ENOCH POWELL’S RIVERS OF BLOOD SPEECH, APRIL 20, 1968
https://youtu.be/mw4vMZDItQo
Monthly Archives: June 2017
U.S. Border Agents Warned of ‘Open Warfare’ with ‘Grenades’ in Mexico at Texas Border
by Brandon Darby & Ildefonso Ortiz22 Jun 2017 602
Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) of South Texas are being warned about risks posed to them on the border by “open warfare” including grenade attacks occurring on the Mexican side. The warning echoes Breitbart Texas’s Cartel Chronicles reports on the bloody war occurring at the border between a faction of the Mexican Gulf Cartel and Mexican authorities.
The warning was issued by the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) to agents in the RGV Sector. It reads:
WARNING ADVISORY TO BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN RGV SECTOR
Recent events in Tamaulipas, Mexico, specifically in and around the city of Reynosa, pose a special risk to U.S. Border Patrol agents working in the region.
The Reynosa faction of the Mexican Gulf Cartel recently lost its leader and the group is engaging in open warfare with Mexican authorities and possibly with rival factions or other transnational criminal groups. Open source reports indicate gunbattles and use of grenades and other explosives in the fighting.
Border Patrol agents working the line in any station’s area of operations immediately across the largely open border from Reynosa, Mexico, are advised to employ extra caution in the performance of their duties. Stray rounds from firearms have previously injured U.S. law enforcement personnel on the border.
The majority, if not nearly all of U.S. media outlets have ignored and refused to report on the violence that has broken out along the U.S.-Mexico border immediately south of the RGV Sector. The Reynosa faction of the Gulf Cartel lost its boss, Comandante Toro or Juan Manuel Loaiza Salinas aka Julian Loiza Salinas. The death sparked violent infighting and clashes with Mexican authorities. Residents in the area were forced to live under complete control of Toro, with even the news outlets having to answer to him.
Border Patrol agents and other U.S. law enforcement working on the border are indeed at risk when clashes occur between the paramilitary transnational criminal organizations in Mexico and Mexican authorities. As recently as November of 2016, one U.S. Border Patrol agent and one Texas State Trooper were shot while patrolling the border in the same sector.
Brandon Darby is managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon. You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
(Disclosure: Breitbart Texas sponsored the Green Line podcast for the NBPC in an effort to provide a platform for agents to inform the public about the realities on the border and what Border Patrol agents face. Director Brandon Darby received an award from the Laredo chapter of the NBPC for his work in helping to defend and bring a voice to Border Patrol agents. Breitbart News assisted in covering funeral costs for a slain Border Patrol agent previously.)
![[]](https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/TvbPQjEzyld7DEqVw7-O8rSIa7WhPBgpr8NkhXyYOp68FdfL7UHou7LNVr-ozwQrLlBLuzxKBqUwOWl77O1WxMy87yRFfyGN7ZxbnqqGgxa_-D0ZxiRv5_lqJGb1CsXwS7BXPQ7U-QJAXpY=s0-d-e1-ft#http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/03/National-Border-Patrol-Council-1-640x480.png)
David Atkinson’s Argument Against Martin Collacott is Pure Defamatory Trash
by
 |
| Martin Collacott, Old School Canadian, Facts and Analysis |
David Atkinson’s article, “White supremacists ideas revived in Collacott oped,” spews out one defamatory label after another against Martin Collacott’s June 5 editorial, “Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness,” without caring to offer one single fact-based, analytically constructed argument.
Collacot effectively condensed in his article the following empirically oriented claims:
- that according to professor Eric Kaufmann, “almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.”
- that the cost of mass immigration “is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually.”
- that Vancouverites have been “crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals.”
- that “the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.”
- that “we are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.”
- that we should consider the fact that those who advocate mass immigration may be doing so for their own personal or political benefits rather than Canada’s economic and cultural well being. The “benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base.”
- that these beneficiaries also include “leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence,” as well as “developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level”.
- that Canada did benefit in the past from periods of high levels of immigration, and that “a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant” [but] — “it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population”
- that “many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.”
- that “Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups.”
