Monthly Archives: July 2019

Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat

Posted on by
​​​​​Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat

Dan Murray,
Immigration Watch Canada
As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population. who would?
However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?” All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.
As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become. 
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants. Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed. Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.
Jagmeet Singh
Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.
 Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”
As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.
In his1909 book, Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. : “The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare”. (P.208)
Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (violence), localism (the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (an overall lack of social cohesion).
In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes. 


Posted on by
Hear “THE ETHNOSTATE” — “SORRY FOR WHAT: IS IT TIME FOR WHITES TO  APOLOGIZE TO BLACKS?”  With Kenn Gividen Paul Fromm, & Attorney Jason Robb
HUGE change: Trump allows ICE to crack down on aliens

“Migrant” teens run riot at Germany’s public pools
White people compelled to apologize to blacks at motivational meeting

Cory Booker feels like punching “elderly, out-of-shape” Trump



Posted on by



How we should be managing our border at Roxham Road. Cheap. Effective.


“Instead of making it easier to enter Canada and helping these illegal refugees, as the Liberal government has done, we will make it more difficult, by fencing off the areas where it takes place such as Roxham Road in Quebec.”

Maxime Bernier



Posted on by

The Untold Story of White Slavery in America


irish slaves

Maxime Bernier Promises Major Immigration Reform: Slash Numbers, Stop the Illegals, Defund Multicult

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier Promises Major Immigration Reform: Slash Numbers, Stop the Illegals, Defund Multicult & Put Canada & Canadian Needs First

“The People’s Party of Canada immigration platform finally offers us a start at regaining control of our borders and stopping the financial drain $40-billion/year caused by poorly screened & excessive immigration.’ Paul Fromm, Canada First Immigration Reform Committee



I want to discuss with you today the People’s Party position on immigration.

For decades now, there has only been one acceptable position among our political and intellectual elites: more, and more, and more immigration.

There is a taboo around this topic. As soon as you raise a concern about the level of immigration, someone will accuse you of harbouring anti-immigrant views and being racist or xenophobic.

The result is that all the other parties have the same position. They are all in favour of mass immigration.

Maxime Bernier, Leader of the People’s Party of Canada

Immigration Rally

Mississauga, July 24, 2019


The Liberals have increased immigration levels from an average of 250,000 per year during the last decades to 350,000 in 2021, a 40% increase.

Andrew Scheer gave a speech on immigration a few weeks ago. He did not say anything relevant or significant. He did not mention any number. Instead, he spent half an hour pleading that he is not racist.

No lessons to receive

I’m not going to spend 30 minutes rejecting accusations of racism. Only 30 seconds. That’s all I need to refute a false and ridiculous accusation.

I don’t care one bit about people’s race or skin colour. I have said many times that racists and bigots are not welcome in our party. We care about shared values, culture and identity.

You can be of any ethnic background or faith, and be a Canadian, if you share fundamental Canadian values, learn about our history and culture, and integrate in our society.

There are nominated candidates of all races and religions in the PPC. With names like Salim Mansour, Rocky Dong, Jigna Jani, Tahir Gora, Jude Guerrier, Jing Lan Yang, Salomon Rayek, and many, many others.

We have no lessons to receive from anyone about openness and inclusiveness.

And the journalists who don’t want to recognize this and keep coming back with questions about bigotry can just take a hike!

No taboo

Immigration is a very important question. It’s completely absurd to turn it into a taboo subject.

And the majority of Canadians agree with us.

The reason those in favour of mass immigration don’t want to have any debate on this issue is because they know they would lose it.

Every survey that has come out in recent years shows that a large proportion of Canadians, depending on the question, support a lower immigration level.

In an Angus-Reid poll last year, 49% said it was too high, while only 6% wanted Canada to accept more immigrants.

Who are the extremists? The left-wing media and activists say we are extremists because we want to cut immigration.

But they are the extremists! The Liberals are the extremists! We are the mainstream!

Canada already accepts more immigrants than almost any other country: 21% of our population was born outside of Canada. More than one in five.

Our ratio is higher than in the US, where it is 15%. It is almost double that of European countries like France, Germany and the UK, where the foreign born constitute only 12% of the population. And where there have been for many years social tensions related to immigration.

