In a nation where self-defense is apparently a fireable offense, Mark Hehir, a dedicated London bus driver, has been hailed as a hero by the public but sacked by his employer for daring to chase down a thief who snatched a passenger’s necklace.
This absurdity highlights how the UK’s bureaucratic overlords prioritize corporate protocols over actual justice, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable to rampant crime while the establishment looks the other way.
Hehir’s act of bravery, which even the police deemed “proportionate and necessary,” has sparked petitions, fundraisers, and widespread fury online. But in today’s Britain, where globalist policies have eroded basic freedoms, punishing the good guys seems to be the new normal—echoing a broader decline that sees literal convicted terrorists eyeing political power while heroes like Hehir get the boot.
The incident unfolded on June 25, 2024, aboard the 206 bus route in northwest London. A man boarded, shoved past a female passenger, and ripped a necklace from her neck before fleeing. Hehir, 62, didn’t hesitate—he pursued the thief for about 200 meters, retrieved the jewelry after a scuffle, and returned it to the distressed woman.
But the story didn’t end there. The thief returned to the bus, allegedly to “apologize” according to Metroline, the bus company. Hehir insists the man threw the first punch, prompting him to retaliate in self-defense and restrain the assailant until police arrived. Both were arrested, but authorities quickly cleared Hehir, with a detective noting the force used was justified “in the defence of himself and the female passenger.”
Metroline saw it differently. They fired Hehir for gross misconduct, accusing him of assault, leaving the bus unattended, and bringing the company into disrepute. An employment tribunal upheld the decision, claiming it fell within a “band of reasonable responses” for an employer. Never mind that Hehir had put himself in harm’s way to protect others.
Public backlash has been swift and fierce. A petition demanding his reinstatement has garnered over 5,000 signatures, while thousands of pounds have been raised in support. On X, users decried the ruling as emblematic of “anarcho-tyranny,” where criminals roam free but citizens are penalized for stepping up.
The exact opposite happens in other countries:
Hehir himself called into LBC radio to set the record straight. “I’m the actual bus driver,” he told host Tom Swarbrick, explaining how the thief came back aggressive, not apologetic. “He went to throw a left punch and I met him with a right punch and clearly he went down.”
This case isn’t isolated. It fits a disturbing pattern in the UK, where the establishment’s obsession with “protocols” and political correctness tramples on individual rights. Under Labour’s watch, crime surges unchecked, fueled by open borders and soft-on-crime policies that echo the globalist agenda eroding Western societies.
Tie this to the latest outrage: a convicted terrorist running for office in the UK’s second city Birmingham. Shahid Butt, sentenced to five years in Yemen for plotting bombings against British targets and with a history of violent offenses in the UK, is now campaigning on a pro-Gaza platform in a Muslim-majority ward. He dismisses his conviction as a setup, but facts don’t lie.
Sharon Osbourne, widow of rock legend Ozzy, fired back on social media: “This has nothing to do with racism. I think I’m gonna move to Birmingham and put my name down for the ballot to be on the council. I’m serious.” Supporters cheered her on, with comments like “Please do, Sharon. Gosh, it’s just unbelievable that someone like him can stand. It’s just so demoralising. What is this country coming to?”
This juxtaposition is damning. While a bus driver gets sacked for defending a victim, a man with terrorist ties can vie for public office, backed by pro-Gaza activists. It’s the same system that welcomes extremists like Alaa Abd el-Fattah—who praised Osama bin Laden—while jailing Brits for social media posts criticizing immigration.
Such hypocrisy exposes the rot: a two-tier justice system where mass migration and woke ideologies prioritize outsiders over natives, stifling freedom and safety. Hehir’s sacking isn’t just a corporate blunder—it’s a symptom of a nation surrendering to chaos.
Brits deserve better than a government that handcuffs heroes while handing platforms to radicals.
Leniency for crack dealer because of his nine children, race
[The following story shows that it’s no longer hidden, Canada’s woke anti-White courts give Indians and Blacks automatic discounts in sentencing merely for being Indian or Black. There’s no pretence of equality.]
CHRIS LAMBIE
3 Feb 2026
A Toronto crack cocaine dealer caught back in business three times over the course of 10 months managed to convince a judge that he deserves some leniency because putting him behind bars would mean hardship for his nine children, but not because he’s addicted to the drugs he was caught peddling.
