Monthly Archives: December 2017


Posted on by


This video was inspired by the recent tweet by feminist organization “Women’s March” Saying they need to confront white…
Show e re


Posted on by

Spencer Fernando




While the political elites promote large immigration increases as being about “inclusion” or “openness,”the true agenda is about serving global corporations who want larger supplies of labour – making it easier to pay each worker less money and making it tougher for Canadian citizens to afford having more children.

The Trudeau Liberals have announced plans to bring in 1 million new immigrants in the next three years.

While immigration numbers were around 260,000 under the Conservative government, Trudeau is planning to raise the yearly number to 340,000 per year.

Trudeau’s planned increase is a massive influx.

Politicians – even the most Conservative ones – are generally worried about the consequences of criticizing this huge planned increase in immigration.

After all, the elites regularly condemn anyone who questions immigration policy as a “racist,” which scares many politicians away from asking questions.

Another factor that causes people to be unwilling to criticize immigration policy is the oft-repeated phrase that “we need large immigration increases because Canadians aren’t having enough children.”

Of course, the elites want to make sure that nobody ever asks, “why aren’t Canadians having more children?”

And here’s where the elitist orthodoxy around immigration breaks down.

A key factor in the lower birthrate among Canadians is the massive increases to the cost of living. As many have pointed out, it now takes two incomes – and huge amounts of debt – to afford what was once possible on one income.

When people are constantly working and falling further into debt just to barely keep their heads above water financially, it’s incredibly difficult for families to afford having more children – even when they want to.

While the government pretends to do something about this growing unaffordability problem, they don’t do the one thing that would really help fix it: Increase the leverage of Canadian workers.

It’s a simple supply-and demand problem.

The more potential workers Canada brings in every year through immigration, the more each worker in the country has reduced bargaining power. Since there is an expanding pool of workers, workers are competing for companies, rather than companies competing for workers.

This makes it easier for companies to pay workers less, and forces people to work longer hours and give up more of their life to their job – meaning less money and less time for family.

This helps big companies – particularly global corporations – the most.

This then becomes a self-reinforcing cycle: It makes it tougher for Canadian workers to afford more children, which leads to a lower birthrate, which then is used as justification for even larger immigration increases.

Additionally, minimum wage hikes don’t help this problem, since many companies will just lay people off instead of paying them an artificially set wage. Those laid off often go on social assistance, which leads to increased taxes on taxpayers – which again hurts the affordability issue.

So, the key issue is the leverage of each individual worker.

Lower wages, more hours, and more desperation = reduced ability for families to have more children.

By increasing immigration rates even further, Justin Trudeau’s immigration policy will reduce the leverage of Canadian workers, which will make the affordability issue even worse, and will make it tougher for Canadian citizens to afford larger families.

However, if the immigration rate was kept between 200,000 and 260,000 – the level that it was at under Harper – combined with massive tax cuts to make life more affordable – we would begin to reverse this situation.

Canada’s aging population creates a growing demand for workers, meaning that maintaining immigration levels at a modest level (rather than Trudeau’s massive increases) will begin to strengthen the power of Canadian workers.

Over time, companies would begin competing for Canadian workers, meaning they would need to pay higher wages (without needing an artificially mandated wage increase by government).

These higher wages would reduce the debt burden on households, give workers more leverage to negotiate favourable hours and family-friendly policies, and would make it easier to afford having more children.

This would begin to destroy belief in the elitist orthodoxy that justifies massive immigration increases, and this is why the elites are so afraid of it.

While they hide their policies behind virtue-signalling concepts lines such as “diversity is our strength,” their real agenda is to serve global corporate interests.

Global corporations want a massive pool of desperate, underpaid workers. They don’t want a country where workers have influence and leverage. So, they need to bring in more and more people every year to destroy that leverage, and they need a way to demonize anyone who notices what’s actually happening. So, they claim to support “openness” and “diversity,” and call any critic a “racist.”

While Canada should remain a country that welcomes immigration, that welcome should be on terms that benefits Canadian workers. Many immigrants bring great ideas and great skills to our country, and we benefit from welcoming people into the Canadian family.

That said, we must always be watchful for politicians who try to use our immigration system to serve elite corporate interests that hurt Canadian workers.

The job of the Canadian government is not to fix the world or open our doors up to an unlimited amount of people. The job of the government is to serve Canadians, and a big part of that is making it more affordable for our own citizens to afford larger families.