Atkinson, who is an academic at Purdue University, does not tackle a single one of these empirically oriented claims, but instead unleashes one vitriolic claim after another, starting with the title which identifies Collacott as a “white supremacist.” The first sentence then calls Collacott’s argument “chauvinistic” and “white supremacist” again. The second sentence says that Collacott’s argument is nothing but a “thinly veiled invocation of ‘Yellow Peril’ rhetoric”. The third sentence dismisses all the claims by Collacott as “antiquated racial ideas”. The fourth and fifth sentences accuse Collacott of reviving arguments for a “White Canada” in the manner of the “anti-Asian exclusion movement in B.C. (and elsewhere) during the early 20th century.”
The sixth sentence equates Collacott’s argument with those who warned in the early 1900s of a “rising tide of oriental immigration.” In each of the next three sentences all we find are the phrases “widespread fear of impending white elimination,” “the irrational fear of an overwhelming Asian influx,” ” Komagata Maru.” The tenth sentence brings up again the word the never heard phrase “white supremacists,” and the eleventh sentence accuses Collacott of using a label, “white genocide,” “derived from the writings of convicted murderer David Lane”. The same eleventh sentence claims that Collacott is merely trafficking in “alt-right… simplistic meme-driven distortions of history, ethnicity, and identity.”
 |
| Cultural Marxist School Canadian: Facts and Analysis don’t matter; only defamatory labels do. |
Professor Atkinson, how about one argument against the claims of Collacott? Well, in the twelfth sentence he finally brings up one argument (#9 above), but only to dismiss it as the “same kind of disingenuousness favoured by alt-right activists.” The next sentence accuses, again, Collacott of echoing “his predecessors and the modern alt-right in blaming” those who benefit from mass immigration.
Strange yet true: academics today don’t like it when you blame political leaders, bureaucrats, developers, and special interest groups. Atkinson, it should be noted, has made a a career out of promoting immigration and calling anyone who disagrees with him a “racist.” His “forthcoming book” is entitled The Burdens of White Supremacy: Containing Asian Labor Migration in the British Empire and the United States.
The last three paragraphs of his article more or less repeat the same labels while identifying Collacott with the “white supremacist” exclusionary activists of a century ago, “defending the whiteness of British Columbia.” His conclusion is more of the same: “in reality, Collacott’s commentary squarely reiterates these previous champions of white supremacy.”
There you have it, ladies and gentleman, this is the trash that passes for scholarship among leftist professors who can’t think for themselves, who can’t engage in analysis, in open inquiry, but only in accusations and defamatory statements.
The little bit that can be categorized as historically minded in Atkinson’s article is fundamentally wrong. Essentially, what Atkinson tries to do is equate any objections with immigration today with objections a century ago, which is rather odd for a supposed historian to do, since one of the cardinal lessons in the historical profession is to learn how to judge each historical period on its own terms, to be aware that history is not static, and that immigration patterns, and cultural settings, over a hundred years ago cannot be equated with immigration realities today. Collacott distinctly makes this distinction, stating that he understands that Canada has benefited from immigration in the past. Collacott is only asking for our elites to take seriously the 10 points outlined above. He knows that Canadians are not being allowed to debate this issue openly.
It is truly a disgrace that a professor who is supposed to be a firm believer in freedom of expression and critical thinking, has decided to close off all debate with the extremist use of one defamatory label after another.
Atkinson writes that “Collacott nostalgically yearns for an imagined homogenous past that only ever existed in the minds of the province’s most obstinate white supremacists.” This criticism is common among our poorly educated academics. It is flat out wrong, as late as 1971, Canada was over 96 percent White! Deceiving your students is not a good thing. Let’s have an open debate based on historical facts and empirically verifiable statements, rather than rely on trashy labels.
Civil War in Europe is Imminent
The EU is spiraling out of control. With 30 million non-Europeans poised to enter the continent over the next eight years, a blood bath for survival is guaranteed,
The EU is spiraling out of control. With 30 million non-Europeans poised to enter the continent over the next eight years, a blood bath for survival is guaranteed. .Will the liberal governments arm the invaders to exterminate their own native European populations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVEN2ktYPA
Resisting the Third World Invasion, Mississauga Woman Demands a White Doctor
Canadians have never been asked whether we want to be replaced by Third Worlders. The insanely high immigration numbers — 85 per cent from the Third World — agreed to by all major parties will result in the European founding/settler people of Canada becoming a minority by 2050 or before. We have never been asked or consulted as to whether that;s what we want.