Canada has always been a country largely open to immigration, because of its vastness and its relative youth. I believe that by and large, our immigration policy has been very successful.

But that doesn’t mean this will always continue, as we keep increasing immigration to new record levels. We are not immune to the conflicts and social tensions happening elsewhere.

I want Canada to still be a peaceful, prosperous and harmonious society 25 years from now, with well-integrated immigrants.

Maintaining Canada’s national identity

So let’s ignore the critics and discuss the specific reasons immigration levels should be lowered.

Most fundamentally, it has to do with social harmony and the maintenance of our Canadian national identity.

Last year, in August, just before I left the Conservative Party, I published six tweets that caused quite a controversy.

I was criticizing Justin Trudeau’s slogan that “diversity is our strength.” I attacked the Liberal cult of diversity and extreme multiculturalism.

I recognized that of course, Canada is and has always been a diverse country. We have First Nations and Inuit, two official languages, a multiethnic population, and very different regional cultures. The culture of Cape Breton is very different from that of the Eastern Townships in Quebec, or that of southern Alberta, or Nunavut.

All these regional cultures are intrinsically Canadian. They developed in Canada. They don’t exist anywhere else in the world. They deserve to be nurtured and to survive.

My problem with Trudeau’s slogan, and with the policies that go with it, is not that I am against diversity. It’s the belief that more and more diversity is always better. And that there is no limit to it.

As I wrote in one of my tweets, if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something? Shouldn’t we emphasize our cultural traditions? What we have built and have in common? What makes us different from other cultures and societies?

In the past, immigrants who came here gradually integrated into our society. They kept some aspects of the culture of their country of origin, of course. And that influenced and changed our society. They became Canadian, but with a distinct flavour.

This is a type of multiculturalism that enriches our society. And it is perfectly fine.

But that is very different than coming here to recreate the society and culture you left behind.

Living permanently in an enclave apart from the larger Canadian society.

And moreover, being officially encouraged by the government to continue to do so rather than to integrate into Canadian society and adopt Canadian culture and values.

A nation must be based on a sense of belonging, of participating in a common national project, sharing the same values, being different from the rest of the world.

It’s only when these sentiments are widely shared that we can develop the trust and common understanding necessary for our institutions to function.

Our country was almost torn apart because of the misunderstandings between Francophone Quebecers and the rest of Canada.

Many First Nations members feel alienated from Canadian society.

So why would we want to emphasize cultural, religious and ethnic differences, which have been one of the main causes of conflict throughout human history? This is insane.

We can already see the consequences in the way ethnic politics has become the norm among the other parties. They don’t talk to Canadians. They address themselves to ethnic voting blocs. To Ukrainian Canadians, Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians, Muslim Canadians, Sikh Canadians.

Trudeau does it, Scheer does it, Singh does it.

Even our foreign policy now depends on appealing to these ethnic political clienteles, instead of being based on the interests of Canada as a whole.

If we continue on the present course, all these little tribes will have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa.

Multiculturalism and balkanization

Some people have accused me of abandoning my free-market ideas because I talk about these issues. But this is totally misguided.

Mass immigration, open borders, unvetted immigration, extreme multiculturalism: all of this has nothing to do with freedom.

On the contrary, it’s a very dangerous type of social engineering. It amounts to large-scale government intervention in society and culture.

It will bring increasing cultural balkanisation, distrust, social conflict, and potentially violence, as we are seeing in other countries where division has reached a critical level.

In his 1991 book on multiculturalism, the late advisor to John F. Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger, warned that “countries break up when they fail to give ethnically diverse peoples compelling reasons to see themselves as part of the same nation.”

Three years later, Canadian author Neil Bissoondath published Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. That’s a very good title!

Bissoondath wrote that encouraging ethnic differences leads immigrants to adopt a psychology of separation from the mainstream culture. And he blamed multiculturalism for creating enclaves that isolate ethnic groups, at the expense of the unity and cohesion of our society.

Let me cite one more scholar. In his current research, Canadian political scientist Eric Kaufmann shows that lower immigration rates also help newcomers themselves. Because the lower rates bring greater integration, while also making the established population more welcoming.

In case there is a CBC journalist reporting this. Please note that these writers are not Far Right white supremacists. Just trying to help my good friends at CBC here!

