Where have all the flowers gone?
|
||||||||||
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Andrew Coyne: Journalist Without Outsideness
by
 |
| Coyne: wants a Canada that is a “We” without a “Them” |
No ideological dissent is allowed in Canada on the supposed blessings of diversification and that’s why the individuals working for Century Initiative (CI) include conservatives, liberals, socialists, environmentalists, feminists, Muslims, and corporate heads. Each person serving CI is the full package, for high profits and high salaries, for massive population growth and ecological beauty, for feminism and Islamization, all in one scoop. The corporate consultant Dominic Barton, the main guy at CI, has just launched ‘All In’, a ‘HeForShe’ approach to gender equality as Director of McKinsey & Co. Doug Saunders, super feminist beta male, relishes the image of a Canada and a Europe packed with hyper-patriarchal Muslim and African males working for corporations.
CI ought to be congratulated for meeting what Robert Putnam called “the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies…to create a new, broader sense of ‘we’“. Everyone at CI is a “we” without outsideness. That is the goal of diversity: to eliminate oppositions, differences, boundaries, contrasts, by including everyone inside each European-created country, every race, culture, religion. This “we” will bring an utopia of prosperity and togetherness without violence.
The diversification program is so entrenched in every Western school, political party, and business that its advocates appear to embody in themselves a polite and truly inclusive “we” in their approach to politics and interpersonal relations. Those who disturb this “we” are excluded from politics for fear that they may promote an outside that is not supposed to exist. The most radical experiment ever imposed on a people, without democratic consent, must appear to be moderate and reasonable.
Fake Journalism
Andrew Coyne, a sometime conservative, libertarian, feminist, and a fan of Justin the small potato, has endorsed the 450,000 thousand increase in immigration numbers. I can’t remember anything Coyne has ever written or said. His views have never disturbed anyone. He does not like left and right labels. He is a “we” writing and working for every side, Globe and Mail, National Post, Maclean’s, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Saturday Night, and CBC. Century Initiative has a most pleasant article by Coyne, “Increased Immigration is Good for Canada — and the Reasons aren’t only Economic.”
Imagining he is a man of letters, Coyne cites Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Stephen Leacock to back up his argument. Relying on quotes rather than books is common among lawyers. Advocates of diversification also like to cite seemingly supportive statements from great men to enhance their credibility. Coyne says that Laurier and Leacock expressed optimistic thoughts about the opportunities high levels of immigration would offer Canada for great nation status. There is a problem, though: neither one of these men would have endorsed the current suicidal program of diversity.
 |
| Man of the Past: Wilfrid Laurier wanted a Canada for “Us” without “Them” |
Here’s the passage he cites from Laurier:
For the next 75 years, nay the next 100 years,Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come…. There are men living in this audience … who before they die, if they live to old age, will see this country with at least 60 millions of people.
It is “not a coincidence,” says Coyne, that Laurier said this at a time of high immigration. He wittingly forgets to tell us that the years Laurier was Prime Minister, 1896 to 1911, were years when Canada was viewed by the entire establishment as an exclusive Anglo-European nation, when the Chinese head tax was increased (in 1900 and in 1903), when Laurier took a number of measures to prohibit the entrance of blacks into Canada, and when liberal Laurier insisted that Indians were “unsuited to live in the climatic conditions of British Columbia and were a serious disturbance to industrial and economic conditions.”
 |
| Man of the Past: Leacock believed that only his “Us” Anglos could build a Great Canada |
What about Stephen Leacock? Coyne offers another little quote in which Leacock, apparently, envisioned a Canada with open borders “that will make us 10 millions tomorrow, 20 millions in our children’s time and a 100 millions ere the century runs out.” Again, he wittingly suppresses Leacock’s well known view that only Anglo Saxons were racially fit to build Canada. He did not mind a little dose of southern and eastern Europeans:
There are two standard reactions against these “racist” views. One is to denounce them and then go about downgrading, or even removing, Laurier and Leacock “from all kinds of honor rolls“. The other response, the preferred one in the polite circles Coyne inhabits, is to pretend they never said this by ignoring and rewriting their biographies so as to make them fit into a progressive pattern according to which these otherwise progressive men were “unfortunately” voicing the accepted views of their time, views they would have readily rejected if they had been born in our “we” times
Not just in Canada, but across the West, the history of Europeans is being falsely rewritten to create the impression that their nations were always immigrant nations, which are only now living up to their ideals of inclusiveness, by pursuing a program of diversification in which there is no outsideness. Coyne chastises the populism of Trump and of European immigration restrictionists for pursuing an “Us versus Them” politics that is incapable of making subtle distinctions between, say, ordinary Muslims and extremists. This inclusive journalist with a self-identified “disciplined mind” dislikes in particular the “contempt” populists have shown for “the whole notion of expertise”.
Fake Arguments versus Japanese Arguments
The reason ordinary Canadians mistrust your expertise, Coyne, is they are seeing through a program that is radically altering the ethnic character of Canada premised on the exclusion of Eurocanadians, and only Eurocanadians, from affirming their identity and history. They are realizing, through their astute reading of newly released scientific research, that ethnic groups are naturally inclined to pursue their collective interests, and that only Europeans tend to be more individualistic. They are seeing through your misuse of Laurier and Leacock to promote a program that these two great Canadians (without a disciplined mind?) never endorse but indeed rejected in the strongest “Us versus Them” terms. They are realizing, moreover, that the very pretenders of an inclusive politics have created a totalitarian order that excludes and denounces the majority of working and middle class whites who are feeling like strangers in their own homelands.
Finally, they are realizing that the “reasons” Coyne offers (in his CI article) on the supposed benefits of massive immigration are bogus and devoid of expertise. He says that a population of 100 would make Canada second to the United States among the G-7, since these countries are projected to have lower levels than 100 million. How can one assume so nonchalantly that the other G-7 nations, which currently have far larger populations than Canada, will simply decline demographically when their inclusive journalists and leaders are likewise telling their populations the same absurd argument that they need to keep accepting hordes of migrants to survive economically?
The same difficulties hold for Coyne’s other argument about the supposedly more “talented and ambitious people” that Canada can attract by increasing immigration from 300,000 to 450,000: the other G-7 nations, except “Us versus Them” Japan, are trying to entice talent from the Third World, which, as we have noted before, is a “brain drain” policy premised on sucking out of poorer nations their most talented individuals.
Questions for Coyne: Why are inclusive men so afraid to encourage their domestic populations to have more babies and to produce talented individuals at home the way the Japanese are openly advocating rather than lazily trying to steal talent from elsewhere and recklessly carrying a cultural Marxist experiment? Why don’t we think in the same disciplined way as the Japanese leadership which has openly stated that an aging population is “not a burden, but an incentive to boost productivity through innovations like robots, wireless sensors and artificial intelligence” without immigration?