That’s why we must be willing to push back against the broken and failed elitist orthodoxy on immigration, and have a real discussion in this country about helping our families and our workers.

Spencer Fernando

Kenn Giveden, Charles Taylor & Paul Fromm Discuss Racial Differences: Should Whites Embrace the Term of “Racist”

Posted on by
Kenn Giveden, Charles Taylor & Paul Fromm Discuss Racial Differences: Should Whites Embrace the Term of “Racist”

Swastika Hysteria In Ontario’s Hinterland by Ivan Daudet

Posted on by

Swastika Hysteria In Ontario’s Hinterland

by Ivan Daudet

Swastika Trail
Street name in Puslinch Township, Ontario

Seventy-two years after the surrender of Hitler Germany, national socialism is completely scrubbed from the face of the earth. Well, not entirely. One small village of indomitable Ontarians, Puslinch Township, still holds out against the forces of good — or so its detractors maintain. The point of contention: an old street of around 50 residents named “Swastika Trail.”

The Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith Canada (BBC) started an online petitionto demand from the town council to rename Swastika Trail to something ‘less offensive.’ It argues that the “swastika is unequivocally a modern symbol of racism, hatred and death.” The petition will apparently be submitted on 20th December to the local council. It has been flanked by a media campaign in a number of national media outlets such as CTV newsCBCThe Star and National Post. All of them reproduce one and the same Canadian Press release, so I will rely here on the one from

When I spotted the headline, my first thought was what probably many people were thinking: “Somehow over the top, but rename the street and be done with it.” In other words: reasonable accommodation towards the suffering of the Jewish people in the 20th century. But the longer I reflected on it, the more presumptous this demand appeared to me.

In the following I will argue why the name of the street cannot be seen as offensive to Jewish people and why it should be retained as a true expression of Canada’s policy of multiculturalism.

Dispute On The Local Level

The single most important fact to consider is that the street is entirely unrelated to the history and ideology of national socialism:

Swastika Trail was named in the 1920s before the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, local residents said.

Notably, the lack of a connection isn’t disputed by BBC and those residents who press for a name change, otherwise they would have certainly brought it up. So the question is why should the name be changed despite its innocuous, non-Nazi background? Some residents cites personal reasons. They complain that their association with the street has a negative impact on their personal lifes:

“Having the word swastika on my provincially issued driver’s licence and my federally issued mailing address associates me with bigotry, intolerance and anti-Semitism,” said Jennifer Horton. “That’s not who I am and that’s not how I want to present myself.”

So feelings matter, Mrs Horton believes. A more relevant question, however, is how much the complainants are themselves responsible for their own situation. Were they born on Swastika Trail or did they move to it as self-responsible adults? The article is silent on this matter but if the latter is true, the complainants cannot simply argue that they were forced into their alleged stigma. They did have the freedom of choice and could have simply opted not to move to the street if they found its name so repugnant that they did not want to be associated with it. Thus, these people should not have a say or at least not to the same extent as those residents who lived on the street all their life. To give them equal say would be to deny their responsibility as grown-ups for their own life decisions.

From my personal experience too, I have to disagree with Mrs Horton’s account. I once lived in a street named after a communist, but never I was accused to be a Commie by virtue of my postal address (in that case, I would like to live on Casanova Road). People can tell the difference, it is not below their intelligence.

The dispute then went on to a democratic vote. We learn that

local residents on the street voted on the issue earlier this month among themselves, with a slight majority in favour of keeping the name.

Dispute From A National And Multicultural Perspective

One could say at this point ‘causa finita, the people have spoken,’ but the opponents quickly dismissed the local democratic process by arguing that

this is an issue that is not only affecting our street — this is an issue that affects our entire community, our whole country, so it’s not a matter of 50 people on a street having a vote.

They escalated then the dispute by bringing in openly the BBC to lobby for their cause. The BBC presented the issue as a full-blown moral crusade of good against evil:

This is your opportunity to stand on the right side of history, and make your town a more welcoming place for all Canadians. Streets must never be named after symbols of hate. Despite its ancient origins, the swastika is unequivocally a modern symbol of racism, hatred and death. Tens of millions of Canadians, and hundreds of millions across the globe, have had their lives destroyed by the Nazis who made the swastika their emblem.