But people are beginning to push back. On Sunday, June 18, a woman entered a Mississauga, Ontario walk-in clinic seeking assitance for her son who has chest pains. The waiting room was choc-c-block with Third Worlders. The CBC (June 19, 2017) reported breathlessly that the “woman made several demands for a ‘white doctor’ who ‘doesn’t have brown teeth’ and ‘speaks English. …A woman asks clinic staff several times for a ‘white doctor’ to treat her son who she says has chest pains. When staff tell her that no such doctor is available, the woman gets angry and at one point says ‘being white in this country I should just shoot myself. … ‘I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?'”
A busybody immigrant named Hitesh Bhardwadj who was visiting the clinic filmed the incident on his cellphone and gave it to the CBC. He pronounced pontificated: “This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed.”
The lesbian premier of the province, Kathleen Wynne, joined in the chorus of denunciations.
But why? If the woman had wanted to exterminate her son any time just up to the moment he emerged from the womb, the Left would have angrily insisted on her right to “choose”. But, apparently, she has no right to choose who will care for her son. We hear endlessly of the need to provide “culturally sensitive” services and medical care for immigrants who chose voluntarily to come to Canada.
What about culturally sensitive medical care for the European founding/settler people who were born here?
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
Video shows woman demand a ‘white doctor’ treat son at Mississauga, Ont., clinic
‘This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed,’ says witness who shot video
By Nicole Brockbank, Lisa Xing, CBC News Posted: Jun 19, 2017 7:32 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 20, 2017 8:56 PM ET
In a video, a woman (left) makes several demands for a “white doctor” who “doesn’t have brown teeth, that speaks English” at a walk-in clinic in Mississauga, Ont., on Sunday. (Hitesh Bhardwaj)
A Mississauga, Ont., man is stunned after witnessing and filming a woman make several demands for a “white doctor” who “doesn’t have brown teeth” and “speaks English” at his local walk-in clinic on Sunday.
Hitesh Bhardwaj recorded the incident while waiting for his own appointment at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont. He shared his video with CBC News.
00:00 04:13
Woman demands a “white doctor” treat son at Mississauga, Ont. clinic4:13
Over the course of four minutes of video, a woman asks clinic staff several times for a “white doctor” to treat her son who she says has chest pains. When staff tell her that no such doctor is available, the woman gets angry and at one point says “being white in this country I should just shoot myself.”
“I saw a doctor that was not white that did not help my kid,” says the woman in the video. “I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?”
‘I would like to see a white doctor. You’re telling me there isn’t one white doctor in this whole entire building?’– Woman in video captured at walk-in clinic in Mississauga, Ont.
CBC Toronto tried to identify the woman to give her a chance to respond to the video, but was unsuccessful as of Monday evening.
We’ve obscured her face in the video to protect the identity of her son.
Bhardwaj says that he started filming the incident after a woman sitting next to him asked the agitated woman why the doctor had to be white.
“I couldn’t help but record the video,” said Bhardwaj. “This is bad, this is inappropriate and shouldn’t go unnoticed.”
Hitesh Bhardwaj recorded the incident while waiting for his own appointment at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont., and shared his video with CBC News. (CBC)
Bhardwaj said, as an immigrant to Canada himself, he’s really proud to live here and “couldn’t believe” what he saw.
“I couldn’t stop thinking about it,” Bhardwaj said. “The whole episode kept on repeating in my head, I was very upset. You know I can’t even define the feeling.”
‘Everyday racism’ resurfacing
Cheryl Teelucksingh, a sociology professor at Ryerson University, sees the incident as an example of the kind of “everyday racism” that is “beginning to resurface” in Canada.
She said some people are pointing to the election of U.S. President Donald Trump making people feel more comfortable saying things they normally wouldn’t. But Teelucksingh thinks there’s a more important factor: perceived multiculturalism, or the assumption by some Canadians that racial minorities are already treated equally across the country.