This is why ordinary Canadians don’t trust our current elites and wannabe experts: because they don’t reason properly through the issues, but are instead deceptively trying to make Canadians feel that the only solution to an aging population is massive increases in immigration and constant harassment of Canadians about their alleged racism if they don’t agree with this preposterous idea.
Civil War in the Supermarket
by
Today I mourn the death of a delusion. The delusion that by putting down my verbal weapons and offering an olive branch, I could co-exist peacefully with the social justice warriors in my midst.
It was a dream hatched in 2013, when, exhausted from six years rancour and confrontation, I thought I should give peace a chance. So I tried a new approach. Rather than engage them with words, I engaged them with smiles. And then they began to smile back, however contrived those smiles may have initially been. I built up relationships one person and at a time, until their numbers reached a critical mass and suddenly the word was out: I wasn’t so bad after all. In other words, the strategy seemed to be paying off. I was making progress. Then it happened.
Without warning or expectation, I found myself in a no-holds-barred shouting match with an evangelical Leftist in the village supermarket, locally famous for his boorish intrusions and unwanted observations. On this occasion, I attempted to quickly brush by him in my urgent journey to the bathroom at the back, but I failed to dodge one of his gratuitous anti-Trump remarks. This time it was about his desire to shoot the President. That was the spark. The lighted match was my quick retort that I would rather shoot him, the pious preacher of progressive depravity. An explosion followed. I left the store shaken, contemplating the potential fall-out as I walked to the car. News of a verbal fracas can travel twice around this island community before my counter-narrative would have a chance to put its boots on. That one incident could undo three years of fence-mending. It’s back to square one folks. So ends my experiment in inter-faith dialogue.
In the days that followed, I tried to make sense of the incident, but it didn’t take me long. I came to realize that it was just one skirmish among millions across a broad front stretching from Europe to North America and Down Under. Battles that are being fought not only in parliaments and on the streets, but within families and between friends. It is a culture war that became an ‘uncivil’ civil war with ominous indications of becoming something much worse.
Welcome to the Last Stand of Western Civilization, everywhere on the brink of breakdown and chaos. Our nations are the venue for the eradication, displacement or absorption of resident Europeans and Euro-North Americans. It is hard to imagine that any vestige of our Western heritage can survive a human tsunami of the frightening proportions that some predict. Think not of millions or even tens of millions, but rather hundreds of millions of migrants and refugees who may descend upon us like locusts to strip our cupboard bare, crushing our already straining welfare state under the weight of their insatiable demands. All with the aid of the rootless cosmopolitan elites and the politicians and media hacks who do their bidding. Think Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail’s nightmare. We are only seeing the first instalment of an ongoing migration of epic scale.
But the demographic shake-up is not simply a matter of mass immigration, but of migration within nations themselves, and within cities as well. What Bill Bishop called “The Big Sort.” What is interesting is that unlike former times, in America at least, more and more internal migrants are motivated to move not for economic considerations, but to seek out communities of people much like themselves. In fact, almost one in three Americans (100 million) have moved from one place to another in the last decade alone. Not only by region, or from Blue State to Red State, or from city to city, but from one neighbourhood in a city to another, all to congregate with like-minded people in homogeneous pockets that are becoming more homogeneous over time. In other words, a nation that progressive politicians proudly proclaim to be diverse is, upon closer inspection, a federation of nations which consist of ideologically inbred clusters of self-segregated believers. To paraphrase Robert Putnam, Americans, among others, prefer to “bowl” not only with people who resemble them, but people who agree with them too. Mobility is not promoting diversity, but quite the reverse. So much for the melting pot and the myth of assimilation.
The question is, why?
Simply put, we are a species of tribes. Even Leftists who spout the cant of “inclusivity” and deracinated “values” are tribalists. Like flies drawn to a lamp in a darkened room, they gravitate to beacons of ‘enlightenment’ where they can cocoon with other moral paragons feeding out of the same trough of progressive news sources. Most amusing are White-flight Californian liberals who flee diversity only to preach it once they are safely established in white-bread towns of the western northern border states or small Canadian havens like mine. They are the first to virtue-signal their strident opposition to racism, which of course, is exclusively a White affliction (choke).
All is good though. Good fences make good neighbours and all of that. The problem is, as pockets of uniformity become more uniform, their inhabitants become more insulated and more fixed in their beliefs. Clustering becomes self-reinforcing. Confirmation bias reigns supreme. These pockets become an echo chamber of narrow opinions, or to use another metaphor, progressives form their views in a hothouse environment, hypersensitive to the cold draft of conflicting opinion. Not yet able to make the whole country a safe-zone by muzzling politically incorrect speech and punishing thought criminals, they have attempted to make their immediate environment safe by not inter-mingling with ‘deplorables.’ That is what made Thanksgiving and Christmas this year so challenging. Suddenly they were sitting face-to-face with people whose opinions shocked and violated their sensibilities to the core. Horror of horrors, the formerly stifled normal views of normal people became normalized at the dinner table. It was not as if ordinary working people had removed their masks. It was that progressives had never bothered to look at their faces — or listen to their words. Until 2016, patriotism was the love that dare not speak its name, especially on college campuses and NPR.
This in-state polarization reflects the polarization in Congress, and vice versa. Over the last two decades, the number of “landslide” states has been increasing dramatically (from 40 to 50%), as has been the vote margins between the incumbent party and the opposition. That’s fine if you are a supporter of the winning side, but between 20 to 40% of Americans are trapped behind enemy lines, and in social situations they can find themselves out-gunned.
That is exactly my predicament too, in this far-left west coast Canadian community of Bernie Sanders clones. As Colin Woodard said in his depiction of America as a balkanized country of 11 nations, “It isn’t that residents of one or another nation all think the same, but they are all embedded within a cultural framework of deep-seated preferences and attitudes — each of which a person may or like or hate, but has to deal with nonetheless.” Obviously, in my case, I am having a tough time “dealing” with it. But I am not alone.
A Monmouth University poll found that 7% of Americans lost or terminated a friendship over the Presidential race, while 40%, according to an ABC poll, confessed that the 2016 race triggered tension with friends and relatives. Some 41% of the more than one in five spouses who voted for a different candidate than their partner reported that they had arguments, often heated, over politics. It is a clear that the rage that voters felt toward candidates was also directed on those who supported them. This vitriol and the tension have impacted family dynamics in an important way.
