Swedish Prime Minister (1946-69) Tage Erlander in 1967 declared in response to the racial riots in the slums of Los Angeles that “we Swedes live in such an infinitely happier situation. The population in our country is homogeneous, not only in terms of race, but also in many other aspects ”.
In 1975 the country introduced multiculturalism with Social Democratic Prime Minister Olof Palme rejecting assimilation in favor of policies that encouraged minorities to maintain separate identities. It was part of the famous “freedom” of the Swedes, free to do and undo everything, from the family to the nation.https://c09e4318fe1dcc6997518fc438949904.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Now, like a drunkard in the morning, Sweden wakes up to the sad reality, but doesn’t know how to get rid of the hangover. Ghettos, crime, segregation and ethnic-religious conflicts are now the hallmarks of the “quiet laboratory of the world”. The inevitable happened. The system is collapsing and reality can no longer be ignored. Large areas of the country are more similar to the Middle East and North Africa than to Sweden.
And the main ruling party and the largest political party, the Social Democrats, also made a breakthrough in just a year. As champions of open borders, international solidarity, multiculturalism and free immigration, the Social Democrats are now the party of restrictive immigration.
Sweden is only the portal to Europe’s future.
In an interview with the newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish Minister for Immigration Anders Ygeman announces that Sweden has a big problem: too many areas where most of the inhabitants come from outside the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden , Iceland, Finland and Norway). “I think it’s bad to have areas where the majority have a non-Nordic origin,” Ygeman said.
Ygeman suggested a “50 percent” limit when pressed by reporters if he believed Sweden should have a similar target to that of Denmark, where the Social Democrats have set a ceiling of 30 percent of the population of non-Western origin by 2030.https://c09e4318fe1dcc6997518fc438949904.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Denmark had announced that it will try to limit the number of “non-Western” residents in neighborhoods with a high migration density. The Minister of the Interior, Kaare Dybvad Bek, indicates the share of 30 percent, because too many non-Western foreigners in an area “increase the risk of the birth of parallel religious and cultural societies”. According to Statistics Denmark, 11 percent of Denmark’s 5.8 million inhabitants are of foreign origin, of which 58 percent come from a country considered “non-Western”. 30 suburbs mostly inhabited by Muslim foreigners. Neighborhoods like Mjolnerparken, nicknamed “little Damascus”.
Swedish Green Party spokesperson Märta Stenevi is shocked by the proposal of her old government mate Ygeman: “I think it’s incredible that a Social Democrat minister suggests that we should conduct an ethnic-based policy.” It wasn’t just any Viktor Orbán, right? “Swedish immigrant integration policy has failed, leading to parallel societies and gang violence,”
Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said in May after dozens of police were injured and cities were thrown into chaos over Islamic riots. “Segregation has been allowed to go so far that we have parallel companies in Sweden.”
In Sweden there are hundreds of suburbs and neighborhoods where Swedes are a minority. Alby, in Stockholm, is known as the “little Baghdad” (title contended with Sodertalje) for the percentage of Iraqis. There are suburbs where only one in ten inhabitants is Swedish. Or Rinkeby, the district with the highest immigration rate in Stockholm, known as “little Mogadishu” (Somalis are the majority). In Rinkeby 95 percent of the people come from abroad. It is a kaleidoscope of 60 ethnic groups and 40 languages: Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Turkey, Bosnia …
To read the international press, these looked like golden Ikea ghettos: public libraries, green gardens with playgrounds, clean streets, good schools and public transport. Areas where the word “multicultural” meant “exchange”, “workshops of coexistence” and “global villages”. The Swedish police have a list of 60 “vulnerable areas”, which translated means abandoned by the state.
Uppdrag Granskning, a television investigative journalism program, has just visited the Tjärna Ängar district in the town of Borlänge, also known as the “little Mogadiscio “, where more than half of the residents come from Somalia. Attacks and violence against journalists, SVT Nyheter reported. Ukrainian women at the Galaxen refugee center in Olofström have just been told not to dress to “provoke men from other cultures “, reports the daily Nyheter Idag.
From Abba to Allah – and one day we will read about cities in Sweden known as “little Sweden”.
Nancy Pelosi, The Chinese Dilemma and its Solution
If you have been following the news at all for the last couple of weeks – a practice I would advise against, as “the news” consists almost entirely of brain-rotting disinformation peddled by the corrupt corporations and even more corrupt government bureaucracies that control all but a fraction of a percentage of the main media organs – you are likely aware that the travel itinerary of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker in the lower house of the congress of the American republic has generated a bit of a brouhaha. Included in that itinerary was a trip to the Republic of China on the island of Formosa. When the People’s Republic of China on the Asian mainland learned about this they raised a stink about it and began issuing all sorts of warnings, threats and ultimatums, telling the American republic that they would be “playing with fire” if the trip were not cancelled, and even talking about shooting her plane down. By doing so they accomplished something that few others have been able to do, especially in the last decade or so. They brought the Democrats and the Republicans in the American republic together and united them on an issue. Both took the position that the Chinese government must not be allowed to bully American officials and tell them where they can and cannot go. I had rather expected her to pull a Captain Airhead or a Joe Whatshisname and come down with a sudden case of the bat flu but on the evening of Tuesday 2 September she arrived in Taipei.
While I have nothing but loathing for Communism and Communists, I admit that I can see the point of the brutal Chinese despots on this matter. I don’t care for the fact that for most of the year Nancy Pelosi is across the 49th Parallel from the Dominion of Canada and would prefer her to be much further away on the other side of the world. There is little I can do about that, alas, but it makes it easier to understand what must have been going through Xi Jingping’s head when he learned that soon there would be nothing but a 110 mile strait separating him from this creature. I assume that apart from the whole “nobody tells us what to do” attitude of the Americans, the reason for the bipartisan consensus of indignation towards the People’s Republic’s threats was that Democrats and Republicans alike did not want her trip and thus their time free of her to be cut short.
Since China and not Pelosi is my subject here, the only thing I will say about the person who looks and acts like she is auditioning for the role of a female or transgender Skeletor in a cheesy woke remake of the Masters of the Universe in which the protagonist He-Man would likely be dressed in his twin-sister She-Ra’s outfit and calling himself She-Man and who managed through trading that many see as just a tad suspicious to amass a fortune of about $120 million dollars in her career of almost forty years as a politician is to note that back in May she was excommunicated by the Church of Rome’s Archbishop in San Francisco over her using her elected position to support a special privilege for her own sex, the gruesome and unconscionable special privilege of having the legal right to murder unborn children. I mention this only because the Archbishop in question, Salvatore Cordileone, deserves commendation for his courage, rare in this day and age, by contrast with the clownishness of the current Pretender to St. Peter’s throne in Rome who ignored the excommunication and administered the Sacrament to her anyway, if it can still be called a Sacrament coming from the hand of a man better suited to be a contortionist than a prelate judging from the performance he recently put on here in Canada, in which he bent over backwards to stick his head, pointy mitre and all, up his own rear end, by issuing a groveling “apology” for his Church’s past humanitarian and missionary educational outreach endeavours.
This whole controversy has undoubtedly been confusing to those who are only slightly familiar – or not at all – with the situation in East Asia. This is not like some bizarre scenario where Mexico objects to the point of threatening military action to an official from France visiting the United States. It is not even like Russia objecting to Western politicians visiting the Ukraine at some point prior to the current war, although this is a little closer. The island of Formosa, although it has been claimed politically, in whole or in part, by various empires over the last millennium, has ethnically and culturally long been part of China. Ceded to the Japanese Empire late in the nineteenth century, after Japan’s defeat in World War II it returned to Chinese governance, specifically that of the Republic of China then based on the mainland. At the same time, however, the Chinese Civil War, which had been officially on hold for World War II, restarted and in 1949 the Chinese Communists led by Mao Tse-Tung had driven the Nationalist government led by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek out of the mainland. The Nationalists, and the Republic of China which they governed, retreated to Formosa which has been governed by the Republic ever since. The Communists have remained in control of mainland China, governing their People’s Republic from Beijing. Now, obviously there has been a de facto political separation of Formosa from mainland China ever since 1949. However, unlike the situation with the Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed and she declared her independence from Russia in 1991, the independence has not been formally recognized by both sides. Indeed, it has not been recognized by either. The People’s Republic of China claims Formosa to belong to China and itself to be the sole legitimate government of all of China. The Republic of China agrees with the People’s Republic of China that the island and the mainland are one country. She, however, although this rhetoric has been toned down in recent decades, has insisted since 1949 that she, rather than the Communists in Beijing, is the legitimate government of all of China.
Therefore, when the People’s Republic of China says that she does not want Nancy Pelosi going to Formosa, her objection is to the American politician going to what she regards neither as another country nor a territory in conventional secession whose independence she refuses to recognize, but to part of the country over which she claims to be the sole legitimate government. Leaving aside for the moment the question of the truth or falsity of her claim to legitimacy, her objection to Pelosi’s visit would be simply hot air if she was the only party that regarded Formosa as part of China. The matter is complicated greatly by the fact that the government of the Republic of China on Formosa agrees with her and so does the third party to this dispute.
That third party is the United States. The United States has, ever since she decided in the Nixon administration to take advantage of the split in the Communist world between Moscow and Beijing by opening up diplomatic and trade relations to Red China, taken a “One China” policy in which she agrees with Beijing and Taipei where they agree – that there is only one China and Formosa is part of it – while remaining ambiguous on the rather stickier point on which they disagree. Due to her taking this position and opening up relations with Red China, the United States dishonourably withdrew her previous recognition of the Republic of China, but she tried to make it up to the latter by promising to supply them with enough arms to deter the Communists from attacking. Thus, her “One China” policy contradicts both that of the People’s Republic and that of the Republic of China in that her commitment is, above all else, to preserving the status quo.
This is understandable, perhaps, in that the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for creating that status quo in the first place.