Cheryl Teelucksingh, a sociology professor at Ryerson University, sees the incident as an example of the kind of “everyday racism” that is “beginning to resurface” in Canada. (CBC)
“I think people are feeling that there’s a little bit more space now to question who’s in positions of power, who’s actually getting the jobs, those sorts of things,” said Teelucksingh.
In response, Teelucksingh believes, non-white professionals will probably revert to demonstrating their credentials by saying things like “look I went to school this long and did this sort of speciality.
“They’re legitimizing not just their place in their profession and workplace but their place within Canada. To say, look, I actually belong here and I have the right to practise my profession.”
Witnesses at clinic step up
In addition to Bhardwaj, other people in the waiting room also confronted the woman in the clinic. In the video several of them try to get the woman to go to the hospital, to which she responds, “I was there and they only have brown doctors.”
One female witness in the video, tells the woman that, “Your child clearly has more issues with you being his mother than him needing to see a doctor. You are extremely rude and racist.”
The woman on the right is one of the witnesses who argued with the woman demanding a “white doctor.” (Hitesh Bhardwaj/CBC)
Later in the exchange the woman accuses the witnesses of “attacking me because I’m white.”
The fact that witnesses in the clinic stood up and spoke out against what the woman was saying is a good sign, Teelucksingh said.
“That sort of shows the broader societal values and that offers some hope,” Teelucksingh told CBC Toronto.
Police respond to ‘disturbance’ at clinic
Peel Regional Police said they were called to the clinic just after 12:30 p.m. on Sunday for a “disturbance.”
The incident happened at Rapid Access to Medical Specialists in Mississauga, Ont. (CBC)
Const. Mark Fischer said a police officer spoke to “all involved” and afterward the woman’s son was treated by a doctor at the clinic.
No allegations of threats or assault were brought forward by anyone involved and the matter is closed, according to police.
In a statement, Rapid Access to Medical Specialists said it “is proud of the quality of medical care provided at this clinic,” but that “no one in the clinic has any comments for the media.”
The insanity marches on.
We don’t want to insult a hijab clad Muslim woman by a search,
but it’s OK to search a nun.
Yep, makes sense to me!
You can’t make this stuff up!
Airport security (Detroit Metro Concourse A).
A Catholic nun being frisked by a Muslim security agent!
Excuse me?
Did you say a MUSLIM security agent
screening for suspected terrorists?
Political Correctness is out of control.
Please pass this all around the USA & Canada
Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness, says former Ambassador Martin Collacutt
![Vancouver , B.C. July 1, 2013 Colourful way to celebrate as thousands take in the Canada Day parade in downtown Vancouver on July 1, , 2013. Here the crowds at Burrard and Georgia wave to the parade performers on Georgia Street. Mark van Manen/PNG Staff Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories and WEB stories Trax # 00022168A Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories and WEB stories Trax # 00022168A [PNG Merlin Archive]](http://wpmedia.vancouversun.com/2016/07/png-merlin-archive-org-xmit-pos2013092320051945-png-merl.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=33){kind=avatar}
![Vancouver , B.C. July 1, 2013 Colourful way to celebrate as thousands take in the Canada Day parade in downtown Vancouver on July 1, , 2013. Here the crowds at Burrard and Georgia wave to the parade performers on Georgia Street. Mark van Manen/PNG Staff Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories and WEB stories Trax # 00022168A Vancouver Sun ProvinceNews stories and WEB stories Trax # 00022168A [PNG Merlin Archive]](http://wpmedia.vancouversun.com/2017/05/vancouver-b-c-july-1-2013-colourful-way-to-celebrate-a.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1)
According to University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be “visible minorities” within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.
Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.
Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.
While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population. Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie. The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.
Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however. We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.
Those who seek to benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base with policies designed to make it easier to come here from abroad and acquire the full benefits of citizenship. Also active are leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence. Another important influence has been contributions from developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level.