A veritable industry of professional mediators, psychologists, clergymen and self-help gurus have come forth to offer guidelines and prescriptions to bridge the ideological divide. Some call for civic disengagement. Others for call for establishing ground rules, avoiding political subjects, accentuating the positive, respectful listening, and avoiding the temptation to impose one’s political beliefs on friends. This seems to be a difficult discipline for the self-righteous and self-proclaimed champions of inclusion, equality, peace and justice. Trying to change value-based beliefs is a futile enterprise because our core values and beliefs actually take up physical residence in our brains. It is part of who we are. But that has never discouraged zealots.
This conflict has all the hallmarks of a religious war, which by nature is resistant to compromise or mediation. The call for “unity” seems highly unrealistic when one side — like my nemesis in the supermarket — regards the other as ignorant, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and an enemy of the planet, while the other side regards them as vile traitors, enemies of national sovereignty and Western Civilization itself. As Dennis Prager asked:
How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism — there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt — supposed to unite with “educators” who instruct elementary school teachers to cease calling their students “boys” and “girls” because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America has fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its Black minority that the greatest problems afflicting Black Americans are caused by White racism, “White privilege” and “systemic racism”? With those who think that the nuclear family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term “Islamic terrorist” is an expression of religious bigotry?
And I would add, how am I supposed to unite with those who want to turn my country into a Third World shit hole? Or who want to break the back of the working class through the relentless flow of cheap labour from failed states?
How am I supposed to unite with so-called ‘environmentalists’ who refuse to acknowledge the manifestly negative ecological impact of rampant immigration-driven population growth? Or unite with people who want to destroy both our natural and cultural heritage by reducing our two founding peoples into mere fragments of a multicultural dog’s breakfast?
And above all, how I am supposed to unite with people who want to curb free speech in the name of ethnic and religious harmony? Free speech which was dearly paid for in blood? How am I supposed to unite with ethnic quislings and the morally debased? I will repeat what “Zapollo” said.
If the Left can’t let go of identity politics, then let me be clear. What comes next is on THEM. A lot of us did not want to live in a world of tribes and we never asked for it…(but) if the Left wants tribes, I am siding with my own tribe.
After this latest row I have had with the enemy, I have concluded that peaceful interaction between globalists and patriots is impossible. I shall realign my social network accordingly.
And if the Left wants a shooting war, let me assure you, it will not be the Left who finishes it. The Supermarket Crusader should be careful about what he wishes for.
Blame Britain’s Traitorous Political Class for Bringing these Monsters to England
All three of the latest Muslim terrorists were immigrants to this country and therefore had the right to passports other than British and consequently could in principle have been deported. RH
Telegraph
Youseff Zaghba named as third London terrorist – Everything we know about him
Youseff Zaghba, has been named as the third London terrorist
- Martin Evans, crime correspondent
- Nick Squires
6 JUNE 2017 • 2:45PM
The third London terrorist has been named as Moroccan born Youseff Zaghba, Scotland Yard has confirmed.
The 22-year-old, who was born in the city of Fez in January 1995, had a Moroccan father and an Italian mother.
He was reportedly arrested at Bologna airport in March 2016 trying to get to Syria and was also understood to be on an Italian anti-terror watch list.
Youseff, had recently moved to east London and was working in a restaurant. 
Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane were the other two terrorists
According to reports in the Italian press, Zaghba, grew up with his parents in Morocco until they split when he was a child.
He then regularly stayed with his father but regularly visited his Italian mother at her home just outside the northern city of Bologna.
He was there last year and after telling his mother he was going to Rome, bought a one way ticket to Istanbul.
Youseff Zaghba was arrested last year at Bologna airport trying to get to Syria
Carrying only a rucksack, he was stopped by Italian security services at the airport and was arrested on suspicion of trying to make his way to Syria.
Italian police seized his mobile phone and found a large amount of religious content, but nothing that necessarily suggested an interest in jihad.
But it has also emerged that he had been placed on an Italian watchlist for potential terrorists after his behaviour raised concern with the intelligence services.
A spokesman for Scotland Yard said Zaghba was not known to the police or MI5, unlike Butt, who had been the subject of a lengthy investigation because of his radical views and behaviour.
Telegraph
Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane named as London Bridge terrorists – everything we know about them
Khuram Butt, left, and Rachid Redouane
6 JUNE 2017 • 2:20AM
The ringleader of the London Bridge terror attack who was photographed on the ground with canisters strapped to his body was today named by police as Khuram Butt.
Butt, 27, of east London, is believed to have led the trio of terrorists who ploughed into pedestrians using a hired van, before stabbing revellers in pubs and bars on Saturdaynight. Police continue to investigate the atrocity that left seven dead and 48 injured.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said Butt was known to police and MI5 but said there had been no evidence of “attack planning” and he had been deemed as a ‘low priority.’
A second man, 30-year-old Moroccan-Libyan Rachid Redouane, was named by police as one of the other two attackers. He was unknown to police. Redouane, who also used the name Rachid Elkhdar, claimed to be six years younger than his true age and lived in a tower block not far from Butt.
The third man, who has not yet been named, is not a UK citizen.
All three were shot dead by armed police in the Borough Market area of south London, eight minutes after launching the attack.
Khuram Butt
The ringleader of the London Bridge massacre never bothered to hide his violent, extremist views.
Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door.
Abu Zeitoun, born as Khuram Butt, after being shot and killed by police at Borough London CREDIT: GABRIELE SCIOTTO
Butt and other extremists linked to the banned terror group al-Muhajiroun were even detained by police for an hour over the stunt in 2015 but were released without being arrested.
In the film, screened in January 2016, Butt appears on camera, intervening when police attempt to search one of the group’s leaders. Butt raises his voice, angrily asking them: “Why are you touching him?” In another clip, he requested a compass in order that he could pray towards Mecca.
As a consequence, MI5 and counter-terrorism officers began an investigation into Butt, which remained ongoing even as the 27-year-old launched his terror attack on London Bridge. Butt, who was wearing an Arsenal shirt and a fake bomb strapped to his chest, was shot dead by police on Saturdaynight.
Butt’s known links to al-Muhajiroun will raise serious concern that he wasn’t stopped prior to the atrocity. The group, which was banned shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005, and its successor organisations have been connected to a quarter of all Islamist terror offences and plots.
Butt reportedly arrived in the UK from Pakistan as a child refugee. His father is said to have worked at a fruit and vegetable stall in east London, but died in 2003, when Butt would have been a teenager.