The Communist takeover of mainland China began with the overthrow of the Chinese monarchy and the establishment of the Republic of China in 1911. This led to several years of turmoil as attempts were made to fill the power vacuum left by the abolition of the legitimate government. The second president of the Republic attempted unsuccessfully to seize the monarchical power for himself, then the country was torn apart as military factions headed by warlords took control of the various regions of the large empire. Then Sun Yat-Sen, the leader of the 1911 Revolution who had been briefly the first president of the Republic, formed the Kuomintang, the Chinese Nationalist Party, which fought against the warlords to re-unite the country. These efforts ultimately succeeded in 1926, by which time the Kuomintang was headed by Sun Yat-Sen’s successor, Chiang Kai-Shek. The success war short-lived however. Sun Yat-Sen had made a foolish and naïve decision to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party, backed by the Bolsheviks in Russia. As was the case with Kerensky in Russia in 1917, this provided the Communists with an opening they were able to exploit to seize power for themselves. As a consequence his successor was soon embroiled in a Civil War against Mao’s Communists.
The Chinese Civil War began about a little over a decade before the Second World War started and had that latter conflict not broken out it might have ended differently. World War II forced the Nationalists and the Communists in China to put their conflict on hold, for the most part, to fight against their common enemy in the Japanese Empire. This, however, placed China in alliance with the other countries fighting against Japan and the Axis. More specifically it placed her in alliance with the Soviet Union and the United States. Due to this alliance, when the hostilities in the Chinese Civil War resumed after World War II, the balance had already shifted to the Communists.
That an alliance with the Soviet Union, the sponsors of Mao’s Communists, would tip the scales in the Chinese internal conflict to the latter, hardly needs explanation. That an alliance with the United States would have the same effect will sound strange to those used to looking at the United States and the Soviet Union through the interpretive lens of the Cold War in which they are portrayed not just as hostile powers in an ordinary conflict but as polar opposites representing capitalism and communism. It is nevertheless the case. World War II began in the second of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms as American president. FDR was so horrible that only a few years after his death the Americans passed the twenty-second amendment to their constitution limiting a president to two terms. Had they not revolted against their legitimate Sovereign in the eighteenth century, they would have had no need to create the office of president and would never have had to impose a term limit on it to prevent another rotten politician from clinging to elected power as long as FDR did. One of the things that made FDR so bad was his attitude towards Communism in general, and Stalin in particular. Later, in the Cold War era, liberals talked and acted pro-Soviet for a number of reasons. Sometimes they were actually Soviet agents. Most often it was simply a case of their liberalism being that of the squishy sentimentality that Robert Frost so appropriately captured when he defined a liberal as “a man too open-minded to take his own side in a quarrel”, the quarrel at the time being with the Soviets. FDR, however, was the kind of liberal who saw the Communists as fellow progressives, sharing the same ideals and working towards the same ends as American liberals, who were just a little misguided about the means. The first year of his first term as president, he sent the first American ambassador to Stalin’s Soviet Union, right at the time the Holodomor – the artificially induced famine that killed millions in the Ukraine – was going on. He recalled that ambassador when he sent back truthful reports of just how awful the USSR was, and in his place sent Joseph E. Davies, who arrived just in time for the Great Purge, i.e., the show trials through which Stalin eliminated his rivals, and sent back to FDR just what he wanted to hear, glowing reports about how wonderful Stalin and Communism and the USSR were, complete with an account of the Great Purge that depicted the victims as guilty and justice as having been served. FDR would later personally request that the Warner Brothers turn Davies’ pro-Stalin memoir Mission to Moscow into a pro-Stalin propaganda film, with which request, much to the discredit of the company that gave us Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, Sylvester and Tweety, they complied. Had this been all, FDR would merely have gone down as the biggest moron in history. Unfortunately, however, his attitude towards Communism and Stalin also manifested itself in his World War II policies, and in his meetings with Churchill and Stalin from the first at Tehran (1943) to the last at Yalta (1945), convinced that he had some kind of power of persuasion over Stalin – see Robert Nisbet’s Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship (1988) – he made concession after concession to the Soviet dictator that ensured that after the war about a third of the world would end up under Communist tyranny. Unfortunately Churchill, who understood Communism much better than FDR, had been scraping to the American president since even before Pearl Harbour – see Robert Shogan’s Hard Bargain: How FDR Twisted Churchill’s Arm, Evaded the Law, and Changed the Role of the American Presidency (1995), an account of how FDR swindled Churchill with the destroyers in 1940 – and so was in no position to do anything about it.
While Eastern Europe – including Poland, to protect which from the Nazis who had agreed with the Soviets to divide her between themselves, was the original reason for the war in the first place – is the most discussed of Soviet territorial gains due to World War II, the USSR also took over several regions in Asia that had been controlled by Japan. This included a number of regions to the north of China that had, for much of the past millennium, been part of the Chinese Empire and which were of strategic importance to the Soviets in their designs to help Mao’s Communists take over China. Mongolia, which had declared its independence from China when the last dynasty was overthrown, had been taken over by Soviet-allied Communists in the early 1920s, and while the Soviets had refrained from recognizing Mongolian independence in this early period, at the end of World War II during which they had repelled the Japanese invasion of Mongolia and used Mongolia as a base from which to launch their own attack on Japan, which FDR had “persuaded” Stalin to do at Yalta, they convinced China to recognize the independence of the Mongolian People’s Republic. This was part of a treaty the Soviets signed with China in August 1945, the terms of which Nationalist China abided with – recognizing Mongolian independence following a plebiscite in October that had obviously been rigged by the Communists – but which the Soviets were covertly violating before the ink was even dry on it. Bordering Mongolia was Manchuria, the region that had been home to the last ruling dynasty of China. This had been taken over by the Japanese Empire in 1932 and on the day the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Soviets, armed with weapons provided by the United States, invaded and took it from Japan. When the Soviets withdrew from Manchuria the following year, nominally turning it over to the Republic of China, it was actually Mao’s army that took control of the region and turned it into a base to attack the Nationalists.
By this time FDR was dead and the remainder of his fourth term as president was being filled by Harry S. Truman. That Truman was little better than FDR when it came to Communism, he would later demonstrate in his refusal to let General MacArthur win the Korean War. At the time in question, however, the last half of the 1940s, the problem was not so much the American president but the Communists and Communist sympathizers who had become entrenched in the American Department of State with the previous president’s blessing. Also problematic was another American World War II general with a decidedly different attitude towards Communism than that of the Pacific commander. General George C. Marshall, whom FDR had made Chief of Staff of the US Army, was sent to China as a special envoy late in 1945 tasked with trying to resolve the Chinese Civil War. The only solution that he was capable of thinking of was that the Nationalists needed to accept the Communists who were actively waging revolutionary war against them into a coalition government. This was an obvious recipe for total Communist takeover. Marshall threatened to withhold American financial assistance to China if the Nationalists refused to cooperate. As it happened, the Communists were not interested in such a coalition either but, when Marshall’s mission ended in failure, he returned to the United States blaming the failure on Chiang Kai-Shek. When, soon after, he was appointed Secretary of State by Truman, he used the position to fight against American assistance to the Chinese Nationalists. Indeed, through the entire period that he served as special envoy to China and American Secretary of State and even earlier during World War II, Marshall worked to prepare public opinion to accept a Communist takeover of China by whitewashing Mao and his forces, claiming that they were merely “agrarian reformers” rather than Soviet style Bolsheviks. Marshall died in 1959, one year into the “Great Leap Forward”, the Maoist version of a Stalinist five-year plan that generated a famine that killed more people in China than the Holodomor had done in the Ukraine. It would have been interesting, had he lived to the end of the “Great Leap Forward”, to see whether he would have finally admitted just how much of a fool he had been about Mao in the 1940s. He was hardly the only one, however. His deputy and successor as Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was just as bad or worse, writing a thousand page White Paper at the time Mao was driving the Nationalists off the mainland, justifying the Truman administration’s policies towards the Republic of China and arguing that had they done anything differently it would not have prevented the Communist takeover, a laughable obscenity considering that what they had done was insist that the Republic of China clasp the viper of revolutionary Communism to its breast. Aiding and abetting Marshall and Acheson in this, were the dolts working for the Institute of Pacific Relations, an international think tank funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, that published the academically acclaimed journals Pacific Affairs and Far Eastern Survey that had become heavily infested with Communists and Communist sympathizers, a great many of whom also served in the State Department and other bureaucratic and diplomatic offices in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. This was the basis of the charges of Communist infiltration made against the State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. Although the newsmedia and academic institutions made his name synonymous with witch-hunting over this, William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell Jr made a convincing case as early as 1954 in McCarthy and his Enemies that there were witches indeed to be found in the State Department, cackling around their cauldron as if they were acting out the first scene of the fourth Act of Macbeth. The mid-1990s public release of the files of the Venona Project, along with the opening of the Soviet archives after the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the Cold War, established the point beyond a reasonable doubt, although the progressive nitwits in the media and academe, including or especially all those who accepted without question the unsubstantiated claims of Hilary Clinton that her failure to win a third term in the White House in 2016 was due to interference by the current Russian government, are unlikely to acknowledge this any time soon. For the whole sordid tale of the IPR, which shared board members, staff, and a building with Amerasia the journal caught with almost 2000 classified documents stolen from the OSS and other American and British military intelligence agencies after it had rather stupidly published one in 1945, and the FDR-Truman policies that helped the Communists take over so much of Asia, see John T. Flynn While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It (1951).