In this regard, it is worth noting that not too long ago, leading politicians in Vancouver on both sides of the political aisle — such as former mayors Art Phillips and Mike Harcourt — were readily prepared to identify high immigration intake as one of the leading causes, if not the main cause, of rising house prices. Now, however, no Canadian politician has the guts or integrity to connect the two.
RELATED
This is not only because they are so heavily indebted to the real estate industry in one way or another, but also since criticism of mass immigration is treated in many quarters as xenophobic, if not racist, since newcomers are overwhelmingly visible minorities. While a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant — and my own family is an example of this — it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population, particularly when there is no good reason for allowing this to happen.
With current policies, we will have to find room for tens of millions of more newcomers, most of whom will settle in the already densely populated areas of the country where most of the employment opportunities as well as their relatives are located.
We will also have to contend with the fact that many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.
If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.
Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.
And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of wilful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.
Are we prepared to do something about it? Sadly, it appears that most Canadians are too supine or short-sighted to do so — at least at this juncture.
Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups. Without this we cannot expect our descendants to inherit a country that is anything like the Canada of today.
Martin Collacott lives in Surrey and served as Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East. He has testified on numerous occasions before parliamentary committees as an expert witness on immigration, refugee and security matters
Where have all the flowers gone?
|
||||||||||
Andrew Coyne: Journalist Without Outsideness
by
 |
| Coyne: wants a Canada that is a “We” without a “Them” |
No ideological dissent is allowed in Canada on the supposed blessings of diversification and that’s why the individuals working for Century Initiative (CI) include conservatives, liberals, socialists, environmentalists, feminists, Muslims, and corporate heads. Each person serving CI is the full package, for high profits and high salaries, for massive population growth and ecological beauty, for feminism and Islamization, all in one scoop. The corporate consultant Dominic Barton, the main guy at CI, has just launched ‘All In’, a ‘HeForShe’ approach to gender equality as Director of McKinsey & Co. Doug Saunders, super feminist beta male, relishes the image of a Canada and a Europe packed with hyper-patriarchal Muslim and African males working for corporations.
CI ought to be congratulated for meeting what Robert Putnam called “the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies…to create a new, broader sense of ‘we’“. Everyone at CI is a “we” without outsideness. That is the goal of diversity: to eliminate oppositions, differences, boundaries, contrasts, by including everyone inside each European-created country, every race, culture, religion. This “we” will bring an utopia of prosperity and togetherness without violence.
The diversification program is so entrenched in every Western school, political party, and business that its advocates appear to embody in themselves a polite and truly inclusive “we” in their approach to politics and interpersonal relations. Those who disturb this “we” are excluded from politics for fear that they may promote an outside that is not supposed to exist. The most radical experiment ever imposed on a people, without democratic consent, must appear to be moderate and reasonable.
Fake Journalism
Andrew Coyne, a sometime conservative, libertarian, feminist, and a fan of Justin the small potato, has endorsed the 450,000 thousand increase in immigration numbers. I can’t remember anything Coyne has ever written or said. His views have never disturbed anyone. He does not like left and right labels. He is a “we” writing and working for every side, Globe and Mail, National Post, Maclean’s, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Saturday Night, and CBC. Century Initiative has a most pleasant article by Coyne, “Increased Immigration is Good for Canada — and the Reasons aren’t only Economic.”
Imagining he is a man of letters, Coyne cites Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Stephen Leacock to back up his argument. Relying on quotes rather than books is common among lawyers. Advocates of diversification also like to cite seemingly supportive statements from great men to enhance their credibility. Coyne says that Laurier and Leacock expressed optimistic thoughts about the opportunities high levels of immigration would offer Canada for great nation status. There is a problem, though: neither one of these men would have endorsed the current suicidal program of diversity.
 |
| Man of the Past: Wilfrid Laurier wanted a Canada for “Us” without “Them” |
Here’s the passage he cites from Laurier:
For the next 75 years, nay the next 100 years,Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come…. There are men living in this audience … who before they die, if they live to old age, will see this country with at least 60 millions of people.