One witness claimed to have seen Butt in the streets around Borough Market a week before Saturday’s attack, while reports on Monday night suggested the three men had done a “dry run” in the minutes before they targetted pedestrians on London Bridge. Their van was caught on CCTV travelling across the bridge nine minutes before the attack, reportedly allowing the terrorists to check the amount of traffic, the number of potential victims and whether there were any police around.
It emerged on Monday that Butt had “verbally assaulted” an anti-terrorism campaigner at a rally in parliament led by the notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary the day after the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in May 2013.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, which promotes Islamic tolerance, said: “Khuram Butt called me a ‘Murtad’, which means traitor in Arabic, and accused me of being a government stooge when I confronted Anjem Choudary about him supporting terrorism.
Abu Zeitoun CREDIT: CHANNEL 4
“The police turned up and Anjem, Khuram Butt and two other men were escorted away towards Millbank and I stayed in College Green. I am not surprised that Khuram Butt carried out the terrorist attack and there are serious questions for the authorities.”
Butt, who lived in a ground floor flat in east London, had also twice been reported to anti-terror police by friends and neighbours concerned about his extremist views.
A former friend claimed Butt, who is understood to have worked for a fried chicken chain and for London Underground as a trainee customer services assistant for six months until October, had been radicalised after watching videos on YouTube. The friend said he contacted the authorities after becoming concerned over Butt’s obvious extremist views.
A neighbour Erica Gasparri said she had also contacted police after Butt tried to ‘brainwash’ her children in the local park and convert them to Islam.
Butt, who was married with two children, had also been ejected from a nearby mosque after a confrontation with an imam.
Butt was a football supporter, a kickboxer and a regular at a local gym – the Ummah Fitness Centre – which caters predominantly for Muslims.
Channel 4 said yesterday that police had contacted them about the documentary and requested the broadcaster not to comment.
Khuram Butt from Channel 4 documentray The Jihadis Next Door
In The Jihadis Next Door, Butt appeared alongside Mohammad Shamsuddin, who appears to have become the de facto leader of the remnants of al-Muhajiroun following the jailing of its founder Omar Bakri Muhammad, who is languishing in a Lebanese prison, and Choudary, who is serving a five-and-half-year sentence for terror offences in the UK.
An authoritative analysis of all Islamist terrorism offences and attacks in the UK between 1998 and 2015 shows 25 per cent have been committed by perpetrators with links to al-Muhajiroun and its various incarnations.
Those plots include the murder of Lee Rigby, committed by Muslim converts Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who had been radicalised by Choudary as early as 2007.
Another senior figure in the group was Siddhartha Dhar, who skipped bail while under investigation over his association with Choudary, and fled to Syria to fight with Islamic State. Dhar replaced Mohammed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, as the terror group’s notorious executioner. Dhar also appeared in the Channel 4 film until he fled to Syria.
The documentary concentrated on Shamsuddin and another preacher known as Abu Haleema. Choudary, Dhar, Shamsuddin and Abu Haleema were arrested together in September 2014.
Shamsuddin, 40, admitted in the documentary he had been radicalised by Bakri, a Syrian born extremist who founded al-Muhajiroun, while at university.
In the documentary, Abu Haleema and Shamsuddin are filmed laughing as they watch Islamic State execution videos. Haleema was shown calling for homosexuals to be thrown from tall buildings, alcohol to be outlawed and adulterers to be stoned to death on Haven Green near Ealing, in West London.
Mohammed Shamsuddin
The documentary, filmed over two years by director Jamie Roberts, also showed Shamsuddin calling for David Cameron to be arrested under Sharia law.
“The Sharia is coming to the UK – this black flag you see here one day is gonna be on 10 Downing Street,” he said.
He later told the filmmakers: “Our message is deadly, we are calling for world domination, and for Sharia for the UK.”
Shamsuddin said that his views were “moulded” by Bakri – dubbed the Tottenham Ayatollah – who is now in jail in Lebanon for supporting terrorism.
Abu Haleema
Haleema and Shamsuddin were also arrested in August 2015 during anti-terror raids, but no further action was taken.
Rachid Redouane
A Moroccan chef who took part in the London terrorist attack is believed to have visited his estranged wife hours before the attack so he could say goodbye to their daughter.
Rachid Redouane was seen visiting his wife, Charisse, only three hours before he and two accomplices killed seven by ramming crowds with a van and then launching a knife rampage, neighours said.
One neighbour told the Telegraph he had even stood next to the terrorist in a lift as he went up to his wife’s apartment.
The man, who wished to remain anonymous, and who lives in the same apartment block as Redouane’s wife, said: “I was standing right next to him in that lift”.
“I’ve seen him four or five times, he’s come here often to see his daughter. He didn’t say a word, we just stood there silently until we got to his floor.
“It was only the next day when my mate told me about the attacks that I realised it was him. It’s scary you know. I don’t like the fact that my kids were living in the same block as this guy. He was there at 7pm.”
Large numbers of police then arrived at the block of flats on Sunday after the attack.
Another couple living in the same block, just a few hundred yards from where another attacker, Khuram Butt lived, also told the Telegraph that Redouane had visited on Saturdayevening.
The couple, who were aged in their 20s and wished to remain anonymous, said that the man had then left the apartment block and had signed out at reception.
The man said: “The whole block is talking about it, about he came to say goodbye to her and his daughter before they left.
“The police came yesterday morning, there were dozens of them. We know he signed out at reception because guests visiting have to.
“He was here just before it all happened.”
Redouane and his wife are reported to have split up over their differing views on religion, after they clashed over the best way to raise their child.
Redouane is listed on his daughter’s birth certificate as Moroccan and gives his profession as pastry chef. However police said he also claimed to be Libyan and has in the past used the name Rachid Elkhdar, claiming to be six years younger.
Redouane was not known to the security services, according to a police statement.
An Irish ID card was found on his body after he was shot dead by armed police in Borough Market, Southwark. The plastic credit card-sized document is believed to have been issued by the Garda National Immigration Bureau and is given to people from outside the EU.
The card has a person’s certificate of registration which states they have permission to stay in Ireland. It must be carried at all times.
Redouane married his 38-year-old wife in Ireland in 2012 and they later moved to the UK. His wife never converted to her husband’s faith, and they had recently split up, the Guardian reported. A friend said they had clashed over how to raise their daughter.
On social media Redouane’s wife, whose maiden name was O’Leary, had recently described herself as single and at one point complained that her daughter’s father was not seeing his child.
Redouane had been living in the Rathmines area in the south of Dublin while in Ireland, according to Irish police sources, and had spent time there as recently as three months ago.
Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach, said while on a trade mission to Chicago that the dead terrorist is not believed to have been under surveillance by Irish police.
