealthy immigrants? The media plucks the compassionate or acquisitive heartstring, depending on the needs of the day. Many of us have met people who really struggled and suffered - our parents and grandparents. The Great Depression exists within living memory.
Some of those broke new land, fought and died in two world wars, and scrimped, saved and scraped to make something for us. How gracious to just hand it off. Where did all this guilt come from? (See our conference on brainwashing and mind control techniques) Do any of us imagine that our European legacy was kinder than any other? Given the privations our ancestors survived, its a certifiable miracle that any of us are here today. We endured plague and persevered in the face of serfdom, indentured servitude and yes, even slavery to reach this point where we feel called upon to just give it all away.

We've been told for 30 years that immigration was exactly what Canada needed. Where are the benefits? Surely there must be something which springs to mind? -- Anything at all? During the early settlement of Canada, it was not unusual for a man or woman to marry two or three times in the course of a lifetime. They did not divorce; their spouses died. During the middle ages, the toll at childbirth was so high that a female's life expectancy was 24 years. On her wedding day, a young girl's mother would give her a piece of fine cloth. Six or seven years later it would likely be her shroud. The death toll among Europeans emigrating to Canada was appalling. The death rate among those who survived the voyage was horrific. Nevertheless, Canadians are crippled by constant reminders that our present level of massive taxation, social cut-backs, downsizing and destruction of our nation are an enormous boon we don't quite deserve.

The benefits we still vaguely remember were earned. Europeans suffered no less than any other group of people on this planet. The difference is that while things are suddenly looking rosy for everyone else, if we persist on this course, Canadians themselves are doomed.  

Myth # 18 "But Canadians are not educated, not having kids, not willing to work"

A nation traditionally looks to its young men for the realization of its hopes, dreams, and prospects for the future. Young men have always embodied a spirit of optimistic hope, poised for great achievements. How odd then to notice, not just the extraordinary numbers, but the youthfulness of the broken and derelict (almost exclusively white) men begging, dossing at hostels and living in parks. Not exactly eligible bachelors. They will never marry, probably never reproduce, and will likely drift into a life of petty crime, alienation, substance abuse and psychological problems.

They have been cut out of their inheritance and while away what should have been their most productive (and reproductive) years digging in dumpsters. They have been betrayed by policy to a criminal extent. They may be homeless, but they're not stupid. How were they to compete with quotas and anti-white/anti-male 'sensitivity'? It's really another case of the chicken or the egg. As we're pushed to the wall, do Caucasian lives fall apart because they're nuts, or do Caucasian lives fall apart because they're Caucasian and Canada is nuts? A recent Statistics Canada study found that "the earnings of young men are not catching up to 1981 levels." In a decent society, there is not just a place for the marginalized, but measures in place to prevent just this kind of social cancer and betrayal.

In Toronto itself, the response to the burgeoning homeless population has been to admit complete and utter defeat. The year after three men froze to death on the streets, the city addressed the problem by offering sleeping bags to the remainder. This year the city is considering opening up public buildings to the homeless. Homeless shelters are currently full of hundreds of Gypsy "refugee" claimants, and Metro Toronto has accordingly signed contracts to create welfare motels in Burlington, Oshawa, St. Catharines, and possibly, Trenton. This may be an attempt to preempt the fractious Ontario Coalition Against Poverty which increasingly resorts to the tactics of civil disobedience and placard waving demonstrations outside the homes of bureaucrats intent on "downsizing" social services.

The province of Ontario alone boasts 140 immigrant and refugee services. Where are the aid organizations and programs to rehabilitate native born Canadians living a pathetic Third World existance in their own country? Presumably, government is too busy with the kind of high-profile good works which really 'get noticed where it counts.' 

Myth # 19 "Why can't we all just hug?"