It is easier to understand how the American leadership of the 1930s and 1940s could have been so naive at best and collaborative at worst towards Communism if we grasp that in a sense FDR was right about the relationship between American liberalism and Communism. The two are cousins of a sort. Both are the children of the Modern Age, and the philosophical spirit of that Age which spirit can be summed up in the idea that human beings need to abandon tradition, time-proven established institutions, religion and the like and pursue maximum freedom and equality through reason and science, movement towards which goal is what is meant by the word “progress” in its political-philosophical sense. American liberalism is the direct descendent of the earliest manifestation of this spirit in the sixteenth-seventeenth century English movement that began as Calvinist Puritanism and secularized into Whiggery. Communism is descended, through Karl Marx as interpreted by V. I. Lenin, from the Jacobin movement responsible for the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror (the revolutionary movement with which Marx aligned himself and for which he wrote began as a faction of the Jacobins). Jacobinism, like American liberalism, was descended from Puritanism-Whiggery, but through the intermediary of continental philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau. So FDR was right that American liberalism and Communism have the same goal – a society in which freedom and equality are both maximized – but with different ideas about the means to achieve it. Where he was wrong was in thinking that this was a worthy goal. It is not. Progress is not desirable but evil. The end of the Modern Age is based upon a contradiction. Freedom and equality, in their purest forms, are utterly incompatible with each other. Freedom is compatible with justice but not with equality. Freedom and justice were considered to be goods in the pre-Modern tradition, that is to say, desirable ends that were what they were as part of the transcendent order. Freedom and equality are considered to be values in the Modern Age. Equality is a perversion of justice. It is to justice what a $3 bill is to real currency. When idealists make equality their goal rather than justice – and when modifiers such as “social”, “racial”, “sexual” are added to the word “justice” it is actually equality that is meant – they think they are working towards a better society, but are actually making it worse. Gresham’s Law states that bad money drives out good. Similarly, equality, the counterfeit of justice, drives out justice – and freedom along with it. The ancients understood this – it is the point, or one of the points at least, of the myth of Procrustes, the giant with the “one size fits all” policy regarding beds, whom Theseus encountered on his way to Athens. Just as Modern thought errs in thinking that freedom and equality are compatible, so it errs in thinking of pre-Modern thought and tradition as something to be dismissed and discarded except in that it can be interpreted, ala the Whig Interpretation of History, as leading to the Modern Age and its goals. See Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s writings, especially Liberty or Equality (1952) and The Menace of the Herd (1943) for a fuller explanation of the incompatibility of equality and freedom. For an illustration look to the French Revolution and all the Communist Revolutions that took their inspiration from the French. While the Jacobins who founded the first French Republic, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, etc. all saw themselves as “liberators” and claimed “liberty” or “freedom” as an ideal as much as the Americans do – the motto of the French Revolution, remember, was “liberty, equality, fraternity” – the French Republic and all the People’s Republics were terror states, life within which could hardly be described as freedom. That the American Revolution did not immediately produce a similar state is due to a number of reasons, the foremost being that while the leaders of the Revolution were liberals with the same contradictory program of freedom and equality as the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, the Revolution they led was a secession movement rather than the seizing of a central state and furthermore, a secession movement on the part of a coalition of political entities which, once secession was achieved, initially established a much weaker central government than what it eventually grew into because they wished to preserve their own powers in the new federation, and thus the liberals were not able at first to impose their agenda like a Procrustean bed on all Americans from the top down, which meant that much of the freedom of the pre-Revolution tradition was able to survive.
While nobody in their right mind wants to see the inhabitants of Formosa fall under the totalitarian rule of Beijing – the recent example of what happened to the inhabitants of Hong Kong when it was transferred to the People’s Republic should suffice to convince anyone not yet persuaded that life under Red Chinese rule is not desirable – it is a mistake to look to the United States to preserve their freedom. It is not just that American liberalism is cousin to Communism and that the United States failed to prevent the Communist takeover of mainland China and arguably abetted it. It is America’s self-contradictory policy with regards to China. By agreeing with both Beijing and Taipei that there is only “One China” including both the mainland and Formosa, they take a position that keeps them from supporting Formosan independence qua independence and requires them to support one of the governments as the sole legitimate government of all of China. They cannot support the government in Taipei as the legitimate government of all of China and retain their relations and trade with the Peoples’ Republic. Therefore, they logically have to support the People’s Republic as the legitimate government. So far their commitment to keep Formosa from falling into Communist hands has prevented them from doing so in an unambiguous manner. This does not seem to be a sustainable position in the long run however. The current incident that is the occasion of this essay demonstrates that among other things.
I will conclude by saying that in my view neither the Republic of China in Formosa nor the People’s Republic of China on the mainland is legitimate. My views lean towards Jacobitism rather than Jacobinism, albeit Dr. Johnson’s brand of Jacobitism in which loyalty is to the current reigning house, and accordingly I regard no republic as legitimate. I therefore take a legitimist position with regards to China. The legitimate heir of one of the ancient dynasties – I will leave it to the Chinese to determine which one – should be found, and restored to his throne over all of China, and both the Republic and the People’s Republic ought to be dissolved into the restored Chinese monarchy. That is the proper resolution to the situation. Since the Americans are not likely to get on board with it any time this side of the Second Coming, when they will have to repent of their republicanism and democracy and bow the knee to the King of Kings if they don’t want to share the fate of the first Whig, the devil, the Chinese will just have to do it themselves. — Gerry T. Neal
Paul Fromm Sits Down with the Daily Rake, Part 1 – the Overview: My Early Years in Politics
Share Share
I recently had an interview with none other than Monika Schaefer. She’s the wonderful woman who made a video fact-checking the lampshadocaust in 2016, only to have her life turned upside down by the usual suspects. Video of our interview is below.
At the bottom of the article I wrote on our interview, the first in the series, I mentioned that I had an interview set up with Paul Fromm, and in fact I finished this interview two days ago. Unfortunately, we had serious technical issues right from the very beginning. This caused us to delay the interview by forty minutes, and eventually we settled on simply having me call Paul and record the conversation with him. The video is below.
As for Paul Fromm himself, he’s been fighting for Our People for half a century now, starting out in the anti-communist days, and moving on to what we see today. One thing I did mention to him, and which he agreed with in our interview, is that it sure does seem like the communists of the day, like William “Moses” Kunstler, seem to be pushing the exact same anti-White pervert garbage as the capitalists of today.
But just as I’m doing with Monika Schaefer, I’m going to write one or more additional articles on my interview with Paul Fromm. So I won’t get too in depth as to our interview right now.
In fact, I’m not going to get too in depth as to Paul Fromm’s history either, but it certainly is interesting. Fromm has been the international director of the Council of Conservative Citizens. He founded the Edmund Burke Society with Don Andrews and Leigh Smith when he was just a teenager. He’s founded CAFE, a free speech organization, in the 80’s,
And for those who want to do the whole “SerIoUS GuYS wOrK WiThIN thE CuckSeRVAtIvE/RepUbLiCAn PaRTy” bit, he, like many of these guys, has had the ear of some Conservative politicians since back in the late 60’s. Although now he agreed with me that the Conservative Party of Canada is a thoroughly useless and in fact actively harmful institution.
He’s been involved in multiple high profile legal cases, had serious violent confrontations, all started by antifa/commies of course, been the leader of the Ontario Social Credit Party, fought against koshervatives like Jason Kenney, and is of course denied entry to the United States of America. And I guess at one point he crossed paths with Evalion.
Paul Fromm with Evalion. Remember her?
I told him when I began interviewing him that I would need to wrap it up as soon as possible. I had planned something like just ten minutes, and then we could reschedule a new meeting when the technical hiccups were ironed out. Of course we ended up talking for forty minutes, and I didn’t even get to ask him about some entire topics of interest, like his defamation trial, his connection to Ernst Zundel, and many other topics.
That will have to wait for a later date. For now I’ll end here, and simply thank Paul for coming onto the Daily Rake, tolerating the technical problems we had, and accepting my stilted, scatterbrained interview “technique.” I’ll have the video up shortly, and an in depth piece will be released on this interview after tomorrow’s event — THE 2022 GEORGE ORWELL FREE SPEECH AWARDS TO MONIKA AND ALFRED SCHAEFER IN VANCOUVER
Catch My Daily Radio Programme “The Fighting Side of Me”
My daily programme The Fighting Side of Me contains news and views and commentary for OUR people; that is, the European founding/settler people of Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Rhodesia and those in the European heartland.
The big news from Canada is that Pope Francis is finishing up what he calls a “pilgrimage of repentance,” and what I call the white-man crawl, and I’m not talking about swimming. The Pope has put on one of the sorriest spectacles of voluntary public humiliation the world has ever seen.
It all has to do with the alleged horrors perpetrated against Canadian Indians by the Catholic church. As we see from this article from last Thursday called “Pope Francis Issues Apology,”
“More than 150,000 native children in Canada were forced to attend state-funded Christian schools from the 19th century until the 1970s . . . . The aim was to Christianize and assimilate them into mainstream society, which previous Canadian governments considered superior.”
Forced to attend schools? Well, so were white children. It’s called compulsory education. A lot of Indian Children went to boarding schools because there were no schools in the wilds.
And yes, they were taught Christianity and yes, the Canadian government thought Western Civilization was better than illiteracy and shamanism. The government was right.
However, as Scientific American kindly explains, “Canada’s Residential Schools Were a Horror. Founded to carry out the genocide of Indigenous people, they created conditions that killed thousands of children.”
It’s hard to find images of what went on in those schools, but I found these: 10:43 – 12:02. Yep, looks like a serious Catholic education, but that’s what white Catholic children got, too.
If they taught girls how to sew, I guess it was out of pure spite.
But today, we are supposed to believe that after soccer practice and “Silent Night,” the nuns and priests were beating, buggering, raping, and even murdering these children.
What got the hysteria going was a report from over a year ago. The New York Times put it on the front page: “‘Horrible History’: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada.”
Two hundred fifteen bodies were supposed to have been found in the Kamloops residential school in British Columbia.
The strong implications was that nuns and priests killed these children –through violence or neglect – and dumped them in a secret mass grave.
Canada covered itself in sackcloth and ashes. Government flags went to half-mast for seven months – longer than ever in Canadian history.