Lloyd Williams pleaded guilty in Ontario’s Court of Justice to three counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking in what Justice André Chamberlain described as the “deeply troubled” neighbourhood surrounding the intersection at Dundas and Sherbourne streets for arrests on March 3, 2024, Oct. 25, 2024, and Jan. 4, 2025.
Lloyd Williams pleaded guilty in Ontario’s Court of Justice to three counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking in what Justice André Chamberlain described as the “deeply troubled” neighbourhood surrounding the intersection at Dundas and Sherbourne streets in Toronto.
Williams, who was released after each arrest — twice on bail and a third time on the promise he wear a GPS tracking device — also pleaded guilty to one count of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, and two counts for under that amount, and failing to comply with a release order on Feb. 15, 2025. [This miscreant and professional criminal and hyper-sexed breeder easily got bail at least three times for dealing in drugs. Canadian political prisoner Les Bory was kept in detention and refused bail merely for expressing his ideas on a podcast. Do evil things, especially if you’re a privileged minority and the system bends over backwards for you. Express “evil” ideas, especially if you’re White and the system hits you harshly.]
The Crown recommended a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence. Williams’ lawyer argued for two years less a day in jail.
“Lloyd Williams has nine children in total: two stepchildren and seven biological,” Chamberlain wrote in a recent decision. “The youngest is just 10 months old.” One is 22 months old, and another is three, said the judge.
Williams also has nine year-old twins, two 10-year olds and a 16-year-old. One of his nine-year-olds is on the autism spectrum, Chamberlain said.
“He states that he provides support as a father to his children and that any lengthy absence would have a significant impact on their health and well-being.”
Williams identifies as both Black and Mi’kmaq. [Two privileged minority statuses. That should be good for a double discount.]Though he couldn’t prove the latter, the judge was “satisfied” Williams “has established a connection to Indigenous ancestry.”
“It is not unusual for Indigenous people who have struggled under the yoke of colonialism in this country and its intergenerational impact to have lost connections to their roots and community,” Chamberlain said.
“Further, markers of the effects of intergenerational trauma, including poverty, familial addiction, struggles with education and mental health, and over-representation within the criminal justice and child welfare system, are often present when Indigenous identity is confirmed.”
Williams “deserves consideration for the reduced moral blameworthiness associated with these challenges,” said the judge.
Williams, 44, was diagnosed with epilepsy at the age of three and continues to have seizures, said the decision.
His lawyer argued “that, in addition to the significant mitigating health and personal circumstances, there are two legal considerations that should mitigate his sentence, bringing it down to an upper reformatory range, namely, the impact and harm a lengthy prison sentence will have on his family, and secondly, that Mr. Williams is addicted to the very drugs he sells, and as an addict-trafficker, he is entitled to significant mitigation,” said the decision, dated Jan. 23.
Chamberlain sentenced Williams, who already had a lengthy criminal history, to four-and-a-half years in prison.
“Mitigation for addict traffickers applies to cases where addicts agree to purchase a small amount of a street drug from their dealer on behalf of someone unknown to the dealer,” said the judge.
“They usually ask for the money up front, get a good deal from their dealer, and then chip off a portion of the drugs they have purchased for their own personal use, as a means of feeding their addiction,” Chamberlain said.
That’s not the case with Williams, said the judge.
“I do not deny that he is addicted to cocaine and likely other substances as well. However, the amounts of drugs he had in his possession on each of the three occasions he was arrested were substantial. In March 2024, it was just over one ounce; in October 2024, over four ounces; and in January 2024, close to two ounces. These amounts make him a mid-level trafficker. The proceeds seized from him over those three events, totalling over $7,800, strongly suggest that this endeavour is for profit.”
The judge did not consider Williams’ addiction a mitigating factor.
“With respect to the position that I should consider the impact of further incarceration on his family, I agree I should consider the facts before me in consideration of any sentence,” Chamberlain said.
The courts have found that “family separation consequences may justify a sentence adjustment — even a significant one — or a departure from the range,” said the judge.
“This is true even for grave offences that require deterrence and denunciation.”
The judge accepted that some of Williams’ “children are infants or toddlers, and that any assistance must benefit the mother who cares for them. However, I note that Lloyd Williams has already jeopardized his ability to be with his children and provide support by his repeated re-offending while on bail and strict house arrest conditions, and finally by his house arrest with a surety.”
The judge also noted that in 2021 and 2024, Williams “was convicted of serious domestic assault charges, including assault by choking. His troubled past relationship, which led to domestic assaults, suggests a diminished value in the support he provides to his children and family.”