He said: “There are a small number of people in Ireland who are being monitored and observed in respect of radicalisation and matters relevant to that.
“In this case these facts are being checked, but my understanding is that this individual was not a member of that small group.”
The Irish police are reportedly watching up to 12 foreign nationals, mainly of north African origin, over suspected links to extremist groups.
Garda are understood to be piecing together Redouane’s movements in the country over recent years and whether he was radicalised in the country.
As details of Redouane’s Irish links were disclosed, a Muslim imam and scholar based in the country said Irish authories had repeatedly ignored his warnings about local activists from the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (Isil) group and al-Qaida activists.
Shaykh Dr Umar al-Qadri said neither the police nor the justice department contacted him after he warned there was an Islamist extremist presence in Dublin.
The third attacker
The third attacker remains unnamed more than two days after he joined in a murderous rampage with Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism policeman, said that inquiries are “ongoing to confirm the identity” of Butt and Redouane’s accomplice.
However counter-terrorism sources said they were almost certain of his identity and an announcement of his name was being delayed because he was not a British national.
The disclosure that he is not British will raise questions about how recently he moved to the UK and under what circumstances he had entered the country.
Witnesses during to the knife rampage through Borough market said that two of the attackers appeared to be of Mediterranean appearance. That will raise the possibility that the third man was another North African, like Redouane.
Police on Monday continued to raid and search addresses across east London and it was not clear if any of these were linked to the third attacker.
Telegraph
Analysis: Five questions MI5 must answer over the recent terror attacks
A woman places flowers on London Bridge after the latest terror atrocity to hit BritainCREDIT: MATT DUNHAM/AP
6 JUNE 2017 • 10:44PM
After three terror attacks in three months, Britain’s intelligence agencies are facing questions about the way they scrutinise terror suspects.
Salman Abedi, who carried out the suicide attack in Manchester, travelled between Libya and Britain, and was known to intelligence agencies in Germany and France. Khuram Butt, the leader of the London Bridge plot, even appeared on a documentary The Jihadis Next Door. And today it turned out that one of his co-conspirators, Moroccan-
So what are the questions the Prime Minister will be asking Andrew Parker, Director General of MI5?
1 .Why was Youssef Zaghba allowed into the UK?
Youssef Zaghba, the third London Bridge attacker CREDIT: REUTERS
He may have been an Italian citizen, but “freedom of movement” in EU treaties by no means oblige EU countries to allow in European citizens if they are deemed a threat to security. Think of the Dutch firebrand Geert Wilders, who has been banned from entering Britain. So why was Zaghba allowed in? Were MI5 watching him, in the hope that he would lead them to British terrorists? Or did they simply dismiss the idea that he was a serious threat? Which leads on to question 2:
2. How on earth was Khuram Butt allowed access to the Tube network last year?
Khuram Butt worked for London Underground CREDIT: AFP
In one of the most remarkable revelations so far, it seems that for much of 2016, Khuram Butt, the London Bridge ringleader, worked for the London Underground, and had access to tunnels – even under Parliament. This just a year after he appeared on the film The Jihadis Next Door. How was he allowed access to such a sensitive piece of British infrastructure?
Some clues to the answer might be gleaned from the Intelligrence Select Committee report into the Woolwich killing of Lee Rigby in 2013. This was highly unusual in that it provided extensive evidence of the working methods of British intelligence services, including the categorisation of so-called SOIs, or “Subjects of Interest”.
Investigations, the report noted, are classed into four levels of risk – P1-P4.
Priority 1 – Attack Planning (P1a and P1b)
Investigations into individuals or networks where there is credible and actionable intelligence of significant (P1a) or smaller scale (P1b) attack planning
Priority 2 – high and medium risk activity (P2H and P2M)
Investigation into individuals or networks where there is for example: • a serious intent to travel overseas to join Jihad (P2H). • large scale fundraising (P2H). • significant terrorist training (P2H). • supply of false documents (P2M). • smaller scale fundraising (P2M).
P3 – Investigations into uncorroborated intelligence / International Counter Terrorism (ICT) prisoner on release
Investigations or networks that require further action to determine whether they pose a threat.
P4 – Risk of re-engagement
Those who have previously posed a serious threat to national security who we judge are not currently involved in such activities but there is a risk of re-engagement.
A thorough process by which these prioritisations are analysed each week, with input from police. The Home Secretary is informed of this each week via letter.
It is clear that Butt should have been a Priority 1 SOI. Presumably he was not. But it is interesting to note that all of Priority 2 cases still sound very dangerous, though they merit fewer resources. And it is also clear to note that SOIs who have fallen off the watch list or, in the words of the report “have previously posed a serious threat to national security who we judge are not currently involved in such activities” are placed in the lowest priority. This could account for several suspects in the three recent attacks.
According to the ISC report, in 2013 an estimate of the number of “live” investigations, by category, was as follows:
– a handful of P1a (large scale attack planning) and P1b (small scale attack planning);
– around a hundred P2H (high risk activity);
– over a hundred P2M (medium risk activity);
– fewer than a hundred P3 (uncorroborated);
– fewer than 50 P4 (dormant and disrupted).
3. Why were such serious threats not being monitored?
This is obviously a potential categorisation problem. Clearly P1 cases have serious resources devoted to them. But Andrew Parker might well respond by pointing once again to MI5’s immense workload – contrasting its number of officers, numbering in the few thousand, with the 23,000 extremists believed to be in the country. The total number of SOIs that MI5 can surveil around the clock is believed to be just a few dozen – 50 or 60.
Prof Peter Neumann, an expert on terrorism from King’s College London, has suggested that 20 to 25 people are required to keep one suspect under 24/7 surveillance. The security agencies – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – are thought to have roughly 12,000 staff in total. They are looking to recruit an additional 1,900 intelligence officers and analysts by 2020.
Resources also must be contrasted with the number of new leads received. For example this week Britain’s top counter-terrorism officer Mark Rowley said Butt was known to the security services, but there was no evidence of “attack planning” by him. The report into the Rigby attack noted that:
“Intelligence Leads and Traces are tested for links to existing investigations and forwarded to the appropriate team where those links exist. Alternatively, where they do not relate to existing investigations, Leads are tested for credibility and a new investigation is launched if appropriate. During the week prior to the Woolwich attacks MI5 received [ hundreds of] International Counter Terrorism (ICT) leads.”
This led to serious criticism in the ISC report that low priority investigations at MI5 take too long:
“The majority of the investigations into Adebowale [one of Rigby’s killers] were low priority, based on the intelligence about him known at the time. As a result they suffered very significant delays (longer even than the average). The length of time taken in such investigations is unacceptable: MI5 must be able to progress low priority casework even when running high priority investigations.”