Canada declared a new holiday in honor of the 215 children: National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
A mob tore down a statue of Queen Victoria in Winnipeg.
Another mob tore down the statue of the current queen, Elizabeth II.
Catholic haters burned dozens of churches and vandalized many more. [[0:08 – 0:13]] The one you just saw burning was more than a century old and looked like this on the inside.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said burning churches was “unacceptable and wrong,” but also that it was “understandable.”
As I noted in January in this video – and I don’t want to cover too much old ground – the whole thing was a fraud.
A bright young anti-racist college instructor named Sarah Beaulieu said she used ground-penetrating radar to find these children.
Except she didn’t. Not one body has been found. What her radar may have found were tree roots or other soil disturbances, but no one has exhumed a single bone. At first, there was talk about digging up the children for DNA identification so bodies could be returned to grieving relatives, but now the plan is to leave the alleged graves undisturbed – a much wiser move. And now there’s a new horror. Some of the buried children were as young as three! Three-year-olds didn’t go to boarding schools – but who cares about that?
Only a few newspapers – the New York Post for one – saw through the hoax. “’Biggest fake news story in Canada’: Kamloops mass grave debunked by academics.”
But most media swallow any story about bad, white people, and Indians know a good thing when they see one. With the dazzling example of Kamloops before them, Indians suddenly found 160 alleged graves on Penelakut Island, in British Columbia, 182 in Cranbrook,– also in BC – and a whopping 751 in Marieval, Saskatchewan.
All these findings are dubious, but Mr. Trudeau, pictured here, has been busy apologizing.
He must have got lonely, because he decided the Pope should apologize, too, which he did in Rome, to a delegation of Indian chiefs. But Mr. Trudeau decided that wasn’t enough and insisted the Pope come to Canada to apologize all over again.
Pope Francis is 85 years old. He had serious intestinal surgery last year, he has bad sciatica, torn knee ligaments, and is in a wheelchair, but you can do the white-man crawl from any position, so he has just hobbled through a week of what must have been pure hell.
With Justin Trudeau and countless Indian chiefs keeping an eye on him, he, in his words, “begged forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against indigenous peoples.” He said it was awful that “many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed Indigenous peoples.” He was “deeply sorry” for the “deplorable evil” and “disastrous error” of “cultural destruction and forced assimilation.” He kissed the hands of Indian chiefs in an appeal for forgiveness.
Was it enough? Of course not! It’s never enough. As CNN reported, “The Pope went to Canada to apologize. For some indigenous school survivors, he triggered more pain.”
These schools don’t have graduates, you see. They have only survivors. There’s a 24-hours-a-day crisis line for “survivors” “experiencing pain or distress,” even though all but a handful of the schools closed 45 years ago!
CNN happily found an 80-year-old “survivor” “experiencing distress.” He said any apology is useless. He blames the Catholics for his alcoholism and terrible marriage. Some chiefs refused even to show up to have their hands kissed, saying there was no chance the pope would grovel enough.
The harshest cut was from Justin Trudeau. “The Pope’s apology to Indigenous people doesn’t go far enough, Canada says.”
It’s not enough to apologize for physical, verbal, psychological and spiritual abuse. The pope has to apologize explicitly for rape. Also, he didn’t talk about the evil of the church as an institution, only about the evil of individual Christians. Mr. Trudeau seems to have forgotten that Catholic orders operated only 66 of the 139 residential schools and that the church has already spent $50 million on restitution and promises $30 million more.
Needless to say, we have heard nothing from Indians who liked the schools. You have to dig, but you can find: “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools.”
It quotes a Canadian Indian named Tomson Highway, a pianist and playwright that Macleans magazine calls “one of the 100 most important people in Canadian history.”
He was in a school from ages six to 15 and says, “All we hear is the negative stuff, nobody’s interested in the positive, the joy in that school. Nine of the happiest years of my life I spent it at that school.”
Cece Hodgson-McCauley was the first woman to become a chief in Canada’s Northwest Territories.
She called her years at the school the best of her life. “My family says the same thing, my sister swears by it. We were treated wonderfully.”
The chief, who died in 2018 at age 95, said people lie about how bad things were to get money. She said older Indians who graduated are afraid to talk about what the schools were really like.
Now, of course, everything an unhappy Indian says is the “lived experience” of a person of color and must never be doubted. Back to this article.
One “survivor” says when she got to school, she was issued clothes with a number on them, and everyone thereafter called her by number, not her name. Really? I have read a lot about these schools, and I never heard that. I think a lot of these stories are false, but no one dares challenge them.
And guess what: Americans might get their own papal roadshow.
I bet you didn’t realize we had boarding schools for Indians, too.
I’m sure it will be no trouble to find people who claim they were beaten and buggered.
Or even better – that their parents were beaten and buggered.
And we have already taken the first step. “US to Investigate Government-run Native American Boarding Schools.
That was inspired by Kamloops, of course. And here’s Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, who will run the investigation, and who is an American Indian. She says, “We must uncover the truth about the loss of human life and the lasting consequences of these schools.”
Brace yourselves.
But what I find most grotesque is that the pope seems to have swallowed every tall tale, every insult against people long dead who can’t defend themselves.
I don’t doubt there was some tough discipline, even some cruelty, but I suspect the vast majority of teachers did their very best for those children.
And by apologizing for “spiritual abuse,” isn’t the pope repudiating the whole missionary effort? Doesn’t he believe Catholics saved the souls of many converts? No. As this article from 2018 notes, if you ask “Do Atheists Go to Heaven? Pope Francis Says Yes.”
So I guess all that Catholicism was spiritual abuse.
So far as I can tell, Pope Francis is not just a miserable white man; he’s a miserable Catholic, who doesn’t even believe in the church’s mission. It must be grievous for Catholics to have such a head of their church – the Vicar of Christ himself.
Like nations that don’t defend themselves, institutions that don’t defend themselves die. Pope Francis is old and frail. The church will be under new management soon.
If it’s not better management, the church will go over a cliff.
For Canada’s 155th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time” The Demolition of a Nation, One Step At A Time (revised) By Tim Murray,Immigration Watch Canada Writer
On July 1, 2022, Canada observed 155 years of Confederation. But as this bulletin points out, is there a nation still to celebrate? Please note the following two prophetic statements on the consequences of mass immigration to Canada and Australia . One is by former Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the other by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 1st, 1947 “It is rare for a nation… to turn in a completely new direction. It is unusual for a democracy take such a turn. People are therefore entitled to inquire whether the distinctive character of their nation—and some of its greatest achievements—will remain if people from very different cultures are encouraged to come and, as far as possible, to maintain their own cultures. “ Geoffrey Blainey (“All for Australia”, 1984 p. 154) The following is a link to a site which documents the demolition of thousands of City of Vancouver heritage houses in the last 20 years. Ironically, the people who performed many, if not most, of the actual demolitions, were Punjabi Sikhs : https://www.facebook.com/VancouverVanishes We are providing photos of Vancouver Heritage Houses which were demolished as a result of mass immigration. 65428331_2989718811068837_3748217100225740800_
Demolitions, if viewed in slow motion, are revealed to be a sequential process. They begin with the destruction of the ground floor, and work their way up, until the entire building “suddenly” collapses. Viewed in hindsight, it may appear that the collapse of Canada’s identity was almost instantaneous. But in fact, it did not happen overnight. Our cultural, ethnic and environmental edifice was brought down incrementally, by a series of policies and laws that spanned some forty years. Let’s start at the beginning, in 1962, at the “ground floor” of implosion, and then follow the chain of disintegration up to 2006 and our present predicament, with Canada teetering on the edge of complete re- colonization and assimilation. (1) 1962 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families would be admitted to Canada from everywhere in the world. However, while the Tories said that all comers were welcome, it was successive Liberal governments which set up the machinery to get them.
(2) 1965 In response to a global mood to support the movement for colonial independence and repudiate the history that made the Holocaust possible, Canada signed the “United Nations International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. This post-war shift in attitude served to discredit principles that were used to legitimize exclusions in existing immigration policy. The signing of this UN Convention, a seemingly innocuous action, came to have a profound impact on subsequent immigration policy-making. (3) 1966 The Pearson government’s White Paper on Immigration Policy advocated a universal admissions policy. The country was to be cut from its cultural moorings, as European immigrants would no longer be given preference. This change in immigration selection criteria constituted a crucial change in direction for the country. It was a confluence of two beliefs. One, that Canada should cast its immigration net widely to capture “the best and the brightest”, and two, that Canada was morally obligated to embrace immigrants from across the world without reference to their ethnic, racial, religious or cultural origins. No longer would the nation’s cultural cohesion be a consideration in deciding who gets in and how many. (4) 1967 The “point system” was introduced. As T. Triadafilopolous of the University of Toronto put it, “Through the points system, Canada would select immigrants according to a set of universal criteria, including educational credentials, language competency in English and/or French, and labour market potential. Applicants’ ethnic and racial backgrounds were no longer to be considered in determining their eligibility for admission to Canada. The result of this change …was precisely what (Prime Minister Mackenzie) King tried to avoid: the diversification of immigration and consequent transformation of Canada’s demographic structure. Whereas immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ source regions …comprised only a small fraction of Canada’s total immigration intake from 1946 to 1966, by 1977 they made up over 50% of annual flows. Changes in immigration policy shattered the foundations of ‘white Canada’ and created the conditions for Canada’s development into one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. (from “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights and the Origins of the Point System”)
(5) 1967 The Immigration Department was ordered to no longer list immigrants by ethnic origin but rather by “country of last residence”. This allowed the government to conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada from traditional source countries like the UK. (6) 1971 Multiculturalism is declared official state policy. Henceforth, Canada was no longer to be perceived as consisting of our two founding cultures, English and French, but as a mosaic of equivalent ethnic fragments. Canada was to become the helpless victim of a social engineering project whose sweeping scope was yet to be comprehended. (7) 1974 Biologist Jack R. Vallentyne of the Fisheries and Marine Service called for a national population policy. His call was ignored. Vallentyne, a former professor at Cornell University, was made leader of the Eutrophication (pollution) Section of the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. It was in that capacity that Vallentyne became alarmed at the extent to which overpopulation and over-development was promoting eutrophication of our water resources. (8) 1976 The Science Council of Canada released its report number 25, “Population, Technology and Resources” which concluded that perpetual population growth would stress Canada’s limited non-renewable resources. It advocated (A) restricting immigration and (B) stabilizing Canada’s population. Another forgotten report.