Protecting Western Values

And let’s stop being politically correct. We must recognize that not all values, not all social customs, not all cultures, are equally valuable.

Our distinct values are those of contemporary Western civilization. They include democracy, individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of religious belief and freedom to criticize religion.

Our distinct values also include equality between men and women, the equal treatment of all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, the rule of law, separation of state and religion, tolerance and pluralism, and loyalty to the wider society instead of to one’s clan or tribe.

When I say that newcomers to Canada must integrate into our society and share our values, it is to these Western values that I am referring.

Values that our ancestors fought for. Values that explain why we are one of the freest, most dynamic, and most prosperous societies in the world. Classical liberal values.

In most non-Western societies still today, these values are not widely accepted or practiced. In fact, that’s precisely the reason why millions of people from around the world want to come to Canada and other Western countries.

Among the threats to our values and way of life is political Islam, or Islamism, the fastest-growing and most dangerous radical ideology in the world today, which is responsible for so much violence in so many countries.

There is growing evidence that Islamists are pushing their agenda here in Canada, with the support of money from the Middle East.

One of the main critics of Islamism in Canada is our star candidate, Salim Mansur. He too wrote a book about multiculturalism a few years ago.

In it, he described official multiculturalism, sponsored by the state, supported by taxpayers, and enforced by human rights commissions acting as the thought-police, as a lie.

A lie based on the idea that all cultures are equal. A lie destructive of our Western liberal democratic heritage, traditions, and values based on individual rights and freedoms.

The biggest peddler of this lie in Canada is of course Justin Trudeau.

He simply doesn’t care about Canada’s culture and identity, heritage and traditions. He sees himself as a citizen of the world.

That’s why he described Canada as the first post-national state, with no core identity. This fits with his support for globalism, and for the United Nations.

I’m not exaggerating when I accuse the Liberals of putting Canada on a road to destruction. Because if we allow Trudeau to implement his globalist vision, Canada will eventually cease to exist as a distinct nation.

We have to reverse this trend if we want to make sure that we, and our children, still have a country that is like the Canada we know, with its values and its unique identity intact, 25 years from now.

The downsides of mass immigration

Let me move on to other arguments.

The main argument that is presented in favour of immigration is the economic one. Immigrants bring their skills, their entrepreneurship, and their dreams. They fill manpower shortages, as our society ages and our workforce declines. This makes our society richer, younger and more dynamic.

This is certainly true, but only to some extent. It depends on the kind of immigrants we welcome.

Immigration is actually very costly for governments. There’s all the government programs to manage it of course. But a larger cost is the fact that immigrants pay on average about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services.

A study from 2011 put the cost to taxpayers at roughly $6,000 per immigrant. For a total annual cost of somewhere between $16 billion and $24 billion.

$24 billion is a lot of money. Eight years later, and with a much higher level of immigration, the costs can only have gone up.

One reason for this is that immigrants generally have lower wages than non-immigrants.

But another key reason is that the proportion of immigrants who come to Canada because they have the right skills, based on their education, work experience and knowledge of an official language, is not very high. And it has been dropping under the Liberal government.

Right now, only about 55% of newcomers are selected through the economic program. The rest come through the family reunification program or are refugees.

But even that 55% does not tell the whole story. It consists of the principal applicants and their immediate family. If you remove the spouses and children, only 26% of all the people who come to Canada every year actually fulfill our economic needs.

If you are not grasping the significance of this, let’s look at it from the other side. It means that three quarters of all immigrants who come to Canada are dependents, do not have the right qualifications that we need, may not master any of our official languages, or are too young or too old to work.

These people do not contribute very much or at all to our economy. But they cost a lot in terms of social services.

Canadians are a compassionate people and we should be. But at what cost? Are Canadians happy to subsidize 74% of our current immigrants?

If the main objective of Canada’s immigration policy is to fulfill the economic needs of our country, it’s an obvious failure.

And it won’t be fixed by simply increasing the total number of immigrants. That will cost us even more.

Another justification we often hear for an increase in immigration levels is that we are an aging society, and we need immigrants to reverse this trend.

However, demographic studies have shown that this is a myth. Newcomers are a bit younger on average than Canadians, but not enough to have a noticeable impact on the rate of aging.