The eight months it took for MI5 to start investigating Adebowale (three months to identify him followed by five months of inaction) is unacceptable … There is a problem with the time taken to investigate low priority cases and MI5 must seek to address this by introducing deadlines.”
Lastly, the report suggested that “no effective programmes for managing large numbers of people who may pose risk to national security”:
“Clearly, MI5 must focus primarily on the highest priority individuals. However, that leaves a large group of individuals who may also pose a risk to national security, but who are not under active investigation. Previous attempts by MI5 and the police to manage this group have failed: we have not yet seen any evidence that the new programme, established in late 2013, will be any better. This is an important issue and the Committee will continue to take a close interest in it in order to ensure that the necessary improvements are made.”
Have the criticisms been remedied between 2013 and today? All seem relevant to the London Bridge case.
4. Co-operation? Are MI5, MI6, the police and GCHQ co-operating properly?
Every intelligence chief will seek to deflect blame or at least distract attention from any attribution of blame. But it is clear that they must work together to be effective. In the London Bridge plot, MI6 was tipped off about Youssef Zaghba by the Italians. Presumably this tip was passed on to MI5 as Zaghba arrived in the UK. To what extent did MI5 then ask GCHQ for intelligence on Zaghba’s communications? 
MI5’s headquarters in central London CREDIT: EPA
After the Lee Rigby murder, the ISC report noted serious failings in the cooperation between GCHQ and MI5, which “would have led to different investigative decisions”. It also noted that “there is insufficient co-ordination between MI5 and police investigations. MI5 and the police must improve both the process and the level of communication.” But have they?
MI6, also known as SIS, was also criticised at the time. “SIS’s role in countering ‘jihadi tourism’ does not appear to have extended to any practical action being taken,” the report noted. “SIS must ensure that their procedures are improved so that this does not happen again. This is particularly important given the current challenges faced by the Agencies in countering ‘jihadi tourism’ in Syria and Iraq.”
That was in 2013. In 2016, certainly, Zaghba was arrested by the Italians, who stopped him flying to Syria, but not charged. But then he was able to enter Britain without hindrance. Why? When one of Lee Rigby’s killers was arrested on “jihadi tourism” there was a four-month delay in opening an investigation.
“Where an individual is believed to have been seeking to join a terrorist organisation overseas, there should be no such delays,” the Rigby report insisted. “This must be addressed as a matter of urgency.” Has it?
5. Did government, or the Home Office, turn down requests for warrants?
Given that Theresa May was Home Secretary for so long, this question could be very sensitive indeed. She might rephrase it: Is the legal process for authorising surveillance too onerous? In 2013, it seemed the answer was categorically – and surprisingly – “Yes”. Has that, or will that, now change?
“There were several occasions during our Inquiry when we were surprised that MI5 did not at those specific times place one or other of the men under surveillance or increase their coverage of them. However, on each occasion MI5 has said that they did not have sufficient cause to obtain authorisation for such actions: in order to take intrusive action they must meet the rigorous threshold set down in law, and be able to demonstrate that the action is both necessary and proportionate, in order to gain approval from the Home Secretary. These points demonstrate how high the threshold for intrusive action is in practice.”
Telegraph
London attacker let into UK despite saying he was ‘going to be a terrorist’ as questions grow over lapses
Questions are growing over why the London attackers, Khuram Butt, Youseff Zaghba, and Rachid Redouane were not stopped
- Ben Farmer
- Nick Squires, fagnano
- Robert Mendick, chief reporter
7 JUNE 2017 • 7:16AM
One of the London Bridge terror attackers was allowed to enter the UK despite Britain’s intelligence agencies being told he wanted “to be a terrorist”.
Youseff Zaghba was placed on an international ‘watchlist’ of suspected foreign fighters after the Italian police caught him trying to travel to Syria last year.
The Italians claim both MI6 and MI5 were informed of the fears surrounding Zaghba, who told police he was “going to be a terrorist” when he was stopped at Bologna airport.
Youssef Zaghba was on a terror watchlist
But the 22-year-old Italian national was still able to enter the UK and went on to join Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane in Saturday’s van and knife rampage in central London.
As the row threatened to overshadow the final days of the general election, Theresa May was facing questions over the actions of the intelligence agencies and the Home Office at a time when she was Home Secretary.
During a campaign rally in Slough she announced plans to sidestep human rights laws to toughen controls on terror suspects by tightening limits on their internet use and increasing curfews
London Bridge terrorists: What we know so far
FORGET TERRORIST ATTACKS—OUR FIRST PRIORITY IS TO PREVENT AN ANTI-MUSLIM BACKLASH
Look, I know that you are upset. I know that you are outraged and saddened by the images of carnage that you see on your TV screen. But before we allow any sense of horror or grief about the victims of a recent Islamic terrorist attack to set in, we must swiftly foreclose any hint of an anti-Muslim backlash , That must be our first priority. We can deal with the perpetrators later.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Chief of the local Police be the first to get out of the starting gate and warn those who would dare link Islamic terrorism with Islam that they will charged with a hate crime. We must deflect attention from the violent incident.
To serve this objective, it would be convenient to have someone write ‘Islamophobic’ graffiti on a mosque or sidewalk on the heels of the Islamic terrorist attack so that that the MSM can make that their headline story.
Of course, I don’t mean to minimize the terrible impact that these messages have on Muslims. Why just the other day, Islamophobic graffiti lept up from a sidewalk and brutally assaulted an innocent, law abiding, peaceful, patriotic Muslim as she walked toward a corner shop. If you think that seeing your loved one shredded by a bomb, mowed down by a speeding van or knifed to death is traumatic, just imagine what that poor Muslim on the sidewalk is going through. She no longer feels ‘safe’.
If we want to put an end to these horrific attacks, what we must do is to emphasize that the perpetrators are not “real” Muslims, that their ideology is a perverse distortion of the Religion of Peace, and that those who would say otherwise are being ‘divisive’. Then trot out a half dozen Muslim clerics—with Christian clergy flanking them—to reinforce this point. If we do all of those things, Islam-inspired terrorism will go away. After all, its worked up till now, hasn’t it? Our love-not-hate/inter-faith dialogue approach has got violent jihadism on the run.
It all goes to prove that in order to defeat an enemy, you must establish who the enemy actually is. The mainstream media has done an excellent job of doing exactly that. Good work guys! As you proved in your predictions about the outcome of the Brexit and the November U.S. Presidential election, you have a firm grasp of reality. Huffington Post, the NYT, the Globe and Mail, CNN, NPR, the BBC and the CBC in particular must be cited for their reliably accurate portrayals and incisive analysis. If ever you want to know about the net costs of mass immigration or the main concepts of Islamic doctrine, you need only to refer to these oracles of wisdom.