(9) 1976 Voluminous anecdotal evidence had come to challenge the claim that European interest in emigrating to Canada had diminished, as prospective skilled and educated immigrants from Britain and the Continent with immediate family were being turned away in droves. Immigration officials in 1976 conceded that as many as 60% of British applicants were being rejected while unskilled third world immigrants with poor language skills were welcomed with open arms. The vision of the 1966 White Paper was being fulfilled. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased from 34% in 1966 to 47% by 1973. (10) 1976 Canada’s first separatist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected. By this action, Quebec Francophone voters indicated that they were not prepared, as English Canadians were apparently were, to see their unique culture dismembered by a multicultural globalist agenda. Quebecers were not willing to go down with the English Canadian ship. (11) 1980 English Canada got its second wake-up call when Quebec held its first referendum on separation. After it was defeated, English Canada went back to sleep, and the global “out-reach” to non-traditional sources of immigration continued with Official Multiculturalism still in place. (12) 1980-1983 In response to a recession, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau cut immigration levels from 143,000 to 89,000. It was the only time in recent decades that a federal administration reduced immigration quotas in deference to tougher economic times and the need to defend jobless Canadians. Thereafter, immigration policy would be the prisoner of political imperatives, most specifically ethnic vote-seeking. (13) 1982 The “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—forming part of the Constitution Act—was signed into law. It relegated Parliament to a secondary role—and through it diminished the ability of a majority of the population to influence the direction of the country. It allowed the courts to strike down provincial and federal statutes to satisfy individual rights. Consequently, as writer Frank Hilliard observed, it achieved Pierre Trudeau’s goal of altering our British Parliamentary system and replacing it with a model that divided society into ethnic communities, each with its own cultural norms. It is noteworthy that the Charter’s Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a ‘multicultural context’.
(14) 1986 Employment Equity Act—allowed a staggering number of recently-arrived immigrants to leap-frog over resident Canadians to secure jobs in the federal public sector. The Act became a template for similar legislation in other provinces which also affected the private sector. (15) 1986-89 The Health and Welfare department of the federal government completed a report “Charting Canada’s Future” which concluded that Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada’s age structure. Moreover, increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have, in the long-term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 would have little long-term impact on Canada’s overall age structure. That message continues to be ignored to this day. (16) 1988 The Multiculturalism Act—institutionalized the policy of multiculturalism begun by Pierre Trudeau. (17) 1988 Breaking with Trudeau’s belief that Canadians should not apologize to ethnic lobbies for alleged past injustices, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized and compensated the Japanese-Canadian community for the federal government’s internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The apology began an era of grovelling which can be seen for what it was, not a sincere desire for redress, but a naked grasp for the ethnic vote.
(18) 1991 The Intelligence Advisory Committee, with input from Environment Canada, the Defence Department and External Affairs produced a confidential document for the Privy Council entitled “The Environment: Marriage Between Earth and Mankind”. The report stated that “Although Canada’s population is not large in world terms, its concentration in various areas has already put stress upon regional environments in many ways.” It added that “Canada can expect to have increasing numbers of environmental refugees requesting immigration to Canada, while regional movements of the population at home, as from idle fishing areas, will add further to population stresses within the country.” The document was apparently buried. (19) 1991 The Economic Council of Canada, in a research report (“The Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration”), concluded that immigration has been of no significant benefit to the economy. Once again, it was a message that is still forgotten. (20) 1991 Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney launched the policy of mass immigration, which greatly increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. Like the Liberals’ White Paper policy of 1966, which was engineered by Tom Kent to defeat “Tory Toronto” by recruiting immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ sources, the McDougall policy was designed as a political stratagem to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberals by earning their gratitude. Mass immigration then must be seen as primarily a political weapon to defeat rival political parties rather than a policy that confers a legitimate economic or demographic benefit to Canada. (21) 1994 July 6 Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, with Policy 1.1.4, declares that its mandate requires that its programming should “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”. “In fact”, the CBC continued, “by the reasons of the ethnic diversity of the audience, the Corporation has long practiced a policy of cultural pluralism in its programming, and intends to continue to reflect the multicultural richness and multiracial characteristics of Canadian society in keeping with the Corporation’s obligation to ‘contribute to shared national consciousness and identity’. Schedule planners and programs staff are expected to demonstrate continuing awareness of and sensitivity to this aspect of CBC/Radio-Canada role.” In so doing, the CBC in effect became the voice of immigrant ethno-cultural lobbies and power blocs, while the views of the full cross-section of mainstream Canadian society were largely excluded.
(22) 1995 A second referendum on separation was held in Quebec. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 0.8%. Many would argue that the 1995 referendum was hijacked by the federal government, which poured in a ton of money in publicity largely exceeding the amount authorized by the referendum laws. The Gomery commission subsequently found many key Liberal figures guilty of fraud. In addition, for good measure, the federal government fast-tracked the citizenship process for all new immigrants in Quebec in the months leading up to the referendum . This action was timely, as it allowed these immigrants to vote and tip the scales to victory for the “No” side. (23) Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately blamed the loss on the ethnic vote, which had grown with mass immigration. Failing to see that their own society was being undermined by the very same forces that were undermining Quebec, English Canadians rejoiced. However, the result clearly illustrated that since 1980, an increasing proportion of the Francophone population were opposed to the multicultural makeover of their society. (24) 1997 The $2.4 million federally-commissioned Fraser Basin Ecosystem Study, led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC, was released. It stated that BC’s Fraser Basin was overpopulated by a factor of three. Healey later urged all levels of government to develop a Population Plan for the country. The study was ignored by the government that funded it.
(24) 2001 The Population Institute of Canada made a presentation to the House of Commons Committee on Immigration which recommended that the government develop a Population Plan for Canada, as called for by Dr. Michael Healey. The presentation fell on deaf ears. (25) 2005 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, released a report that challenged the provincial government’s plans to accommodate an additional 4.4 to 6 million people for Ontario over the next 25 years. In introducing this annual report, Miller issued strong cautions. “One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario’s population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. ” He added that the area did not have the water resources to support the population increase, nor the ability to handle sewage created by the increase. Miller was vilified for his comments. (26) 2006 Following Mulroney’s precedent of apologizing and compensating Japanese-Canadians for the wartime actions of Mackenzie King’s government, Prime Minister Harper compensated Chinese-Canadians for federal laws that were enacted before the First World War to protect Canadian jobs from the importation of cheap Chinese labour. The compensation came with a profuse apology.
(27) 2006 The C.D. Howe Institute reported that immigration levels would have to be raised to impossibly stratospheric levels to have any effect in slowing the rate of Canada’s aging population. (28) 2013 Canada’s most famous environmentalist, Dr. David Suzuki, said that Canada was overpopulated and that immigration levels should be reduced. Like Gordon Miller, Suzuki was vilified by everyone except the general public, who evidenced their approval in the comments section of newspapers across the country which carried the story. (29) 2013 Reacting to growing ethnic enclaves and the threat of the emergence of a parallel Islamic society, the Parti Quebecois government introduced a Charter that would re-establish the secular nature of Quebec society, a hard won achievement of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Recognizing that support for the Charter would represent a clear repudiation of the multicultural agenda, the political class and the English media denounced the proposal. (30) 2014 The fact that the Charter enjoyed the support of a majority of Quebecers—and apparently a majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada– the media and the political establishment attempted to discredit the Parti Quebecois government by raising the prospect of another referendum on sovereignty. This was (and is) a ploy to shift the focus away from the Charter. (31) 2015 Two months following his electoral victory, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, essentially confirmed that the mission of cultural and ethnic fragmentation conceived five decades before had been accomplished. In fact, it had gone beyond that. Canada was no longer even a multicultural state—or a nation—but something the world had never seen before. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, Trudeau proudly observed, “There are (just) shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” A state, in other words, that has been cast adrift, cut from its cultural, ethnic and moral moorings.
(32) In reviewing these policies , pronouncements and laws, it is apparent that the promotion of official multiculturalism and quota hiring (“employment equity”) were conceived to work in tandem with mass immigration, so that immigrants would be made to feel fully integrated and at home with their new country. (33) This great “multicultural experiment” then, was essentially an immigration project which changed the ethnic profile of the nation and grew the population by 25%. It was an experiment conducted by a political class on ordinary Canadians without the consent of ordinary Canadians. The project had no electoral mandate. The result is that most Canadians feel like lab rats living in an environment they no longer recognize. They bear witness to the demolition of a nation.
At the rate which Toronto hotels are being taken over by Mayor Tory and his cronies to house a nonstop stream of Third World refugees, dating back to at least 2014, the only hotels which will soon be left for paying guests will be prohibitively expensive five star ones It’s time to just say no! Toronto is full. If Trudeau wants these refugees and illegals, let him house them at HIS place at 24 Sussex.
Toronto could spend $68M to house refugees in hotel — weeks after scathing AG report on shelter costs
The city is making the move to cope with a surge in people claiming refugee status
Michael Smee · CBC News · Posted: Jul 08, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: July 8
Coun. John Filion, who represents the neighbourhood where the Novotel is located, says he is ‘all over’ the contract the city’s about to sign that will see the hotel converted temporarily into a refugee shelter. (Mike Smee/CBC)
City of Toronto staff have unveiled a plan to lease a North York hotel for more than $68 million and convert it into a temporary home for refugees — just weeks after an auditor’s report slammed the city’s handling of contracts with local hotels it uses as shelters.