The Liberal government is making matters worse by increasing the number of parents and grand-parents accepted under the family reunification program every year, from 5000 to 20,000.

This, of course, is an easy way for them to pander and buy votes among immigrant communities. But again, it defeats the purpose.

I can understand why immigrants would want to bring the rest of their extended family here, including older ones who will benefit from our health care system.

But we cannot be the welfare state of the planet. Canadians know that government funding is limited and we already fall short of caring for our own. We have long waiting lists for surgeries, and so many other problems to solve here first.

Another economic downside of mass immigration is that it inflates housing prices in our big cities. More than 41% of all immigrants to Canada settle in Toronto and Vancouver, which have some of the least affordable housing among big cities in the world.

There are other reasons for these sky-high prices of course, including zoning laws and monetary policy. But lower immigration would bring demand down and allow more Canadians in these cities to afford a house.

All these economic arguments in favour of reducing immigration levels are rarely discussed. It’s time to break the taboo and have a real debate.


Finally, there is the issue of refugees.

There are horrible cases of wars, persecution and human rights violations in the world. With the result that there are about 25 million refugees.

It’s absolutely tragic. I encourage Canadians to do what they can to help through private organizations. But at the level of government, my duty, my moral obligation, must be to first help those in need among our own population.

Justin Trudeau however sees himself as some kind of world minister already, managing a file in a world government. And so in 2018, Canada welcomed more resettled refugees than any other country. More than the United States, a country with ten times our population. And as many as all of the European Union.

In addition to this, we have had to deal with tens of thousands of asylum seekers illegally crossing our borders over the past three years.

Accepting all these refugees will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars.

The UN’s Global Compact for Migration, which the Liberal government signed last year, aims to normalize this kind of situation, and to make it easier for millions of people to move to Canada and other Western democracies.

What is going on is exactly what you would expect. The Liberals haven’t lost control of our borders. They are deliberately attempting to erase it.


Given all these considerations and principles, here are the policies that the People’s Party of Canada proposes to implement if it forms the next government.

First: immigration levels.

Canadian society cannot successfully integrate 350,000 immigrants and refugees every year, as the Liberals, and probably also the Conservatives, are planning to do.

This is equivalent to adding one Nova Scotia to our population every three years, or one Manitoba every four years. And pack the majority of them in a few crowded cities.

Support for immigration will continue to diminish, and social tensions are likely to rise, if we continue doing this. We need to slow down.

A People’s Party government will substantially lower the total number of immigrants and refugees we accept every year, from 350,000 to between 100,000 and 150,000, depending on economic and other circumstances.

Second: Multiculturalism.

In a free society, immigrants have the right to cherish and maintain their cultural heritage. It should be clear that the People’s Party will never support any government measure to force them to abandon it. But that doesn’t mean we have any obligation to help them preserve it either, with government programs and taxpayers’ money.

When they decide to move from their country of origin to this one, immigrants must be willing to leave some of their life behind, and be prepared to become full members of their new country.

The vast majority of Canadians rightly expect them to learn about our history and culture, master one of our official languages, and adopt widely shared Canadian values.

Official multiculturalism is based on the false idea that there is no unified Canadian society, no distinct Canadian culture, to integrate into. That we are just a collection of tribes living side by side.

We are all Canadians. We must focus on what unites us as Canadians, not what divides us.

A People’s Party government will repeal the Multiculturalism Act and eliminate all funding to promote multiculturalism. We will instead emphasize the integration of immigrants into Canadian society.

Third: Focusing on economic immigrants.

If the main economic benefit that we derive from welcoming immigrants is that they answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills, then we should make sure we have a much higher proportion of skilled immigrants who can fulfil this need.

It’s irresponsible to have only 26% of all immigrants and refugees in this category. If we reduce the total number of immigrants, but double that proportion to 50%, there will be no reduction in the absolute number of economic immigrants compared with previous years.

A People’s Party government will reform the point system and the various programs to ensure that our immigration policy is focused on accepting a larger proportion of economic immigrants with the right skills.

We will accept fewer resettled refugees and will considerably limit the number of immigrants accepted under the family reunification program, including abolishing the program for parents and grand-parents.