The judge said he gave less consideration to Williams’ “claim that his children and their mother will suffer familial harm from his incarceration, given his past and these criminal acts.”
But Chamberlain said Williams “is entitled to mitigation, to a greater or lesser extent, for these and the other mitigating circumstances.
“I have already dismissed the financial impact on his family because the court cannot condone the notion that the loss of proceeds from a drug trafficking enterprise can be considered mitigating,” Chamberlain said.
“But I cannot discount what, at a minimum, is a fit sentence in these circumstances, to a time-served sentence, because of this unfortunate impact on the family.”
Chamberlain recognized Williams’ “decision to forgo his right to a trial on these matters as significantly mitigating, and he receives credit for that,” said the decision.
“Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right.”
Peter Brimelow writes: Tucker Carlson’s reach is amazing. This interview was posted at 2:30 p.m. January19 and at 7 p.m. two people came up to me at a meeting I was attending in downtown Berkeley Springs WV to congratulate me.
I’m posting here the lightly-edited transcript with supporting links provided by my long-time VDARE.com lieutenant James Fulford (subscribe to his substack).
TC: Peter Brimelow, thank you so much for doing this. I thought of you last week when I read this. I don’t know how much you follow X, but there were a couple exchanges that suggested to me that things are changing very, very fast.
This is a tweet less than a week ago from a basically anonymous account and I’m quoting: “If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men, while white men hold a collective majority. Then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when there are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive.”
Elon Musk retweets it and says “100 percent .” And then Elon Musk writes this: “If current trends continue whites will go from being a small minority of the world population today to virtually extinct!”
All of that, in my opinion, is obviously true, and I think most people know it.
But I read that and I thought, here’s the world’s richest man, who owns this platform and a lot of other things, saying this. And Peter Brimelow, whom I know, who’s a thoroughly decent person, has had his life turned upside down and basically been destroyed in some ways, professionally anyway, for saying things that are way more restrained for than that.
So I have to ask you what it feels like to see that.
PB: It feels kind of tingly!
TC: Tingly?!
PB: On the one hand, I’m happy that the debate has moved in that direction and the things that we were talking about 25 years ago on VDARE.com, which was my website, about Birthright Citizenship and so on, are now in the public debate.
On the other hand, we’ve been ruined, and we’re now facing personal ruin of course, because of this attack on us by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
As nobody knows who I am Tucker, I should say that, in spite of my accent, I’ve been here for 55 years and I’m a long-time financial journalist. I worked for Forbes and Fortuneand Barron’s and so on.
And I wrote for National Review a lot. I wrote a cover story on immigration in 1992, “ Time To Rethink Immigration,” that’s sometimes credited with kicking off the modern debate.
And there was a brief civil war within the Conservative Movement, which we lost. Buckley stabbed us in the back and purged the magazine of immigration patriots.
And for the next while, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Pagewas absolutely dominant, they were going on about the need for Amnesty and so on, and there was no way to combat it.
So I set up a website, which I named VDare.com after Virginia Dare, the first English child—not white child as they always say— born in the New World. And over a period of about 25 years, we built it up into quite a force until about two years ago it was destroyed by the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. She just basically subpoenaed us to death. And she has in fact now sued us both personally and through the foundation.
TC: It’s a horrifying story. I’ve kept abreast of it through your wife who texts me and is a wonderful person. And I know that you’re a man of great personal decency and restraint and basically a great citizen and the kind of immigrant we need, and I’m grateful to have.
So the whole thing is shocking and so revealing.
But I’d like, if you don’t mind, to start closer to the beginning of this story, with your experience at National Review. You said you wrote this piece saying Time To Rethink Immigration, which I remember well.
At the time, National Review really was a forum for conservatives to think through what it meant to be conservative. So that was a significant piece at the time. And then you said the then editor William F. Buckley Jr., stabbed you in the back. Can you tell the story?
PB: Sure. I was never on staff at National Review, I was what they called a Senior Editor, and I wrote for it a lot. In 1992, I wrote this very long cover story, it’s about 14,000 words. Bill had retired as the Editor by then, he was just circling around in the background, but the then-editor, John O’Sullivan, went with this story.
And for about five years, we basically directly challenged the official Conservatism Inc. line, which was that immigration is good, more immigration is better, illegal immigration is very good. That’s what the Wall Street Journal said, and is still saying as far as I can tell.
Then in 1997, Bill just abruptly, without any warning at all, fired O’Sullivan and purged the magazine of immigration patriots and basically told them to shut up about immigration, which of course they all eagerly did. He put the Washington Bureau in charge, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru.