Coun. John Filion, who represents the area and is also vice chair of the city’s audit committee, said he only found out about the plan to lease the 17-storey Hotel Novotel from city staff less than two weeks ago. Even so, he said he’s committed to ensuring the red flags pointed out by Auditor General Beverly Romeo-Beehler last month are addressed.
“I’m all over the contract,” said Filion, who represents Ward 18, Willowdale. “I want to know everything that’s going on here.”
In her report to June’s meeting of the audit committee, Romeo-Beehler said the city spent $13 million over two years “for charges not in accordance with the express terms of the contract — enough to pay for about 52,000 room nights, meals and wraparound support services for an entire year.” She also points to “$2-3 million” the city paid for rooms that were never used.
By sheltering about 700 refugees starting in September, staff are hoping the Novotel, at Yonge Street and Park Home Avenue, will help the city cope with a surge in claimants this year. In September of last year, the city housed 507 refugees. Now that number is closer to 1,700, according to a report on the plan that went to the city’s government and licensing committee earlier this week. And that number, city spokesperson Brad Ross said, is climbing at a rate of about 55 people a week.
Brad Ross, spokesperson for the city, says staff have implemented changes to the way contracts are handled in the wake of the auditor general’s report. (Zoom)
World events, like the war in Ukraine, and the lifting of most pandemic-related travel restrictions this year are fuelling the surge, staff say in the report. But it’s not yet clear exactly what countries the refugees will be coming from.
Ross said the Novotel deal, which goes to council for final approval later this month, will be supervised in a way that will ensure the city doesn’t end up on the hook for costs that aren’t spelled out in the contract..
He said in the past, multiple city departments dealt with different aspects of each contract flagged by the auditor. From now on, though, the city’s shelter support and hosing department will concentrate solely on caring for the needs of the individual refugee families. It will leave the corporate real estate department to negotiate and monitor the contract and billing, Ross said.
The 17-storey Hotel Novotel at Yonge Street south of Finch Avenue, will house about 700 refugees starting in September, according to a contract proposal the city is considering. All 260 rooms will be leased. (Doug Hudsby/CBC)
“Separating those out will be an important step in ensuring that there aren’t things like overbilling, for example, and that the contract and the lease is being as efficiently managed as possible,” Ross told CBC Toronto.
“And that when there are anomalies that the real estate team is focused on that piece, while our shelter and support team is focused on the people piece.”
Past mistakes won’t be repeated, city says
At Monday’s meeting of the government and licensing committee, Filion also introduced other measures that, he says, will ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.
He’s calling on staff to come back with a figure lower than the current lease estimate — $68.5 million over five years. He says savings can be found with a less expensive catering.and changing the current draft contract so that the city won’t be on the hook for rooms that are not used.
Filion, who is not running for re-election in the fall, has also called on staff to meet regularly with the local councillor to discuss any issues with the housing plan.
Although both Ross and Filion said they expect the federal government to step up and foot at least some of the bill for the Novotel deal, it’s not yet clear what the extent of that commitment will be.
“The city has requested, on numerous occasions, immediate and urgent action from the federal and provincial governments to plan for the large-scale increase in refugee claimant arrivals in order to avoid a potential crisis,” the report to Monday’s meeting states.
Globalist Trudeau wants to add 1.3 million immigrants over the next three years to Canada, a country with a population of under 39 million.
Erasing the Old Canada
According to Dan Murray, the creator of theImmigration Watch Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared war against his country, people, and culture. The World Economic Forum-controlled leader is welcoming an unprecedented level of immigrants that will have a massive and irreversible demographic impact on Canada. Trudeau had already increased his country’s excessive immigrant intake to stratospheric levels. Now the Globalist leader is setting an even higher target: 1.3 million over the next three years on a population of under 39 million.
During an exclusive interview with Murray, RAIR Foundation USA suggests that Canada’s mass immigration policies are one of the means by which Canada’s history and culture are being erased. Trudeau called Canada the “first postnational country” with no “mainstream” or “core identity” shortly after he became prime minister in 2015. Both RAIR and Dan Murray think this was an aspirational statement by Trudeau, who does not miss an opportunity to disparage what is actually mainstream Canada.
In 1990, one of Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s cabinet ministers (Barbara McDougall, minister of immigration) pushed for an increase in immigration to at least 250,000 each year. Prior to that, Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (father of the current PM) had actually decreased immigration levels to something in the 80,000s due to high unemployment.
Dan considers the immigration targets of Justin Trudeau to be similar to the invasion of a country, even comparable to the invasion of Ukraine. Or the invasion on the US southern border, RAIR suggests, and Dan agrees. Dan notes that we are now up from the 250,000 that was considered ridiculously high back in 1990 to over 400,000 per year. Of Canada’s current population of 38 million, a considerable fraction are themselves immigrants.
Dan reports that some immigrants have interests that conflict with Canada’s long-term interests. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has committed itself to destroying the society its adherents move into. And they are not a small minority, he notes. Trudeau, Dan says, is a supporter of Muslim immigration.
Concerning the influence of China, RAIR points out that Canada’s culture has already changed dramatically, especially in British Columbia. Dan observes that certain parts of Canada, particularly in the lower mainland of BC, have become Chinese colonies. Some Chinese people there do not attempt to hide the fact that they are there as representatives of China. They will seek to undermine Canada’s interests versus China’s interests.
Canadians kept in the dark by globalist media
Dan does not think that most Canadians are aware of what’s happening. The media are responsible for the lack of awareness. For example, they do not connect the issue of the increasing unaffordability of housing to Canada’s policy of mass immigration (of which they are boosters). Dan mentions the 2010 book by David Ley, Millionaire Migrants, which describes the impact of the arrival of large numbers of wealthy Asians to Canada. These wealthy Asians were theoretically supposed to create jobs for Canadians. But many of them had no interest in doing that. Already wealthy, they were not seeking to make more money but came to Canada for “social capital,” such as university degrees for their children. Many also cheated on their income taxes, keeping two sets of books. Rather than creating jobs for Canadians, they parasitized the system and got away with it. There was not a lot of exposure in the media. David Ley concluded in his book that relentless immigration was the cause of unaffordable housing. However, while the media talk about unaffordable housing almost daily, neither they nor any politicians seem to be aware of David Ley’s research. While the current building spree cannot even keep up with the demand for housing, the media ignore that bringing 50,000 people a year to the Metro Vancouver area, for example, will create demand.
Dan states that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which receives about $1.3 billion annually in government funding) has a policy of suppressing negative comments about immigration. RAIR suggests it is being directed by the United Nations and is part of the UN Compact on Migration, which Dan explains that Trudeau has signed on to. (Canada played a leading role in developing the UN Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration).
RAIR mentions the Century Initiative, which advocates for a Canadian population of 100 million by 2100. Dan reports that one of the people behind it is an academic named Irvin Studin, who has devoted much effort to publicizing the idea. He has supporters in high places. (It is worth noting that both of the CI’s co-founders, Mark Wiseman, currently chairman of the board, and Dominic Barton, are associated with the globalist World Economic Forum.) Trudeau is also behind the idea. Dan explains that one does not have to look far to see the effects of mass immigration. He notes the loss of farmland that has been turned into housing. (Just over half of Canada’s best farmland is in southwestern Ontario, which is also the location of the megalopolis “Greater Toronto Area” or GTA. Ontario is losing 319 acres of farmland every day.)
No evidence that Canadians benefit from mass immigration
Dan challenges the notion that we must import vast numbers of people so that we have workers to replace all the older people who are dying off. He points out that before Justin Trudeau became prime minister, the government had looked into whether immigration would offset the problems arising from an aging population. The answer was an emphatic No. (See, for example, this study.) He states the Science Council of Canada also told the federal government not to use immigration to increase the population. Its 1976 report pointed out that just because Canada has a large geographical area does not mean it has an infinite capacity to accommodate people. Dan surmises that Justin Trudeau has never even heard of that report.
RAIR points out that most immigrants to Canada come from warmer countries and, therefore, will increase their greenhouse gas emissions when they move here. Would it not make sense NOT to bring people from hot countries to Canada, where they will have to increase their energy consumption? Dan notes that it will also increase pollution and points to the massive expansion of housing driven by high immigration, especially around Vancouver and in the GTA. British Columbia has an agricultural reserve, but although it is effective to a certain extent, it is being undermined by constant growth, which both major parties in BC support.
Dan notes that the aforementioned report by the Science Council of Canada stated that few countries produced sufficient food to be exported, and it would be desirable for Canada to maintain its status as a food producer. The report also mentioned Australia and said both countries should be paying attention to the issue of immigration and not assume that they had an infinite capacity to absorb people.
Clash of values
RAIR brings up the issue of law and culture, saying that law is the crystallization of culture and essentially just a set of codified values. When you bring large numbers of people with different cultures and values into the cities, and these people are not being encouraged to adopt Canadian values, what kind of effect will that have on Canada’s legal system and basic cultural rules, on things such as women’s rights? Dan is concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. They believe that if women are disobedient to the males in the family, they should be killed. That is what happened to the three teenage girls and first wife in the Shafia family. RAIR notes that the CBC reports edited the RCMP tapes about the murders such that the Islamic aspects were omitted.
The Canadian media consistently try to hide the consequences of these policies, explains RAIR. What is happening with the Residential School issue is a good example of the dishonesty of the Canadian media, Dan says. The media, and especially the CBC, have demonized the Christian church. On the other hand, when it comes to Islam, the CBC promotes it. Trudeau is also very pro-Islam, and Dan suspects he has become a Muslim. While Trudeau seems to think that Islam is the religion of peace, Dan says he likely doesn’t realize that in Islam, “peace” means that Islam has completely taken over. (Non-Islamic parts of the world are called “dar al-Harb,” or house of war; there will be peace when they are part of Dar al-Islam or house of Islam.)