And we will change the law to make birth tourism illegal. Canada is not a shopping centre, where any foreigner expecting a child can come and buy a citizenship or future education and employment opportunities for their children, without following the proper immigration channels.

Fourth: Selecting immigrants who share our values.

The safety and cohesion of our society depends on citizens accepting the basic Canadian values and societal norms I mentioned earlier.

A People’s Party government will ensure that every person hoping to immigrate to Canada undergoes a face-to-face interview and answers a series of specific questions to assess the extent to which they align with these values and societal norms.

We will increase resources for CSIS, the RCMP and Canadian Immigration and Citizenship to do these interviews and thorough background checks on all classes of immigrants. With fewer immigrants to process, there will be more resources available to achieve this.

Immigrants whose responses or background checks demonstrate that they do not share mainstream Canadian values will be rejected.

Finally, on the issue of refugees.

A People’s Party government will take every measure necessary, in partnership with our American neighbours, to stop the flow of illegal migrants at the border.

We will declare the whole border an official port of entry and send back to the US anyone trying to enter illegally.

Instead of making it easier to enter Canada and helping these illegal refugees, as the Liberal government has done, we will make it more difficult, by fencing off the areas where it takes place such as Roxham Road in Quebec.

For resettled refugees, in addition to accepting a smaller number, we will rely on private sponsorships instead of having the government pay for all the costs of resettling these refugees in Canada.

We will stop our reliance on the United Nations for refugee selection. And we will give priority to refugees belonging to persecuted groups who have nowhere to go in neighbouring countries.

For example, Christians, Yazidis, and members of other minority religions in majority Muslim countries. Members of the Ahmadi community, and other Muslims in these countries who are persecuted because they reject political Islam and adhere to Western values. And members of sexual minorities.

And finally, we will take Canada out of the UN’s Global Compact for Migration. Our immigration laws will be made in Canada, for the interest of Canadians.


This has been a long speech. So my conclusion will be brief.

The primary aim of Canada’s immigration policy should be to economically benefit Canadians and Canada as a whole.

It should not aim to forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada, as radical proponents of multiculturalism want. Canada has its own distinct identity, worth preserving, among the nations of the world.

It should not put excessive financial burdens on the shoulder of Canadians in the pursuit of humanitarian goals. Canadians are generous, but it is not our responsibility to solve all the world’s problems.

And it should not be used as a political tool to pander and buy votes among immigrant communities. This kind of ethnic politics practiced by all the other parties will lead to even more social division.

We are all Canadians. The People’s Party will unite Canadians with an immigration policy designed to benefit all of us.

Thank you.

Somalian-Canadian MP Ahmed Hussen Pushes For Refugee Intake Increases DESPITE Public Backlash

Posted on by

Somalian-Canadian MP Ahmed Hussen Pushes For Refugee Intake Increases DESPITE Public Backlash

[What an insult when the Trust Fund Kid appointed this Somali, Moslem, refugee, immigration lawyer as minister of immigration. Might as well appoint a serial rapist to run a women’s shelter. His native land is a failed state and knows nothing of democracy. Hence, his arrogant “fuck you” to the majority of Canadians who do not want waves more of phoney “refugees”.– Paul Fromm]

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen says he would like to see Canada welcome more refugees than it currently accepts and believes more of them should be able to enter through economic immigration programs.

As someone who arrived in Canada as a refugee himself, Hussen spoke with passion about the need for Canada to do more.

Yes–the need to DO MORE. Anyone else out there in reality-land expect something different? You shouldn’t, because political figures such as Ahmed Hussen ALWAYS DEMAND MORE.

The term for this is “insatiability”–a lack of ability to reach a level of satisfaction. In Canada, this is the heart, soul and pulse of the politically correct social justice movement–NEVER be satisfied. For as long as he can, drop-in dual citizen from Somalia Ahmed Hussen will push for Canada to be transformed into his PERSONAL VISION of what Canada MUST become.

The vision is for Canada to shift on its social and political axis. This began with Pierre Trudeau, and by way of son Justin Trudeau, has become more and more of a reality. In Hussen’s Canada, Canadian of European Heritage are not to be considered in any capacity. Nor are Christian Canadians.