So BBC appeals to Canadian nationals as well as humanity as a whole, basing its argument on a mixture of national and cosmopolitan sentiments. Do we Canadians have the moral obligation to support the renaming of the street? Let’s take first a brief look at the long history of the swastika.

Ancient Roman Mosaics
Floor mosaic in an ancient Roman villa in Spain

The swastika is one of the very oldest symbols of mankind and appeared already in the character repertoire of Neolithic proto-writing. In Europe its use dates back to more than 6,000 years before Adolf Hitler, to the Vinča culture in South-East Europe (cf. no. 70).1 It has also been one of the most widespread symbols of mankind, doubtlessly also due to its simple form. The list of the cultures which have been employing it in their symbology reads like a who is who of human civilization:

  • India
  • Iran
  • China
  • Armenia
  • Greece
  • Rome
  • Germanic peoples
  • Celts
  • Slavs
  • etc. etc.

Does BBC claim that all these high cultures and key historical people were on the wrong side of history? Many million descendants of them are living now in Canada as Canadian citizens. Many hundreds of millions of descendants are living all over the world. Why should their heritage be indiscriminately denounced as a “symbol of hatred”? The Canadian Multiculturalism Act from 1988 recognizes the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve and enhance their cultural heritage. If this act means anything, if the “multi” in multiculturalism is really meant to be inclusive, we cannot reduce cultural symbols to the one ‘morally right’ interpretation to the exclusion of the other traditions.

Hindu child
Hindu child

Rather, we need to accept the cultural diversity and treat one heritage equally to the other. The swastika is for example a common symbol in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism which have a huge number of followers in Canada. It has thus a right to exist.

One might object that the “Swastika trail” has nothing to do with these eastern religions. True enough. But it has also nothing to do with Nazism, so why demand to change it?

Swastika opponents may counter that we should allow exceptions on religious grounds, but otherwise ban it “because hate.” But how paradox is it to be d’accord with the symbol’s use by one billion Buddhists, Hindus and Jainists, while pushing for a ban for fifty Canadians who are just as unconnected to national socialism? How much double think is necessary for this?

Nothing Wrong With The Swastika Per Se

As it is, the “Swastika Trail” of Puslinch Township belongs to one particular cultural group, that of the local Canadians who founded the place and live there. The respect for their proud heritage should be no less worth than that for other groups such as the Jews. Pressure should not be exerted from the outside to force the locals into changing their grown culture.

BBC invokes the memory of Canadian WWII veterans, but in doing so it turns the whole issue on its head. Canadian soldiers did not fight for national socialism but, remember, against it. So why should their descendants be obliged to remove the swastika from their vocabulary and symbology like the Germans? Why are the conditions of surrender now also applied to the then victors, including the Puslinch people who, I am sure, also had to pay a blood toll in the war? Why is their township denounced as an unwelcoming territory if they don’t follow the Judeo-centric interpretation of the swastika by B’nai Brith Canada? When did we came to the point that insistence on local Canadian tradition is lumped together with Nazi ideology? Puslinch and Canada as a whole still have nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Lauburu in catholic German church
Lauburu swastika in a Catholic church

Furthermore, BBC completely ignores that “swastika” is only the generic name for a class of different signs. It treats the “Swastika Trail” as if it must refer to the sign peculiar to the national socialists. In reality there are many variations of the swastika. The Nazi version is actually called a Hakenkreuz, even in informed English parlance. The trail name, however, is unspecific as to the swastika’s shape and symbolic content and could thus refer to any one of a dozen different signs. So why does BBC connect it with the Hakenkreuz of all variants?

What BBC fails to recognize is that there is not the one interpretation of the swastika. Neither in a multicultural Canadian nor in a global context one people alone can reasonably claim to hold the definitional power over it. The swastika is a world heritage. There is nothing wrong with it per se. Only so in a national socialist context. Being of one of mankind’s very oldest and most venerable symbols its usage should not be governed by one particular political narrative, historical memory or moral monopoly.

And in this regard the political campaign of the BBC proves to be dishonest when it links the street in Puslinch to some Nazi graffiti in another town 90 kilometers away (Vaughn). This is moral blackmailing. Instead of demonizing the swastika regardless of its context, its use should be judged on the case by case basis that such a multifaceted, ancient symbol merits. “Swastika Trail” in Puslinch Township is perfectly ok. We aren’t going after every street which is named after a hammer or sickle either, are we?