And so for two or three years you couldn’t get even the basic facts about immigration out to the public. But then the internet came along and rescued us. And I started VDARE.com.
TC: But why do you think Bill Buckley, who was retired and letting John O’Sullivan run it (another Brit—
PB: Yes, indeed.
TC: —who now is in Budapest) stepped back in to shut down that conversation specifically?
PB: Of course, I’ve had nearly 30 years to think about that. Over time, my answer’s evolved.. At the time I thought he was just jealous. This is actually a thing that you see–I was a financial journalist for a long time—in the corporate world. The original entrepreneurs will come back and fire the managers that they put in to replace themselves.
Also, I think the Congressional Republicans hated us talking about immigration because it upsets the donors, That was influential with Bill. He liked being lionized by the then-Republican majority in the House.
TC: So the Republican leadership, Newt Gingrich, etc., who came in in 1994 to much fanfare, achieved not a lot, they’re the ones who pressured Bill Buckley?
PB: I think that was true, but I also think that the Neoconservatives in New York hated the line. And Bill was very, very leery of offending the Neocons, people like [Commentary Magazine Editor] Norman Podhoretz. And I think they pressured him—I mean, I know they pressured—to get rid of John.
TC: Now, why would they care?
PB: Oh, because the Neoconservatives were a predominantly Jewish faction. They had this sort of Ellis Island view of America. And they were extremely frightened of the white majority in America becoming self-conscious because they felt as Jews that it might leave them out in the cold.
TC: Despite the fact there’s never been any real anti-Semitic movement in the United States—there’s no evidence that white people becoming aware of the fact that they’re white is a threat to Jews?
PB: Right
And I actually think there was a certain jealousy there. If you look at ideas on the Right in recent years, a lot of them originated out of neoconservatism. But here was a non-neoconservative faction—we would have then described ourselves as paleoconservatives—coming up with a whole new issue .
Because the immigration issue was completely dormant from 1968 when Hart-Celler kicked in, until the early 1990s. There was no discussion of it at all. I actually went through National Review’s archives and I found that they hadn’t discussed immigration between the passage of the 1965 Act until the early 1990s. People simply didn’t realize what was going on.
TC: Why?
PB: I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that there was a pause in immigration from 1924 to about 1968. So a whole generation grew up when there was essentially no immigration at all into the U.S. And so it just wasn’t an issue to them.
It’s like academic life. Where there’s a new academic theory. It’s not that it conquers the other theories by having better arguments. It’s just that the people who hold the earlier theories die off, and they’re replaced by younger academics.
And that’s why he was hornswoggled by the IRCA Amnesty in 1986. He genuinely thought that the permanent government would exchange Amnesty for serious enforcement. Whereas in fact they just took the Amnesty and didn’t enforce the law against illegal immigration at all.
TC: But I’m a little bit fixated on William Buckley because he was such a dominant force.
PB: Let me just back up a second. Looking at National Review now, it’s obviously donor-driven. And we weren’t aware of that in the 1990s. I didn’t think about donors and their role in politics really until some years later than that. We thought that people just got up and argued about issues. We just simply didn’t realize how dominant and how important the donors are.
Particularly given that Bill was not as wealthy as he wanted people to think. He depended on National Review financially. It financed his lifestyle to a considerably extent. And I think that—
TC: Wait, he depended on the magazine?
PB: Yeah, yeah—
TC: I think the rest of us thought the magazine depended upon him.
PB: I don’t know how much, but there was certainly quite a lot that was deducted or expensed to the magazine.
In any case, he just didn’t want to disrupt the donor flow. The more I think about it, the more I think that probably was the reason.
TC: Basically a species of fraud. I don’t mean against the tax code. I mean intellectual fraud. You’re making the case that you believe these things because they are true, when in fact you’re taking money to say them.
PB: My experience with Bill is that he actually was not very interested in politics. When you went to those dinners he used to put on at [the Buckley NY pied a terre] 73 East 73rd Street, it was very hard to get him to talk about politics. He was always wandering off in odd directions. And you can see that in the way he lived his life, latterly, in writing these silly novels and so on. He basically didn’t do any serious thinking about politics.
I have a letter from him, actually, saying how wonderful my immigration story was. I forget exactly what he said, but he said it was beautifully organized and beautifully argued and the tone was perfect. That sort of stuff.
He never admitted that he changed his mind on immigration. He just told them to stop covering it. The official line of the magazine was that immigration was questionable. They just didn’t do any journalism on it.