For Hussen, Canada exists for a singular purpose: to be transformed into a dumping ground for as many of his Third World brethren as humanely possible. That’s it, and nothing more. Mr. Hussen cares not if these so-called refugees are legal or illegal. Nor is it a concern whether or not they are legitimate refugees.

Suggesting economic migrants be accepted into Canada as refugees TRANS-cends the definition of the United Nations Declaration On Refugee Status, which Canada foolishly signed post- WW2. PM Hussen must be thrilled with this, particularly as  few Muslim and African nations signed on the dotted line.

The outcome? Canada– and NOT Islamic nations– are responsible for millions of  “refugees” from Third World nations. PERFECT- for Ahmed Hussen that is. For the rest of us, we are stuck PAYING THE BILLS for these new arrivals.

READ MORE: Canada Becomes World Leader In Refugee Intake, Majority Of Citizens Are Opposed

Winners: Ahmed Hussen, United Nations, Immigration and Multicultural non-profit organizations, immigration and refugee lawyers, Third World Citizens.

Losers: English Canada, Anglophone and Francophone Canada, Christian Canada, Nationalists and Patriots.  Please do tell– is this not ALWAYS THE WAY with the Trudeau government?

recent poll states that a majority of Canadians are OPPOSED to increases in quotas for immigration and refugee intake. What impact does this have on Ahmed Hussen? NOTHING. Instead, he is pushing for non-refugee status people to enter Canada under the economic program.

Ever heard of such a thing before? Most likely not, as this recommendation appears to be UNPRECEDENTED.  Has establishment media pointed this out? Of course not.

Again and again, Canadians witness a ruling government wholly detached from the will of the people. This is NOT supposed to occur within a liberal democracy. Conclusion? Canadian citizens do notlive in a liberal democracy. Rather, under King Justin of Canada, we are living in an elected DICTATORSHIP.

Who better than pseudo-totalitarian Ahmed Hussen to lead a destructive agenda not a single Canadian asked for. Cold hearted, calculated, bereft of emotion, Mr. Hussen is the ideal figure to finish off what began with the advent of multiculturalism some forty years ago.

This is the exact reason Justin Trudeau appointed a half-Canadian Somalian refugee to lord it over the people of Canada.


Hear “The ETHNOSTATE” On Racial Differences, Black Brawling at Disneyland & Other Matters

Posted on by
Hear “The ETHNOSTATE” On Racial Differences, Black Brawling at Disneyland & Other Matters
Attachments area

Immigration is NOT the Solution to Africa’s Problems

Posted on by


Immigration is NOT the Solution to Africa’s Problems

I have been saying for over 20 years, I would like to contribute to Africa, but only to contraception … This is more important han all my other wishes. Everyone, especially the young, should read it. It’s about the future of us all. By honored botanist RNDr. Václav Větvička:  (translated from Czech)

There is no other large vertebrate in the history of the Earth, whose population would spread so rapidly and with such devastating consequences for other planet residents. Only in the years 1800 – 1930 did the number of people increase from one billion to two, and in the next 90 years to even more than seven billion today. This, of course, carries a lot of troubling issue, such as, using up all sort of resources, starting with ecological devastation.

Surprisingly, our so-called “elites” do not address their demand for a sustainable way of life to those who do not demonstrably live it. Let’s note a few things: Europe the most densely populated continent in the world (so much for the idea that it is a Europe that should embrace all migrants). In 1970 it was inhabited by about 680 million people. Now it is about 718 million people. This is an increase of 38 million in about half a century, and most are not Europeans, but migrants.

Turkey 1927 – 13.6 million inhabitants 2011 – 75 million inhabitants. So the Turks five-folded in 80 years!

Afghanistan 1979 – 15.5 million inhabitants 2015 – 32.5 million inhabitants So the Afghans are double in 35 years, and that’s during the war!

Niger 1960 – 1.7 million inhabitants 2011 – 16 million inhabitants The Nigerians are therefore more than eight times in 50 years. Some lads!

Nigeria 1950 – 33 million inhabitants 1991 – 88 million inhabitants 2006 – 140 million inhabitants 2014 – 177 million inhabitants What can be said?

Egypt 1945 – 18.5 million inhabitants 2004 – 73.5 million inhabitants Estimated for 2025 – 103 million inhabitants There are now four times as many of the Egyptians since World War II.