[1] Sorin Paliga, “The Tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An Enigma? A Reconsideration and Further Perspectives,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, vol. 19, no. 1, 1993, p. 28

What it will take to restore Western culture? The Kenn Giveden Show with Paul Fromm (Canada) & William Johnson (American Freedom Party) & Simon Roche (South Africa) * The meaning of Canada’s Red Ensign * Shocking new threats to Whites in South Africa * The fall of a tyrant in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) What it will take to restore Western culture SUBSCRIBE ► FACEBOOK ► TWITTER ► KENN SINGS ► https:/… YOUTUBE.COM

Posted on by

What it will take to restore Western culture?

The Kenn Giveden Show with Paul Fromm (Canada) & William Johnson (American Freedom Party) & Simon Roche (South Africa)

* The meaning of Canada’s Red Ensign

* Shocking new threats to Whites in South Africa

* The fall of a tyrant in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)


Posted on by


The following is but a small sample of the many dozens of TV advertisements which feature biracial couples.Don’t believe me? Then try this. Set aside 4 hours of any given evening and watch a range of TV programs. My bet is that you will likely encounter at least 3 or 4 ads of this nature. If I had the means to copy them on a tape or DVD I would make it a project.

The more typical ones have white wife/mother and black husband/father, like the first one listed here. The second and third commercials—on behalf of “Honeymaid”— attack the traditional family on all fronts. The  second commercial attempts to set the record straight about what a wholesome family is. In the opening first vignette, a “wholesome” family consists of two “daddies” and a child, as well a biracial family in another.. The message is clear. “Family”, “marriage”, “gender” can be anything we want it to be. All the old definitions are obsolete.  No one of us now have a right to define what these terms mean—that’s the province of grievance groups.

In the third commercial, Honeymaid essentially tells us what the counterculture told us 5 decades ago. We can bed hop and do our own thing without regard to the impact our selfish or hedonistic behaviour has on children because, you see, children are ‘resilient’. We don’t give them enough credit. If  Mom and Dad break up, no problem. Now they get to have another dad—or mom!  So lets not call them “broken” families, lets call them “blended” families. Blended families are commonplace now, so no big deal,eh? Well, if one consults the statistical evidence about scholastic achievement, vocational success and incarceration rates, the children of loosy goosey parents really aren’t that ‘resilient’ after all. But revelations of that sort wouldn’t fit the agenda, would they?

The Cheerios biracial commercial is significant for the negative blowback it provoked. The comments were so negative that the company that produces Cheerios disabled the comment section. Who do they think they are, the CBC? If you watch the last video, you will notice that commentators are quite brazen about their motives for producing biracial commercials like these. The producer said that these kind of commercials are “helping to change the face of America.”  In other words, they are not only reflecting the biracial character of present day families but role-modeling them. Making them more acceptable. Actually, that is not quite it.

The point is not reconcile us to miscegenation but to the extinction of the old Canada (or America) and the quaint moral standards that went with it. No sense then in us getting into a lather about ongoing mass immigration because look around you, it is a done deal. Ditto with same sex marriages and adoptions and gender fluidity. There are no absolutes anymore, just so many moving points along a spectrum. It’s a different world now.  These ads rub our noses in it. They are morale-busters. The proliferation of biracial couples is meant to serve as a marker of “progress”, and since demography is destiny, there is no turning back. Accept. Adapt. And go quietly into the night.

America, Canada, the UK, Sweden—-all have fallen prey to this insidious propaganda campaign, through a variety of media. Progressive commentators dismiss Cultural Marxism as a “conspiracy theory”. But if it walks like a duck…..

For the record, 4.6% of couples in Canada are biracial (2011 census), and of those pairings, 41% are black. In the US, 8% of couples are biracial.


A Cardiff study showed that white women (at least in the UK), opt first for black men, then whites, then Asians. Why?

Is there a psychological reason behind this? Is the John Lewis ad (below) then mirroring reality in Britain, or conditioning it?

In Canada, 9 out of 10 people polled are fine with biracial marriages. Have the commercials (and movies and soap operas) had their intended effect?