In the case of immigration—immigration was a very unfashionable subject in the early 1990s…
TC: I remember!
PB: As we were talking earlier, I was watching Ben Shapiro on Megyn Kelly. And he was attacking you for some reason or other, I forget what. And then he suddenly says, well, ““Tucker has been a wonderful advocate in the past, particularly on the immigration issue.”
In those days, if you advocated immigration control, you were immediately suspected of being an anti-Semite—even though there’s no direct connection at all.
And he credited John O’Sullivan, the Editor of National Review, for helping change his mind. He didn’t mention me!
TC: Why didn’t he speak to you for the last 10 years of his life?
PB: Well, I think he just decided that I was a suspicious character. And I had deviated on the immigration issue.
I had the habit of calling the National Review, the Goldberg Review, because at that stage, briefly, it was dominated by Jonah Goldberg, who I think is a complete fraud and lightweight, and of course was absolutely boneheaded on the immigration issue.
PB: So I replied and said that. And he didn’t get back to me. He just gradually suspected me more and more of Thought Crime.
And Norman was an extremely passionate man—
TC: [Laughing] Oh, so famously!
PB: He didn’t socialize with opponents.
I miss him. I really liked him. I was sorry that….
TC: There was a lot about him that was appealing. He was a man of great energy, and I admired him in a lot of ways, kind of repulsive in others, but certainly he was not standing still. He was constantly in motion and I admire that.
This post has two messages:Somali Culture Drives Somali Behavior in America & General Corruption in Minnesota. What is not understood is that the Somali have evolved to survive in a brutal environment totally unlike E Asians and White Europeans have adapted to.Their extremely aggressive behavior based on the concept of survival of self and you clan is expected. The rules of cooperation and honesty in dealing with any others is an unknown concept to them.They, with their very low average IQ [70], does not see dishonesty as inherently wrong or harmful since they do not focus on what is best for their society in the long run.What is considered criminal behavior in our culture is considered a normal survival tool for them in the native environment to which they became adapted over what might be many millenia.This is not unique to Somalians but it the norm for all of Africa.
In order to understand why Somali illegal immigration is so poisonous, the lunatic left-wing fringe has to understand Somali culture.
The Somali people are very tribal. They’re organized into clans, each with thousands of families. Loyalty to the clan is everything. Plundering rival clans is honored. And America is viewed as a rival clan by all the Somali clans.
Likewise, the women and children of rival clans are seen as loot that can be plundered. So, they rape the women of rival clans and kidnap their children…if they can get away with it.
Also, marriages between cousins are seen as a good thing because that keeps all the property in the family. As a result, inbreeding produces a country with an average IQ of 68.
This means that a lot of the people from that country are simply mentally retarded thugs, by American standards. Piracy off the Somali coast is just one reflection of their values. Massive fraud by Somalis in Minnesota, currently estimated at $9 billion—and the number just keeps growing—is another.
They are unable assimilate and adopt European values, just like other illegal immigrants who wave foreign flags, and are making entire neighborhoods in American cities into slightly more prosperous versions of the Third World countries they came from.
Our values properly view marriage between cousins as a bad thing. And we urge all Americans to work together and live together, as one gigantic clan. This is reflected by a popular left-wing bumper sticker that says, “Coexist.”
It’s funny how left-wing actions speak so much louder than left-wing words. Far too many of these illegal immigrants simply can’t coexist. They see us as a rival clan, ripe for plundering.
Interview one of them in a candid moment. If your Uber driver is a Somali immigrant, make some small talk, then ask him why he came to America. If your small talk has made him lower his guard, he’ll tell you. It isn’t for the freedom. It’s for the money.
President Trump is revoking the Somalis’ Temporary Protected Status. So now all the refugees who came here, seeking asylum, are becoming illegal immigrants – just as if they’d overstayed their student visas.
And since they are unable to assimilate, they need to be sent back to an environment where their evolved behavior style is best suited.
“STAY TUNED!” – Trump Says Fraud in Minneapolis May Exceed $100 BILLION – “Sadly, Whatever Numbers We Find, California, and Other Democrat Run States, WILL BE WORSE”
President Donald Trump on Saturday signaled that investigations into Minnesota fraud may find that more than $100 billion in taxpayer funds have been stolen, but even higher numbers of fraud will soon be discovered in California and “other Democrat run States.”
It is actually possible that the total amount of money stolen, over the years, by Corrupt Politicians and Fraudsters, from Minnesota, will exceed $100 Billion Dollars,” Trump said amid the ongoing Somali fraud scandal and investigations into Minnesota officials.