It is “not a coincidence,” says Coyne, that Laurier said this at a time of high immigration. He wittingly forgets to tell us that the years Laurier was Prime Minister, 1896 to 1911, were years when Canada was viewed by the entire establishment as an exclusive Anglo-European nation, when the Chinese head tax was increased (in 1900 and in 1903), when Laurier took a number of measures to prohibit the entrance of blacks into Canada, and when liberal Laurier insisted that Indians were “unsuited to live in the climatic conditions of British Columbia and were a serious disturbance to industrial and economic conditions.”
 |
| Man of the Past: Leacock believed that only his “Us” Anglos could build a Great Canada |
What about Stephen Leacock? Coyne offers another little quote in which Leacock, apparently, envisioned a Canada with open borders “that will make us 10 millions tomorrow, 20 millions in our children’s time and a 100 millions ere the century runs out.” Again, he wittingly suppresses Leacock’s well known view that only Anglo Saxons were racially fit to build Canada. He did not mind a little dose of southern and eastern Europeans:
There are two standard reactions against these “racist” views. One is to denounce them and then go about downgrading, or even removing, Laurier and Leacock “from all kinds of honor rolls“. The other response, the preferred one in the polite circles Coyne inhabits, is to pretend they never said this by ignoring and rewriting their biographies so as to make them fit into a progressive pattern according to which these otherwise progressive men were “unfortunately” voicing the accepted views of their time, views they would have readily rejected if they had been born in our “we” times
Not just in Canada, but across the West, the history of Europeans is being falsely rewritten to create the impression that their nations were always immigrant nations, which are only now living up to their ideals of inclusiveness, by pursuing a program of diversification in which there is no outsideness. Coyne chastises the populism of Trump and of European immigration restrictionists for pursuing an “Us versus Them” politics that is incapable of making subtle distinctions between, say, ordinary Muslims and extremists. This inclusive journalist with a self-identified “disciplined mind” dislikes in particular the “contempt” populists have shown for “the whole notion of expertise”.
Fake Arguments versus Japanese Arguments
The reason ordinary Canadians mistrust your expertise, Coyne, is they are seeing through a program that is radically altering the ethnic character of Canada premised on the exclusion of Eurocanadians, and only Eurocanadians, from affirming their identity and history. They are realizing, through their astute reading of newly released scientific research, that ethnic groups are naturally inclined to pursue their collective interests, and that only Europeans tend to be more individualistic. They are seeing through your misuse of Laurier and Leacock to promote a program that these two great Canadians (without a disciplined mind?) never endorse but indeed rejected in the strongest “Us versus Them” terms. They are realizing, moreover, that the very pretenders of an inclusive politics have created a totalitarian order that excludes and denounces the majority of working and middle class whites who are feeling like strangers in their own homelands.
Finally, they are realizing that the “reasons” Coyne offers (in his CI article) on the supposed benefits of massive immigration are bogus and devoid of expertise. He says that a population of 100 would make Canada second to the United States among the G-7, since these countries are projected to have lower levels than 100 million. How can one assume so nonchalantly that the other G-7 nations, which currently have far larger populations than Canada, will simply decline demographically when their inclusive journalists and leaders are likewise telling their populations the same absurd argument that they need to keep accepting hordes of migrants to survive economically?
The same difficulties hold for Coyne’s other argument about the supposedly more “talented and ambitious people” that Canada can attract by increasing immigration from 300,000 to 450,000: the other G-7 nations, except “Us versus Them” Japan, are trying to entice talent from the Third World, which, as we have noted before, is a “brain drain” policy premised on sucking out of poorer nations their most talented individuals.
Questions for Coyne: Why are inclusive men so afraid to encourage their domestic populations to have more babies and to produce talented individuals at home the way the Japanese are openly advocating rather than lazily trying to steal talent from elsewhere and recklessly carrying a cultural Marxist experiment? Why don’t we think in the same disciplined way as the Japanese leadership which has openly stated that an aging population is “not a burden, but an incentive to boost productivity through innovations like robots, wireless sensors and artificial intelligence” without immigration?
This is why ordinary Canadians don’t trust our current elites and wannabe experts: because they don’t reason properly through the issues, but are instead deceptively trying to make Canadians feel that the only solution to an aging population is massive increases in immigration and constant harassment of Canadians about their alleged racism if they don’t agree with this preposterous idea.