Canadians are catching on that something’s not right
Given the policies of the Canadian government, which seem to place the interests of Canadians, the people it allegedly serves, well behind the interests of the globalists, it is perhaps not surprising that, based on a recent survey of 1500 Canadians by Abacus Data, more than one in three Canadians (37%) believe in the “white replacement theory,” the idea that there is “a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political views.” And one in five Canadians believes that it is definitely or probably true that the World Economic Forum is “a group of global elites with a secretive strategy to impose their ideas on the world.” Also, not surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between belief in “conspiracy theories” (as the National Post article calls these views) and distrust of media.
It seems that what Trudeau dismissed as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views” might not be such a fringe after all. The question is, will this “fringe” be able to remove an increasingly unpopular prime minister from power under Canada’s “first past the post” electoral system with no proportional representation.
New Day? No Thanks, I’ll Take the Old(er)!– Dominion Day
Over the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of talk here in Winnipeg about the announcement that today’s big party at the Forks would be called “New Day” instead of “Canada Day”, would be a whole bunch of pissing and moaning about wrongs real and imagined inflicted upon the Indians instead of a celebration of our country, and would not include the usual fireworks celebration. Interestingly, Sunday evening, while enjoying a coffee at Tim Horton’s and trying to read a chapter out of the book of Isaiah, I overheard snatches of conversation from a couple at a nearby table with regards to all of this. The man was boisterously objecting to all of these changes, especially the cancelling of the fireworks. The woman was defending the changes, toeing the progressive party line on the subject. For what it’s worth, the man was an Indian and the woman was lily white.
Among the more prominent of the local critics of these changes – I add the modifier “local” because it has attracted commentary from across the Dominion, including Toronto’s Anthony Furey and Edmonton’s Lorne Gunter – are Lloyd Axworthy and Jenny Motkaluk. The former, who from 1979 to 2000 was the MP for Winnipeg – Fort Garry then Winnipeg South Centre when the former was dissolved and the latter reconstituted in 1988, during which time he served as Minister for various portfolios in Liberal governments under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and later became president of the University of Winnipeg, the furthest to the left of the city’s academic institutions, expressed his criticism in the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, a Liberal party propaganda rag that likes to think of itself as a newspaper. The latter is one of the candidates for the office about to be vacated by Mayor Duckie whom she had previously but sadly unsuccessfully attempted to unseat in the 2018 mayoral election. Ryan Stelter responded to Motkaluk with a column that appeared in the Winnipeg Sun – the local neoconservative tabloid – in which he defended the decision by the powers that be at the Forks, their reasons for the change, and basically argued that while the biggest party in the city has been re-named and re-imagined this does not prevent anyone else from celebrating the holiday as they like.
While I suspect Stelter of disingenuity – his argument is technically correct but does not address the real problems with the thinking behind the changes likely because he doesn’t want to be seen as dissenting from that thinking – I shall, nevertheless, be doing as he suggests and celebrating the holiday the way I like. This means that like the crowd at the Forks, I will not be celebrating “Canada Day”. Unlike the crowd at the Forks, however, I shall not be celebrating the atrociously progressive “New Day” either – perhaps they should have called it “New DIE” from the appropriate acronym for Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity – but shall be celebrating, as I do every first of July, Dominion Day. This is Canada’s true national holiday and the first of July bore this name until the Liberals changed it in 1982. Since the Liberals did not do so honestly and constitutionally – only thirteen members, less than a quorum, were sitting at the time that the private member’s bill changing the name was rushed through all the readings without debate in less than five minutes, hence the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s description of this as “something very close to sneak-thievery” – I think that continuing to celebrate Dominion Day rather than Canada Day is appropriate. I am in good company in this. The great Canadian man of letters Robertson Davies called Dominion Day “splendid” and Canada Day “wet” in reference to its being “only one letter removed from the name of a soft drink”.
I will say this about Canada Day, however. Like Dominion Day it is a celebration of our country as a whole. Indeed, Dominion Day and Canada Day, are two different celebrations of Canada based on two different visions of what ought to celebrated about the country. I will elaborate on that momentarily. First I will point out the contrast. Attempts at a post-Canada Day holiday, as this New Day would appear to be, seem to be attempts at having a celebration on the country’s anniversary without celebrating the country at all but rather celebrating progressive ideals and the group identities of groups within Canada who are favoured by the left while allotting shame and dishonour to the country (and to groups within it who are not favoured by the left). Ironically, considering that the sort of people who think up this sort of thing are always going on about “inclusivity”, this is incredibly divisive. It is also insane.
Canada Day is a celebration of the Canada of the Liberal vision. That Canada is best described by the title of a 1935 history by John Wesley Dafoe, the Liberal Party promoter who edited the Winnipeg Free Press for the first half of the twentieth century, Canada:An American Nation. By deliberately omitting the word “North” Dafoe expressed his idea that Canada is essentially American – possessing the same culture and values as the United States, and on the same political trajectory historically, away from the British Empire and towards democratic republican nationalism, albeit pursuing that path through means other than war. Those who share this vision of Canada have historically regarded the Liberal Party as the guardians of Canada’s journey down this path or, as it has often been stated, “the natural ruling party of Canada”. This is what the great Canadian historian Donald Creighton derisively called the “Authorized Version”, the Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History that was, before the Cultural Marxist version in which the history of Canada, the United, States, and Western Civilization is treated as nothing but racism, sexism, and other such isms, permeated academe, authoritatively taught in Liberal-leaning history classrooms, which were most of them. What critics of the left-wing of the Liberal Party – the branch of the party most associated with the two Trudeaus and Jean Chretien – and particularly the neoconservatives who look for inspiration and ideas primarily if not solely to the American “conservative” movement, often fail to grasp is that this is the Liberal vision of Canada even when the party’s left-wing, which spouts the same sort of anti-American rhetoric as the American Cold War era New Left, is controlling the party, and perhaps especially so. The symbols associated with Canada Day, such as the flag introduced by Lester Pearson in 1965, like the name of the holiday itself, are symbols that point to Canada while saying nothing about her history and traditions, symbols that were introduced by Liberals to replace older ones that also pointed to Canada but did speak about her history and traditions. The historical events highlighted in this vision of Canada are events in which the Liberal Party led the country. In recent decades the main one of these was the repatriation of the British North America Act of 1867 in 1982 and the addition to it of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In repatriating the British North America Act, it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. Everything asserted a few sentences earlier about the symbols associated with Canada Day is true of this change as well and the new name reflects the American understanding of the word “constitution”, i.e., a piece of paper telling the government what to do, rather than the traditional British-Canadian understanding of the word as meaning the institutions of the state as they actually exist and operate in a living tradition that is largely unwritten. Similarly, it was the American Bill of Rights that the authors of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had in mind when they added this to the repatriated BNA, although, many of us have been warning for years and as is painfully obvious after the medical tyranny of the last two and a half years, and especially the harsh fascist crackdown on those peacefully protesting against this tyranny in Ottawa earlier this year, the Charter simply does not provide the same level of protection as the American Bill. The Charter did not provide us with anything worth having that we did not already have by right of the Common Law and the long tradition of protected rights and freedoms associated with it including such highlights as the Magna Carta. Furthermore, it weakened the most important rights and freedoms mentioned in it – the fundamental freedoms of Section 2 and the legal rights of Sections 7 to 14, institutionalized the injustice of reverse de jure discrimination – Section 15 b), and provided no protection whatsoever to property rights which in the older tradition which both we and the Americans inherited occupy the spot where the Americans put “the pursuit of happiness” in one of the founding documents of their tradition as it branched off from the older. Perhaps the most significant single effect of the Charter was to transform our Supreme Court into an American-style activist Court which it had not been up unto that point. The American Supreme Court has been activist so long that now, when it has finally reversed one of its most notorious activist rulings – Roe v Wade – and returned the right to legislate protection for the lives of the unborn to the lawmaking assemblies from which it stole it in 1973, the American progressives whose causes have benefited from the vast majority of judicial activism have seen this as illegitimate judicial activism and have been behaving like extremely spoiled children who have finally received long-overdue discipline. The point, however, is that these changes, arguably the most Americanizing of any the Liberal Party has ever made, were introduced by a Liberal government when the party was controlled by its left-wing, despite that left-wing’s Communist-sympathizing anti-American rhetoric.
Dominion Day is a celebration of the Canada that was formally established as a country when the British North America Act came into effect on 1 July, 1867. The country was given the name Canada, which name, originally the Iroquois word for “village”, was mistaken by Jacques Cartier for the St. Lawrence region, then applied to the society of French settlers established there, then, after this French society and its territory were ceded to the British Crown by the French Crown after the Seven Years War, and the Americans seceded from the British Crown to establish their Modern, liberal, republic, became the name of two provinces of the British Empire, one French Catholic and the other English Protestant, located in this territory, the latter populated by the Loyalists who had fled persecution in the American republic. These provinces were united into one in 1841, which proved almost immediately to be a mistake, and the search for a solution to the problems this fusion generated was one of the main reasons for Confederation in which the two provinces were separated once again, but made part of a larger federation of British North American provinces that was given the name common to both. Dominion was the title the Fathers of Confederation gave the country that would bear the name country. The title of a country, as distinct from its name, is supposed to tell you what kind of a country it is, that is to say, the nature of the constitution of the state. If a country has “People’s Republic” as its title, for example, that tells us that it is a Communist, totalitarian, hellhole. The “Dominion” in Canada’s title tells us that she is a parliamentary monarchy, a kingdom or realm under the reign of the monarch we share with the United Kingdom, governed by her own Parliament. When the Liberals were waging war against the title “Dominion” from the 1960s to the 1980s, they maintained that it was a synonym for “colony” and was imposed upon Canada from London in the nineteenth century, but none of that was true. The most charitable interpretation of the Liberals making these claims is that they were ignorant of history, an interpretation that would seem to be supported by the Honourable Eugene Forsey’s account, in his memoirs, of his attempts to educate his Liberal colleagues in the Senate about these things during this period, although a less charitable interpretation might be more appropriate for the top leaders of the party. The reality is that the Fathers of Confederation had “Kingdom of Canada” as their first choice, were advised by London to pick something less provocative to our neighbours to the South, and chose “Dominion” as a synonym for “Kingdom” from Psalm 72:8.