It is a failing of human nature that we often demonize The Other or the stranger in our midst simply because we don’t know them. In a crowded world where we must live side by side with those who think or behave differently than we do, this can be a fatal flaw. Somehow we must find a way to transcend our differences, reach out and build bridges, not walls. Our peace and security depends on it. I know, it is herculean task that is easier said than done. The impediments seem insuperable.
Fortunately , however, progressives have provided us with the tools we need to accomplish this critically urgent task. They know what it takes to make multicultural, multi-ethnic societies work, as they manifestly have the world over. They know that if we do just four things, we can make it happen:
The first is to project our liberal values and good intentions on those without them. We know that once they enter our gates, they will immediately check their tribal mindset at the door, embrace and accept our core values and the European culture that gave birth to them. Such will be their gratitude with our hospitality and tolerance that they—and especially their alienated sons—will search for ways to pay us back. Examples abound.
The second is to criminalize speech that would call our multicultural strategy into question. Anyone who would sow doubt about the virtue of ethnic and religious diversity must be threatened with legal action, bankrupted by law fare, shamed, marginalized, or incarcerated. Dissidents and the odious views they promulgate must be quarantined. Ours must remain a free and open society. Inclusion must be our watchword.
The third is to accept our enemy’s definition of who they are and what their ideology is all about. Wilful ignorance about the precepts of their faith or belief system is helpful in this regard.
The last but not the least of our tools is mass immigration. If we import another million or two million Muslims, then we can show the bigots out there that most Muslims are ordinary people just like themselves. If there are enough Muslims, it will be impossible to avoid rubbing shoulders with them. We won’t need to venture into a Muslim enclave because every neighbourhood will become part of the Caliphate. If you want to know what such a utopia looks like, take a trip to the Middle East. Or put on a skirt and walk into a Muslim no-go zone without a head scarf.
Muslims are people too. Moderate, patriotic peaceful people going about their daily business as you do yours. The only difference is that according to Pew polls, a lot of them happen to favour key features of sharia law, like killing adulterers, apostates and gays. Otherwise, they’re cool.
Peace and harmony is there for the taking. All we need is love and understanding, and a little obfuscation.
Tim Murray
June 4, 2017
The Three Stooges Talk Nonsense While Trump Provides Leadership in Fighting Terrorism
He’s A Fingerless, Ghanaian Homosexual Too Stupid to Come out of the Cold & Now He’s OURS!
Seidu Mohammed is the poster boy for our failed immigration system which does little to protect Canada from illegals or permanent leeches on the Canadian taxpayer.
He’s just 24 and you’re going to be paying for him for a long, long time. He’s a homosexual form Ghana. He lost all his fingers having headed out in a blizzard as he snuck across the border from the U.S. Christmas Eve. This past Friday and immigration hearing gave taxpayers a belated lump of coal in their stockings as they granted this illegal “refugee” status.
CBC (May 18, 2017) gives you the good news: “A Ghanaian asylum seeker who lost his fingers to frostbite while crossing into Manitoba from the U.S. on Christmas Eve has won his case to stay.
“I’m so happy. I don’t know what to say. Now I’m home, I’m finally home now,” said Seidu Mohammed, who learned Wednesday night that the Immigration and Refugee Board had accepted his claim. … he was in tears, he was in tears, he really was. He is overjoyed, ecstatic. I mean it’s a life-altering moment for this young man.”
Mohammed, 24, said he faces an uphill battle, learning to cope without any fingers, but he is determined to make a life in Winnipeg.
“This is the city I want to stay in. There are a lot of good people here,” he said.[And we sure are lucky to have you!]
“Mohammed fled Ghana for the United States in 2015 fearing for that his sexual orientation would put his life in danger.He says he was outed as a bisexual man during soccer training camp in Brazil in 2014 after the team manager found him with a same-sex partner. “It’s illegal to be gay in Ghana. It’s a crime,” said [his lawyer Bashir] Khan, noting the refugee board “acknowledged him as a person in need of protection.”
Shortly after he arrived in Manitoba, Mohammed told CBC that his father, a strict Muslim, disowned him. Mohammed worried he would be persecuted — or worse — if he was forced to return to Ghana, and he didn’t believe the government or police would protect him. …
Fearing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mohammed made the decision — like hundreds of others in the past year — to sneak into Canada and apply for refugee status. Since January, 2,000 people have made that same journey, with the majority crossing the border in Manitoba or Quebec. While planning his crossing, Mohammed met another man, Razak Iyal, 35, who had the same idea.
The two of them took a bus to Grand Forks, N.D., then flagged a cab and spent $400 for a ride to a spot near the U.S.-Canada border on Dec. 24. From there, they made the long walk into Emerson, Man. It was Christmas Eve, and the underdressed men shambled through frozen fields in a temperature that hovered around the –18 C mark, but with a wind chill that made it feel more like –30.”
Mohammed was safe in the U.S. Under our law, he was obligated to apply for “Refugee” status under the First Safe Country Act. His application failed because he wasn’t properly prepared. So, he went asylum shopping. Under our dysfunctional system, had he come to a border crossing, he’d eventually have been turned back because he had come from a safe country and was obliged to apply there. However, because he cross through a field, our idiot law pretends we don’t know where he came from. [I mean could he have fallen out of an airplane, could he have used a giant pogo stick on the U.S.-Mexican border and vaulted into Canada. The law is an ass and pretends if doesn’t know the sneaks have come from a safe country — the U.S. So, they are allowed to make a “refugee” claim.
Bottom line: Being a sneak and an illegal works and the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook for Mohammed for ever!
-
Century Initiative: Make Canada a “Global Nation” through a Massive Increase in Immigration
The “Goal” is 100 Million by 2100 Check this out: in 2016 Century Initiative (CI) was started by a group of corporate managers (with the assistance of academics, journalists, Muslims and feminists) solely for the purpose of bringing about a 50-per-cent hike in immigration to Canada (from the current annual level of 300,000 to 450,000) by 2021. CI is calling for a “permanent” increase until the end of this century with the “goal” of “transforming” Canada into a “global nation” of 100 million inhabitants “unified by diversity and prosperity.”
We must not underestimate the power of CI in pushing through this goal, or at least persuading Canadians that their country must be totally diversified. The founders of CI are members of the global business elite, and their associates are well established in the media, in the three main political parties, and in the conformist academic world, which should not be surprising since CI is merely pushing for the intensification of the already established ideology of immigrant multiculturalism.
