Whose country is this anyway?



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:

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.