Currently, Somali fraudster Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is under investigation by House Republicans, probing how she went from low-IQ Somali to multi-millionaire while serving in Congress. Omar, whose community has stolen billions of dollars from the American people, has reportedly gone from being worth $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million now.
“In any event, whether it is or isn’t, the Theft, Incompetence, and Fraud is MASSIVE! Sadly, whatever numbers we find, California, and other Democrat run States, WILL BE WORSE,” Trump continued in his statement.
“Stay tuned!”
Full statement below:
It is actually possible that the total amount of money stolen, over the years, by Corrupt Politicians and Fraudsters, from Minnesota, will exceed $100 Billion Dollars. In any event, whether it is or isn’t, the Theft, Incompetence, and Fraud is MASSIVE! Sadly, whatever numbers we find, California, and other Democrat run States, WILL BE WORSE. Stay tuned! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier, President Trump went scorched earth on Minnesota officials and the massive fraud following the fatal CBP-involved shooting of a leftwing terrorist in Minneapolis on Saturday morning.
“Why does Ilhan Omar have $34 Million Dollars in her account? And where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen from the once Great State of Minnesota? We are there because of massive Monetary Fraud, with Billions of Dollars missing, and Illegal Criminals that were allowed to infiltrate the State through the Democrats’ Open Border Policy. We want the money back, and we want it back, NOW. Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong!” Trump said in a statement about the shooting, where he also slammed Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
Trump later said in a follow-up post, “Among Other Things, This is a ‘Cover Up’ For The Billions of Dollars That Have Been Stolen From The Once Great State (But Soon To Be Great Again) Of Minnesota! – President Donald Trump
For years, we’ve been fed a dangerous lie: “diversity is our strength.”
Mark Carney, like Trudeau before him, stated in a speech this week in Quebec City: “In a time of rising populism and ethnic nationalism, Canada can show how diversity is a strength, not a weakness.”
To that, we at the People’s Party of Canada say clearly: DIVERSITY IS NOT A STRENGTH. ON THE CONTRARY, IT’S DIVIDING US.
Yes, dividing us into little tribes with less and less in common. It encourages immigrants to live apart, not join our society.
Why promote diversity for its own sake? If everything is “Canadian,” what does being Canadian even mean?
We should emphasize our shared culture, values, and what we’ve built together—not what separates us.
Let’s be honest: A society is not made strong by people who reject basic Western values like freedom, and equality.
It is not made strong by those who refuse to integrate and choose to live apart in ideological or cultural ghettos.
As we are seeing, this path leads to distrust, social conflict, and violence. More diversity is destroying what made Canada great.
We must reverse this trend before the situation gets worse.
The People’s Party of Canada is the only party with the courage to say this aloud and to fight for a moratorium on immigration, the deportation of all illegals and the prioritization of the interests and social harmony of Canada.
We are building a movement to take back our country. But to spread our message and win, we need your support
After millennia of evolution, the extinction of the White race appears to be irreversible and getting close:Scenario
1] The higher IQ IQ races [ that are white or whiteish – European whites and E Asian yellow / whites ] want a better life so they have fewer children with each successive generation and eventually go extinct.
[A news story just came out that the Chinese birth replacement rate is in free fall. The Chinese birth rate is less than one child per woman which is way below Europeans. Japan has been in almost free fall for decades.]The road to extinction happens slowly as there are not enough births to replace those that die and therefore not enough workers to support the disabled and retired. In time there are too few to withstand an invasion and their country is taken over and enslaved by lower IQ non-whites that are not concerned with quality of life and which want whites extinct.
Scenario 2] Whites import the very violent low IQ third world people with the goal of them bringing up the numbers of workers that will pay into their tax base and keep the public services available..Instead they come in and most of them end up living off the welfare system until it totally collapses and as per their violent nature, they riot and take what they want and then destroy the rest.In time they take control of the gov and strip the higher IQ minority of all their rights.The only question is which method of white suicide is the slowest and allows them to have the most peaceful existence until they cease to exist.The sad thing is that the white leaders are for some reason so consumed with self hate that they are going out of their way to make this happen as fast as possible.
Biden bragged about making the states a non-white country. Of course we know it was just an Obozo puppet and was too far gone to have a thought of his own. The results have been catastrophic because the vast majority are on welfare and have caused the crime rate, including violent crime rate to skyrocket here as in all the other white countries that followed the same strategy.