In a series of upcoming articles, I will be dissecting and exposing the many unfounded, poorly researched, and deceptive arguments employed by CI to manipulate “ordinary” Canadians into believing that their nation was never good enough and will decline irreversibly if the doors are not totally opened to third world mass immigration.
First, a few words about two of the main characters behind this plan to destroy Canada’s European heritage.
Dominic Barton
One key founder of CI is Dominic Barton, director of McKinsey & Co, considered “the most prestigious” worldwide management consulting firm. This is a firm dedicated to the nullification of national identities in order to create deracinated generic humans with no identity other than the “lifestyles” they purchase in global stores. McKinsey’s alumni have been appointed as CEOs or high-level executives at Google, American Express, IBM, Westinghouse Electric, Sears, AT&T, PepsiCo, and Enron. Be it noted that Rajat Gupta, the first non-American-born partner to be elected as the firm’s managing director, was convicted in 2010 of insider trading.Barton is best described as a globalist, not a Canadian. He is currently based in London and has spent most of his business life outside Canada as McKinsey’s Chairman in Asia from 2004-09, based in Shanghai, and in Korea from 2000-04. Among his titles, he is currently the chair of the Seoul International Business Advisory Council, a trustee of the Brookings Institution, and an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
We should not confuse globalism with globalization. Globalists, as I wrote in a recent article, purposely encourages this confusion, but globalization is factual accountabout the accelerating interactions of nations since the discovery of the New World and the creation of international markets, shipping and railway communications networks. Globalism, in contrast, is an ideology that advocates open borders, mass immigration, and the liquidation of (Western) national identities.
Barton wittingly promotes this confusion from the opening salvo of his justification for permanently high levels of immigration. He says that increasing Canada’s population to 100 million via immigration is the only way “to counteract challenges associated with our aging population.”
If Canada’s population continues to grow at its current rate — 1.2 percent per year — we will see a significant decline in our productivity growth as we have less people participating in the workforce. We will become a nation of about 53 million people by 2100, outside the top 50 countries in the world by population. As our population relative to the rest of the world shrinks, so will our economic prospects and influence in global affairs.
He admits that “the challenges that Japan faces from its aging population are even more dramatic than Canada’s.”
Coupled with Japan’s low birthrate, based on current trends, the size of their workforce will be nearly cut in half in the next fifty years.
Which should lead any reasonable person to ask: Why then is Japan’s leadership looking for solutions that do not entail any change in the country’s zero immigration policy? Answer: Japan’s leaders are not interested in destroying the nation of Japan. They are for globalization, not for globalism.
Barton, however, would have Canadians believe that the Japanese leadership is implementing policies akin to what the CI is calling for. He writes about how “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched an advisory panel on the issue in 2015 and set a key policy goal of maintaining Japan’s population at 100 million people.” Then he says:
There are two things that Canada can learn from Japan and other advanced countries faced with similar demographic challenges; first, building the necessary supportsystems that make it easier for families to have children (e.g., child care, tax policy) and second, maximizing workforce participation (e.g., by investing in training programs).
Actually, what Barton should be telling Canadians is that we can learn from the Japanese leadership that there is no reason to increase immigration in the degree to which we institute policies encouraging Canadian women to have more children. The Japanese leadership is not calling for immigration, it is calling for a boost in the birthrate ofJapanese women, “by pledging more public support for households raising children and increasing welfare facilities to eliminate instances of family members quitting jobs to care for elderly relatives.”
Why the double standard, Barton, why do you identify Canadians who are against massive immigration as “xenophobic and racist” while praising the Japanese leadership for their pro-Japanese ethnic-oriented plans?
It gets worse than this. CI does call for support for family leave policy, a national daycare system; however, there is nothing in their program about encouraging Canadian women to have more children; rather, the wording is that this is “especially important for new arrivals who may not have the same access to childcare options” as Euro Canadian women. In other words, the aim is to create a national daycare system for immigrants, as a way of encouraging immigrants to have children in Canada.
Goldy Hyder
Goldy Hyder (left) meeting with Ahmed D. Hussen MPA to convene Century Initiative Another founder of Century Initiative is Goldy Hyder, President and CEO of Hill + Knowlton Strategies. Hyder is a Muslim linked with the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada. He was the Keynote Speaker at the 20th Annual Parliament Hill Eid-ul-Adha Celebrations in 2014. The basic message of his speech was that the “true Muslim faith is based on the values of peace, equality, respect and understanding — but that is not the message being shared with Canadians.” The “Muslim community are not doing enough to paint a positive picture” of Islam to combat the “distorted image we see on television.”
Hyder never explains why it is “distorted” to inform Canadians that Muslim immigrants have been responsible for almost all the terrorist attacks in Europe. Here is a list of Islamic terror attacks in “non-Muslim” Europe since 9/11. He does not tell us either what’s so distorting about informing Europeans that Muslim migrants have been responsible for a rape epidemic across Europe. The fact is that, contrary to Hyder’s claim, the Canadian media has been suppressing data about the thousands of rapes and hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by Muslim migrants in the last few years across Europe.
Let it be known that the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada has interesting ties to big donations from the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Hyder, in a rather odd, but very revealing, article published in The Globe and Mail on January 16, 2017, complained against the use of the word “elitist” on the grounds that this word inculcates Canadians
to be inherently distrustful of experts, to presume that a person is less ethical because they have a higher or lower net worth, or to believe that those with global outlooks aren’t patriotic.
The globalist elitist Hyder also complained that this term “risks creating an ‘us versus them'” psychology that discourages ordinary Canadian, get this, from being “inclusive” of global millionaires!
This is the state of pathological thinking that now permeates the left-corporate alliance. Ordinary, lower income, Canadians who suffer from the importation of cheap labour and the degradation of their heritage are now the perpetrators of exclusionary labels.
Speaking of mistrust, in upcoming articles about the Century Initiative, I will make it amply clear why ordinary Canadians should mistrust elitists like Hyder. I will demonstrate that almost all the economic, demographic, historical, and ethical claims made by CI cannot be trusted one bit, but should be seen for what they are: a globalist effort to transform Canada into a mere shopping mall without any national identity that is uniquely Canadian, but simply a place like all the other European nations where the same mass immigration globalist agenda is being pushed without democratic debate but enforced with extremely deceptive, “us versus them” labels about “racists” and “xenophobes” against ordinary indigenous Europeans.
Should We Take a Chance on Syrians — One of the World’s Major Terrorist Hotbeds?
One of the Immigration Lobby’s Biggest Lies: Immigrants Create Jobs