Dominion Day, as a celebration of this Canada, is a celebration of a vision of Canada that is pretty much the opposite of the Liberal vision of Canada, and an interpretation of her history that is the opposite of the “Authorized Version”. To call it the Conservative vision and interpretation of Canada would be very misleading, I am afraid, because, those who currently use the moniker Conservative are generally light years removed from Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier Whatever you want to call it, however, it is the truer vision and interpretation of Canada. The Confederation Project was not an attempt to do what the Americans had done in 1776 albeit without bloodshed. It was an attempt to do the opposite of what the Americans had done – to take the provinces of the British Empire in North America, and build out of them a new country without severing ties with the United Kingdom and the Empire, using the Westminster Parliament as its model rather than devising a new constitution from scratch. For the Fathers of Confederation in 1864 to 1867, as with the English and French Canadians who fought alongside the British Imperial army and its Indian allies from 1812 to 1815, and the ancestors of the same during the American Revolution four decades earlier, the threat to their freedom came from the American Republic, with its “Manifest Destiny”, cloaking its dreams of conquest in the rhetoric of “liberation”. The British Crown and Empire were not tyrannical forces from which the Canadians needed to be “liberated” (1) but the guardian forces that protected Canadian freedom from American conquest. The threat of American conquest did not just magically go away on 1 July, 1867. The efforts of Sir John’s government in the decades that followed, to bring the rest of British North America into Confederation, to settle the prairies, and to build the transcontinental railroad that would unite the country economically, were all carried out with the threat of a United States hoping and wishing for him to fail so that they might swoop in and gobble up Canada looming over head. Aiding and abetting the would-be American conquerors were their fifth column in Canada, the Liberals. In Sir John’s last Dominion election, held in March 1891 only a couple of months prior to the stroke that incapacitated him shortly before his death, he faced a Liberal opponent, Sir Wilfred Laurier, who campaigned on a platform of “unrestricted reciprocity”, which is more commonly called “free trade”, with the United States. Sir John called this treason, pointing out that free trade would create an economic union that would be the wedge in the door for cultural and political union with the United Sates. That very year Liberal intellectual Goldwin Smith published a book, Canada and the Canada Question, that argued that Confederation was a mistake, that economics is everything, that trade in North America is naturally north-south rather than east-west – this was effectively rebutted by Harold Innis in The Fur Trade in Canada (1930) and Donald Creighton in The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence (1937) – and that union with the United States was both desirable and inevitable. Sir John won another majority government in his last Dominion election by vigorously opposing all of this.
Sir John’s victory over Laurier in 1891 demonstrated that his vision of Canada, rather than the Liberal vision, was shared not just by the other Fathers of Confederation but by most Canadians. That this remained true well into the Twentieth Century was evident in how the Liberals were the most likely to lose elections in which they most stressed the free trade plank of their platform and in the Loyalist spirit demonstrated by the Canadians who rallied to the call of King, Country, and Empire in two World Wars. Even the Grit Prime Minister during the Second World War, who had mocked the Imperial war effort during the First World War, who was the very embodiment of the Liberal continentalist free trader, and who was actually an admirer of the dictator who led the other side – following his brief interview with Hitler in 1937, Mackenzie King wrote a gushing entry about him in his diary, in which he described the German tyrant in almost Messianic terms, comparing him to Joan of Arc, and employing language that would have sounded just as creepy had Hitler turned out to be the man of peace he thought him to be – had enough of that spirit to do his duty and lead Canada into the war alongside Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of that conflict was that the United States became the leading power in Western Civilization and immediately began to reshape the West into its own image. To make matters worse around this same time mass communications technology, especially the television, became ubiquitous both a) facilitating the permeation of English Canadian culture with the mass pop culture produced in the culture factories of Los Angeles, and b) greatly increasing the influence of the newsmedia, which had been heavily slanted towards the Liberals since even before Confederation when George Brown edited the Globe, which evolved into today’s Globe and Mail. These are among the foremost of the factors which produced the shift in popular thinking away from the truer, founding, vision of Canada celebrated in Dominion Day to the Liberal vision celebrated in Canada Day. They are also among the factors that led George Grant, Canada’s greatest philosopher, traditionalist, and critic of technology, to pen his jeremiad for our country, Lament for a Nation, in 1965.
If the exponential growth in media power due to the development of mass communications technology and the post-World War II Americanization of Western Civilization as a whole are responsible for the shift in popular thought to the Liberal vision, how then do we explain this subsequent shift to the new, “woke” Left view, in which Canada, and everything that traditional Canadians celebrated about her in Dominion Day and Liberals in Canada Day, are regarded as cause for weeping and gnashing of teeth rather than celebration?
While the media certainly had a role in this as well – they were the ones, last year, remember, who, when various Indian bands began announcing that they had found ground disturbances – and this is all that they have found, to this date – on the grounds of former residential schools or in unmarked sections of cemeteries, irresponsibly reported this as “proof” of a conspiracy theory about the residential schools having been death camps where priests murdered kids by the thousands – it is our educational system that must bear the blame for the fact that so many people were stupid and ignorant enough to believe this stercus tauri. It has been sixty-nine years since Hilda Neatby wrote and published So Little for the Mind: An Indictment of Canadian Education in which she lambasted the education bureaucrats who in most if not all Canadian provinces had decided in the decade or so prior to her writing to impose the educational “reforms” proposed by wacko, environmentalist (in the sense of taking the nurture side in the nature/nurture debate rather than the sense of being a tree-hugging, save-the-planet, do-gooder, although he may have been that too), atheist, secular humanist, Yankee philosopher John Dewey upon Canadian public schools. This meant out with a curriculum focused on giving children facts to learn, expecting them to learn them, and acquainting them with the literary canon of the Great Conversation so that by exposing them to the Swiftian “sweetness and light” of Matthew Arnold’s “best which has been thought and said” they might be inspired to rise above their natural barbarism or philistinism and learn to think and ask questions and strive for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. It meant in with a curriculum that was “child-centred”, which in practice meant dumbed down so as to minimize or eliminate content of which the child cannot immediately recognize its pragmatic utility to himself, although Dewey and his followers, who were decades ahead of everyone else in terms of solipsistic, narcissistic, psycho-babble, dressed it up in terms of helping the child maximize his potential. Those sympathetic to the methods of Dewey et al. thought of these reforms as a positive shift from a passive education in which the teacher gives the student the content to be learned and the student receives it to an active education in which the student is trained to learn by self-discovery. Neatby recognized these methods for what they really were – the means of transforming schools from institutions that provide their students with the intellectual tools necessary to live in control of their own lives as free people into institutions that train people to be docile, unquestioning, members of a more planned, more controlled, and more collectivist sort of society. Her warnings largely went ignored, although she was commemorated with a stamp twenty-two years ago. Even though the environmentalist presuppositions underlying Dewey’s system have been thoroughly debunked in the intervening decades, his theories survive as the dominant educational philosophy, albeit having been periodically translated into the latest forms of newspeak. Meanwhile university level academics have mostly stopped criticizing the way the schools under the new system are failing to prepare students for a university education, but have instead accommodated the universities to the situation by transforming them into indoctrination centres in which their unquestioning and docile but also navel-gazingly narcissistic “student” bodies have their heads stuffed with every conceivable form of left-wing group identity politics – there are entire divisions of universities now dedicated to specific forms of this – and the deranged post-Marxist crackpot left-wing theories – intersectionality, Critical Theory (Race and otherwise), etc. – that support them. The subversion and perversion of our educational system just described is the reason so many were quick to unthinkingly and unquestioningly accept the media’s irresponsible claims that the discovery of soil disturbances by ground-penetrating radar constitutes proof of the conspiracy theory that government-funded, church-operated, schools were murdering their students in some giant plot involving the highest officials of church, state, and a host of other institutions, that a defrocked United Church minister (2) pulled out of his rear end decades ago. It is the reason so many were willing to commit the chronological snobbery of judging ex post facto our country’s past leaders by the left-wing standards of today’s progressives, the injustice of accepting a condemnation of our country in which only the accuser has been allowed to be heard and the defence has been denied the right of cross-examination and of making a defence by the mob shouting “disrespect” and “denial” every time anyone raised a question or pointed out contra-narrative facts, and the impiety of thinking the worst of the generations that went before us. Note how the words “colonialism” and “imperialism” are constantly on the lips of such people, being used negatively in precisely the manner described by Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century in which he concluded that this usage, so different from how these terms are used by real historians, has reduced these words to “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers”. This bespeaks the failure of the educational system.
So no, I will not be participating in any “New Day” that is the product of what passes for thinking in the minds of those whose acceptance of the left-wing narrative that our country is something to be mourned rather than celebrated testifies to the ruin of our educational system. Nor, as an unreconstructed old Tory, will I be celebrating the Liberal vision for our country on “Canada Day”. I shall once again raise my glass – or rather cup of coffee – to Sir John A. Macdonald and celebrate Canada’s true holiday, Dominion Day. — Gerry T. Neal
Happy Dominion Day!
God Save the Queen!
(1) For all of Jefferson’s Lockean rhetoric about natural law, unalienable rights, and the consent of the governed his 1776 accusations of “absolute tyranny” against George III and Parliament were nonsensical propaganda of the most risible sort, considering that the British government was one of the least intrusive governments in the world both at that time and in all of history up to that point.
(2) This is actually, in a twisted way, rather impressive. It is far easier to be ordained in the United Church of Canada than to be defrocked.