Why indeed? Maybe, the inescapable fact is that whites and non-whites cannot reach a concensus on our separate or converging histories. Non-whites regard whites as imperialistic exploiters and whites are chafing at this inescapable posture of atonement and restitution. Even plodding, docile Canadians are beginning to get the message: "It doesn't matter what you do, no matter how many payouts, concessions, personal sacrifices, appeasement programs or bribes you pay, it will never be forgotten. You can never make it up. You will never be forgiven."
Just what Canadians have 'done' is only ever spelled-out in the vaguest possible terms, but we all know what long racial resentment means. We can't seem to get logical about this. Sapere aude! "Have the courage to use your own reason!" The genocide aspect of mass immigration means that one despised group loses its will to live, to have children, to compete, to improve itself, or defend itself, when those healthy instincts are relentlessly characterized as 'hatred'.

The other newly-enfranchised, dynamic group has indeed found the promised land! As a whole, this group is above criticism and beyond reproach, suffused with the knowledge that it can simply do no wrong! If you happen to get shot during the commission of a crime, it has nothing to do with criminal activity. It's further evidence of systemic racism! Slowly but surely the existing population discovers that it can say and do nothing right. The only permissable posture is a mendacious one, where Canadians themselves are encouraged to further ethnic and racial stereotypes -- the positive ones.

The further Canadians slide down this greasy slope of damnation, the more we had better hope that this is indeed an official policy of genocide. If it's sheer stupidity, we're really in trouble. 

Myth # 20 "What about the anti-racists?"

Under fundamental democratic guarantees, the anti-racist and special interest lobbies are entitled to believe whatever they please. The problem arises when (like the Taliban religious police) a nation discovers it has multiple 'Departments for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice'. Then, we're flogged with the nearest car antenna, not because the heels of our shoes make too much noise, but because our thoughts do. No doubt, we'd all be happier if ill-conceived Utopian societies ticked along without requiring any of us to ever think again. Thinking rapidly becomes a privilege the tolerance brigade is neither equipped to practise, nor prepared to permit to those who can.

In a cynical age, these persons are unique in their unswerving devotion to government policy, and, as good little sycophants, the government accords anti-racist and special interest lobbies an extraordinary degree of latitude. If some tactics appear extreme, why that's just 'exhuberance' or 'over enthusiasm'. The anti-racist feed-bag might have more credibility, were government funding not such a major component of the anti-racist world view. The fact that the very term, "special interest" lobby implies some "special", self-serving agenda, doesn't seem to concern Canadians, or their government.

Like a mouse with a megaphone, when Canada is instructed to take on the Internet (recently the US Supreme Court called the Internet the greatest tool for freedom in our time), Canadian sheep are told that this brand new way of squandering tax dollars is targeting "hate" (and, as always) that has been obligingly defined for us as 'right wing extremism'. The fact that the noxious Anti-Racist Action Group's own web page was recently endorsing a planet-wide firebombing campaign against (of all things) a chain of non-approved pizza-joints appears to excite little interest.

As Canada unravels, the anti-racist faction is reduced to character assassination and name calling. No doubt they have recognized that their arguments share the twin disadvantages of being both indefensible and redundant. They don't debate. Increasingly, they simply inflict their views on the silent, cant-battered majority. In accordance with the "Love and peace or I'll kill you" philosophy, these latter day disciples of Charles Manson work ceaselessly to criminalize the very act of discussing Canada's inescapable new realities. For the fanatical anti-racist however, no appeal to logic will dislodge the dogma.

While the special interest crowd feathers its own nest and fiddles while Canada burns, the anti-racist's belief in multiculturalism is contemporary evidence of pentecostal rapture. Like their Inquisitorial forebearers, the canon is: "Don't confuse me with the facts." The committed anti-racist finds his ideological predecessor in accounts of charismatic religious movements gone horribly wrong. Seeing the anti-racists joining a long (too long) line of history's self-appointed judges, Inquisitors and Red Guards, as you listen to their venom-spitting diatribes in defence of multicultural 'values', you realize that the only new thing here is the uniform.