Ten years from now, will we see a lot of white women married to dark Muslim men? Feminists trying to escape the rape culture on campus? — Tim Murray

John Lewis Christmas ad for 2017

Honeymaid commercial “This is Wholesome”

Honeymaid promoting blended families

Cheerios biracial commercial

Attachments area
Preview YouTube video John Lewis Christmas Ad 2017 – #MozTheMonster

John Lewis Christmas Ad 2017 – #MozTheMonster

Preview YouTube video Honey Maid: This is Wholesome :30 TV Commercial | Official

Honey Maid: This is Wholesome :30 TV Commercial | Official

Preview YouTube video Honey Maid Documentary: #NotBroken

Honey Maid Documentary: #NotBroken

Preview YouTube video CEREAL RACISTS: Mixed Race Cheerios Commercial Plagued by Prejudiced Comments

CEREAL RACISTS: Mixed Race Cheerios Commercial Plagued by Prejudiced Comments

Preview YouTube video Biracial Cheerios Girl and Parents Interview ‘Excited’ About Negative Comments 6 12 13

Biracial Cheerios Girl and Parents Interview ‘Excited’ About Negative Comments 6 12 13


Posted on by




B.C. Lions head coach Wally Buono sports a “Diversity is Strength” T-shirt on the sidelines before taking on the Saskatchewan Roughriders in CFL football action in Regina on Sunday, August 13, 2017. (Mark Taylor/CP)


If you are as addicted to televised sporting events  as I am, then you will have noticed a striking proliferation of political messaging in the guise of commercial TV ads. In a spectacle of shameless partisanship, companies like the Keg restaurant chain, Smirnoff, Tim Horton’s and a myriad of others are carrying the ball for the government open borders agenda.


With minor variations, all promote a common theme:


We are a diverse nation of immigrants and must remain so.  Diversity is our strength, and to maintain it we must be ‘welcoming’ and ‘open’ to those who aspire to join us.  We must be “inclusive” in order to tap into the many talents  that newcomers and the marginalized offer us.  We must embrace differences and celebrate them. We are different, but we are all the same. One big happy human family.  So let’s keep our front door unlocked and wide open.  End of sermon.


Do me a favour. Take 20 minutes and sample the you-tubes listed below to gain a flavour of what I am talking about.  But swallow a Gravol tablet first.


Aside from a uniform message, there are other similarities.   One is their limited repertoire of clichés, which appear to be recycled from one ad to another.   Try this experiment. Watch a batch of them in succession, then close your eyes and try to recall a set of barf bag buzzwords that are exclusive to one of them.  Good luck.  As your memory fades, these eight you-tubes fuse into one, like so many day time soap operas.  They may sell different beverages, but it’s all the same Kool Aid. Let’s run through them.


In the first you-tube

“The Keg” tells us that “When we think about what it means to be Canadian, one word comes to mind. WELCOME!    Then in the second video  ,, we  see the characters in the Smirnoff ad  tell us that, among other things that:


“Canada is not my home, it is everyone’s home.”

“There is space here for everyone.”

“Canadians embrace diversity, embrace differences and celebrate them.”

“It is not only feeling safe but being safe.”


The you tube began with a newscaster on a TV screen above the bar saying “Canada will welcome more immigrants next year than ever before.” Nice touch.  It was all part of Smirnoff Canada’s  “Stay Open” campaign, which the company introduced in October by stating that “Smirnoff believes that inclusivity is always worth celebrating. And right now, Canada stands as a shining example of openness in a world that is increasingly feeling the opposite. So we raised a glass with real Canadian immigrants and citizens who shared why they’re proud to call Canada home.”


The Canadian Football league launched a campaign in August on the heels of the Charlottesville incident to make the same point, the point that ours is an exceptional country,  that Canada and what it represents is the antithesis of the bigotry and racism we see south of the border. Viewers are told that the CFL is “a league as diverse as the country, a league which makes each of us different makes all of us strong.”


What is apparent after viewing one of these impactful commercials is that the admen have mastered the art of story- telling.  Consummate marketers are great story-tellers.  They build narratives around products—or brands– that we can quickly grasp at a simple emotional level.  Tim Horton’s “Proud Fathers” is a masterpiece in that regard.

The ad features a Chinese father and son at a hockey rink where the father came to see his grandson play hockey. “Grandad” told his adult son that his grandson plays hockey better than his father did. “How would you know”, the son asked. “I watched you play”, replied “Grandad”. “Oh, then what team did I play for?” The question prompted the old man to pull a picture of his son’s team with his son featured on it. Seeing this, the son became emotional, and no doubt viewers did too. It really pulls heartstrings.