With the same behavior, 40 million Czechs would live in the Czech Republic today. That would be some crowd, wouldn’t it? And forget about our nature reserves and parks, everything would have to be built up and paved over.

So these are several states as a sample.

In total, 642 million people lived in Africa in 1990 and nearly a billion in 2004. Demographic organizations estimate that by 2050 (in 35 years) it will double. That means practically 2 billion. All Africa has an increase of 50 million people a year. This is one France every year!

Therefore, I do not believe the Green Parties and environmental organizations are serious about their struggle for a sustainable world. If they did, they would have to focus on those who replicate like possums.

But no, these people/organizations protect and encourage the population explosion. There is constant food and medical assistance and these aids are directly involved in this population explosion. No, their lies cannot be taken seriously.

So I believe that the whole ecological fury is just an effort to create a new religion, under whose banner it is trying to unite the globalized people. Yes, we Europeans will mostly behave ecologically without instruction.

We will reduce our consumption, if necessary we will develop sophisticated, non-burdensome technology; however, that will not help, if the bigger part of the world does not control population explosion. Because even the most environmentally behaving people (and I have strong doubts that in the present moment people in power will be willing to worry about it), they need food, water and space. If there are too many of them, they will eventually eat the planet.

In this context, it seems interesting to me that everyone is now tackling climate change, how there will be a shortage in Africa, and how we should prepare for migration waves. None of these futurologists has ever mentioned that there is a much safer solution to the problem than moving the masses of migrants to the most densely populated continent. Just change the reproductive behavior. (Not to mention the devastation effect, such migration will have on the European populations, such as general displacement and genocide.)

Africa has enough resources to feed as many people as there were in 1950. Conversely, no continent has enough resources to feed a mass of people that doubles every 50 years.

In addition to population growth, the demands on resources and waste are increasing for every individual.

This is our contribution to our self-destruction: our ingenuity, diligence and desire for comfort and luxury. The primitive nations or ethnics take over our immodest way of life – without making themselves inventive and hardworking, yet they feel they have the right to the same level as us and that we must ensure them.

It will be hard for us to deal with this invasion, because of greed and immorality.

In particular, we, the poorer whites, are threatened by the sale of our land, resources and rising cost of living, while the wealthier ones like the Germans, the Chinese, or rich Arabs may benefit for a while. So it is a struggle for the environment, resources, and our very existence. The struggle had already begun, but some of us are indoctrinated by of the media and political  traitors under slapstick slogans, and others seemed unaware.


Prof. RNDr. Václav Větvička

(* Jan 13, 1938) – Botanist, writer and science educator

Honored for Merit in Science


Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by

Happy Dominion Day!






How do you tell the difference between a Canadian Police Officer, an Australian Police Officer, an American Police Officer and a Scottish Police Officer?


Consider this test scenario:




You’re a policeman, on duty by yourself.

You are walking on a deserted street late at night.

Suddenly, an armed man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you,

screams something that sounds like obscenities, raises the knife and lunges at you.

You are carrying your truncheon and are an expert in using it.

However, you have only a split second to react before he reaches you.

What do you do?




Canadian PoliceOfficer:


Firstly, the Officer must consider the man’s human rights.


1) Does the man look poor and/or oppressed?

2) Is he newly arrived in this country and does not yet understand the law?

3) Is this really a knife or a ceremonial dagger?

4) Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

5) Am I dressed provocatively?

6) Could I run away?

7) Could I possibly swing my truncheon and knock the knife out of his hand?

8) Should I try and negotiate with him to discuss his wrong-doings?

9) Why am I carrying a truncheon anyway and what kind of message does this send to society?

10) Does he definitely want to kill me or would he be content just to wound me?

11) If I were to grab his knees and hold on, would he still want to stab and kill me?

12) If I raise my truncheon and he turns and runs away,

do I get blamed if he falls over, knocks his head and kills himself?

13) If I hurt him and lose the subsequent court case,

does he have the opportunity to sue me,

cost me my job, my credibility and the loss of my family home?



Australian Police Officer:




American Police Officer:






Glasgow Police Officer:

“Haw, Jimmie….! Drop the wee knifie reight noo, unless ye want it stuck up yer arse!

Category: Uncategorized