The message was about continuity. Not only the continuity between generations, but the continuity of Canadian tradition and culture as represented by our love of this game, which despite the upheavals of mass third world immigration, endures..The hope and expectation is that old stock Canadians will watch  this commercial and conclude,  “See, these people are just like you and me. They play and appreciate our national sport of hockey. And they like the brand of coffee made by Tim Horton’s, which as we know is Canadians’ favourite coffee.  Part of our Canadian identity.”

Other Tim Horton’s ads of this calibre are easily recalled. Remember their “Welcome Home” commercial aired during the 2010 Winter Olympics?

It depicts the tearful and joyous reunion between a black South African immigrant with his just arrived wife and kids at the airport. We follow the man, speaking in a mixture of Xhosa and heavily accented English, from his apartment to the store to the airport, where he embraces his family and covers their traditional clothing up in good old Canadian winter garb. And in clinching gesture, we see him hand his wife a cup of Tim Horton’s. If you didn’t have tears running down your cheeks by then  you were not a real Canadian. And if you didn’t get the message then you don’t accept Canadian “values”, the values of family and multiculturalism, which go together like a horse and carriage.  New Canadians are Canadians.  They are as Canadian as maple syrup.   As Canadian as Tim Horton’s. Is the picture getting clearer for you?

Now that you are softened up, let’s see how it is done in the United States. Try this one minute pro-immigration ad on behalf of Budweiser aired during the Super Bowl game, entitled “Born the Hard Way”.  It tells the story of a young German brewer’s challenging journey from Europe to the United States, where he was met with disapproval stares and “go back home” taunts, only to land in St.Louis and establish a famous and highly profitable business. The ad was released in the wake of Trump’s “Muslim” travel ban and designed to serve as a reminder that America was built by hard working men of ambition like Adophus Busch, and that bigotry then as now is an impediment to  the country’s national success.

But if you thought these last three ads were tear-jerkers, then grab a Kleenex box before you see this one , also broadcast during the Super Bowl. It is called, “The Entire Journey” (5:44 minutes). It is about a poor Central American mother who takes to the road with her young daughter to make a long arduous trek to the Promised Land in search of work, only to come face to face with a massive and imposing Trumpian wall that looks as if it is constructed with lumber. Viewers can feel their devastation. My breaking point came when the little girl pulled out a small shredded American flag from her backpack.  Oh, God!  But then miracle of miracles, they see a door, and they open it. Voila! They’re in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Undocumented!  But they must keep walking. Alas, along comes a good hearted American guy in a pickup truck to take them on board. The ad concludes with a bumper sticker slogan. “The Will To Succeed is Always Welcome Here.” The fact that the ad was sponsored by a construction supply company “84 Lumber” at the cost of $10 million per minute was not lost on many viewers.  The home construction industry relies heavily upon cheap illegal immigrant labour.

Finally, I can’t let you go with asking you to look at Apple’s ad titled “The Human Family”. It’s a one minute rendition of a poem by Dr. Maya Angelou which reminds us that despite all of our differences, we’re really just the same underneath it all. I believe that I first heard it during the 2010 Olympics, narrated by Morgan Freeman. The last lines are

“I note the obvious differences between each sort and type, but we are more alike my friends, than we are unalike. We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike. We are more alike my friends, than unalike.”   Got it?  So if you are stabbed by a Somali in Minneapolis, remember, people are people, more alike than unalike.

The name of the game for pitch men is to trigger our emotions, and by doing so, override our logical reasoning. Scam artists do much the same thing. Once they are able to push your emotional buttons, they’re in. Tell them that their granddaughter languishes in a Guatemalan jail and they’ll send off a $2000 Moneygram to a phony lawyer no questions asked. Show them the corpse of a four year old Alan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish beach, and it is open sesame for 900,000 Syrian migrants.

We are cursed with empathy which, we’re told, we can never have too much of. Knee-jerk empathy unconstrained by a modicum of healthy skepticism. When we watch a grandfather and his son talking to each other in a hockey arena about fond memories, or see an immigrant re-uniting with his family at Pearson International or witness the tribulations of a migrant mother and daughter struggling to find a new life, we establish a connection.  Once that connection is established our emotions are in the hands of the storyteller. It is like a Lassie Come Home movie. We identify with the dog, care about the outcome, and the suspense builds until the climax. Tears of sorrow become tears of joy.

An advertisement that in just one minute can tell a story, makes us identify with the characters, build suspense and then deliver a moving punch line is a advertisement worth paying for.  It is the kind of ad that is remembered. They want you to remember the message, but most importantly, they want you to remember the brand. Canadian hospitality—brought to you by The Keg. Canadian family values—- brought to you by Tim Horton’s.  Openness and inclusion— brought to you by Smirnoff’s.

These pro-diversity ads are historically significant.  They reflect an advanced stage of globalism, picking up steam as it hurtles toward the cliff. They are symbolic of the merger of corporations and government, which was the hallmark of classic fascism, but this time it is a fascism that is subversive of the nation state.

The goal of the corporate-government consortium is total control and guaranteed profit, and the imposition of ideological conformity marching under the banner of diversity.  The language they speak, “diversity babble”, is now the lingua franca of the political class that presides over the Great Replacement in Europe and North America.  It is a jargon that serves to obfuscate and confuse rather than clarify and enlighten. A smokescreen for the demolition of national sovereignty.

The chest-thumping proud-Canadian nationalism promoted by commercials like these are at best a Kumbaya chauvinism that brags about our inability or unwillingness to protect our own national cultural heritage.  Defeated nations traditionally wave white flags to signal surrender. In Canada we wave the maple leaf.

The Canada that they want us to feel patriotic about is not the Canada of our fathers or grandfathers. It is not a bicultural nation of two founding peoples but a microcosm of the United Nations where French and Anglo-Celtic Canadians are mere fragments of a “mosaic”. The Canada we  presently see at YVR or YYZ airports will soon be identical to the Canada we see in every city, town and hamlet across the country. We are no longer a nation, but a geographical entity, a destination stop where everyone is welcome, and everyone instantaneously “Canadian”. Drink a cup of Tim Horton’s and voila, you are one of us. Play for the BC Lions or the Toronto Raptors and you have the keys to the city.

These ads are surely destined to take their place in the Propaganda Hall of Fame alongside the works of Sergei Einsenstein, Leni Refenstahl and Canada’s own John Grierson. Just imagine. Social engineering in the service of profits. Bernays and Goebbels would be impressed.

Tim Murray

December 1, 2017

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video The Keg Canada 150 Commercial: Canadian Words

The Keg Canada 150 Commercial: Canadian Words

Preview YouTube video Smirnoff: A Cheers To Canada

Smirnoff: A Cheers To Canada

Preview YouTube video CFL | Diversity is Strength

CFL | Diversity is Strength

Preview YouTube video CFL This is Our League- Full Version

CFL This is Our League- Full Version

Preview YouTube video proud fathers

proud fathers

Preview YouTube video Tim Hortons True Stories: Welcome Home

Tim Hortons True Stories: Welcome Home

Preview YouTube video 84 Lumber Super Bowl Commercial – The Entire Journey

84 Lumber Super Bowl Commercial – The Entire Journey

Preview YouTube video Apple ad spotlights diversity in time for Olympics

Apple ad spotlights diversity in time for Olympics


Three Moslem men called Nikki a “white slag”. Then they beat her until she blacked out.

Posted on by

 Three Moslem men called Nikki a “white slag”. Then they beat her until she blacked out.



Nov 29 (2 days ago)

to bcc: me

In the early morning of October 31st, Nikki Hurst was walking in Batley.

Three Muslim men approached her and asked for a light. When she told them she didn’t have one, they launched into a tirade of verbal abuse, calling her a “gori slag” – a derogatory name often used by Muslims for white girls.

Then they grabbed Nikki, smashed her face into a stone wall, and ran away. She regained consciousness alone, some 30 minutes later, with a large wound on her forehead. She suffered serious injuries that have left permanent scars.

Nikki told me her story. She showed me her scars. She showed me where she was attacked on the street:


It’s been a month, but Nikki says the police have still not taken her statement. Desperate for justice, Nikki posted photographs of her injuries online – but the police warned her that she could get in trouble, for potentially inciting riots.

Batley’s Police Inspector is named Mohammed Rauf. He doesn’t appear to be planning to investigate this racist attack. Even though Nikki knows the assailants go to a local school, and she can even tell the police what class they are in thanks to their school uniforms.

We demand justice. Tell Batley Police Inspector Mohammed Rauf that we want justice for Nikki, by signing our petition now. Click here to add your name.

Then I’ll go back to Batley, with Nikki, and personally deliver your signatures to Inspector Rauf.

And we won’t stop fighting until these racist attackers are brought to justice.

Yours truly,

Tommy Robinson