Most Canadians are probably not aware that on April 1 of this year, they will be told to celebrate “Sikh Heritage Month”. The following is a list of reasons why Parliament should have never even considered the celebration of a “Sikh Heritage Month” (the result of a law passed by Canada’s Parliament.). (1)
The behaviour of some of the earliest Sikhs to arrive in Canada in 1914 was a foreshadowing and a warning. It demonstrated Sikh willingness to use fraudulent documents. It also showed their arrogant attitude. They believed that they had a right to enter Canada and that Canada had no right to oppose their entry. Current NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has the same arrogant attitude. That 1914 incident helps to explain much of what happened later. Sikhs repeatedly use that event to proclaim victim status. They omit many facts including the fact that Sikhs assassinated a Canadian immigration agent. They also omit the fact that the leader of the 1914 Sikh expedition boasted that if he succeeded in landing his passengers, he would bring 25,000 more Sikhs soon after. This threat would have alarmed Canadians because if it had come true, it would have greatly changed Vancouver’s entire cultural make-up. To show some context, consider this: around 1914, the City of Vancouver had a population of about 60,000. For details of the entire 1914 incident, see https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2008/05/22/the-voyage-of-the-komagata-maru-a-review-and-a-short-summary/ (2)
Although many years of Sikh immigration peace followed, the Singh Decision of 1985 signaled the beginning of Sikh-caused refugee and immigration chaos in Canada. In doing so, Sikhs helped to turn Canada’s refugee system into a quasi-judicial body which soon became mired in tens of thousands of claims (most of them illegitimate). For details see: https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2005/03/23/the-1985-singh-decision-disaster-vs-the-1985-air-india-disaster/ According to reliable sources, those claims have cost Canada billions of dollars and saddled Canada with people who have contempt for Canada. Is this supposed to be an example of the “Sikh Heritage” that Canadians are expected to celebrate every April? (3)
The Sikh bombing (the murder of 329 people about an Air India plane in 1985) should have moved Canada to place severe restrictions on Sikh immigration. But it did not. That bombing incident (which originated in Vancouver where Sikhs placed bombs on two planes) was the largest mass murder in Canadian history. Instead for years, Trudeau has groveled to the Sikhs. Most important, none of the Sikh ringleaders of the 329 murders has been sentenced for that crime. https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2016/04/25/dont-apologize-sikhs/ We repeat, Is this another example of the “Sikh Heritage” that Canadians are supposed to celebrate every April? (4)
A major reason why the Sikh bombers have never been held to account is the culture of intimidation by militant Sikhs of other Sikhs. The identities of the Sikh perpetrators are quite likely known even by the Sikh members of Trudeau’s cabinet, not to mention Trudeau himself and hundreds of other Sikh politicians and professionals. As a result, hundreds of the relatives of the 329 murdered victims have never received justice. Until the Sikh criminals are behind bars, the word “Sikh” will be a dirty word to those relatives and to millions of other Canadians. Most Canadians want nothing to do with those Sikhs – let alone celebrate “SIKH HERITAGE”. (5)
Worse still, young and older male Sikhs have become significantly involved in drug industry criminality in Canada. However, when drug incidents are reported, our treacherous CBC and other media make a point of not disclosing the names of the Sikh murderers or Sikhs murdered. Most Canadians have come to expect that when the CBC or other media begrudgingly do reveal the names of the criminals, those names will be ones such as Parvinder, Balwinder or some other Sikh first name. In Metro Vancouver, Sikhs have complained that they needed more police to deal with drug-dealing and drug gang killings. Ironically, the truth is that many people in Metro Vancouver think that Metro Vancouver does not need more police. Instead, it needs fewer Sikhs and less Sikh immigration. In fact, Metro Vancouver residents have also thought that Sikh parents had to finally accept a “Canadian” cultural trait, that of being responsible for their delinquent offspring. Those parents should not be expecting the “gum’mint” to do that job for them. Again, is this very visible Sikh cultural defect what corrupt Sikhs want all Canadians to celebrate every April? (6)
Canadians have become incredibly fed up with aggressive immigrants (both Sikhs and others) who demand that Canada adapt to immigrant customs. So far, no group has made as many demands for exemptions from Canadian laws as the Sikhs. In fact, Sikh demands to wear their turbans and their kirpans have been endless. If Sikhs really want to retain their customs, why are they here? Why would Canada want to create (A) another political mess such as India’s Punjab here and (B) an environmental disaster such as India in Canada through relentless Sikh immigration? (7)
Sikhs have grossly abused Canadian PM Chretien’s naive decision to create an additional Canadian consulate in India’s Punjab. That consulate has become notorious for being the fraud capital of all of Canada’s consulates and embassies in the world. Tens of thousands of Sikhs have entered Canada as a result of fraud there. In other words, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Sikhs have entered Canada illegally. Why would Canada want to celebrate being defrauded by these people? The numbers are not an exaggeration. At recent Sikh festivals in the Vancouver and Toronto areas, some Sikh leaders have boasted that up to 500,000 Sikhs attended. Who else besides corrupt Liberal leader Trudeau and equally corrupt NDP leader Jagmeet Singh would want to celebrate a heritage of political sodomy and shameless fraud? (8)
Political accommodation to the Sikhs has reached new levels of degradation under Trudeau. It is incredible that not a single MP voted against or abstained from voting when the “Sikh Heritage Month” bill was introduced in Parliament. To summarize: Is it sane to accept Sikh political degradation as part of Canada’s “heritage”? This list could be ten times as long. To put the matter bluntly but truthfully, the passing of the Sikh Heritage Act in 2015 is an example of how Canada’s Parliament has descended into the most degrading acts of political sodomy and boot-licking.
Our CBC and many politicians are proud to engage in such activity, but to recover Parliament’s dignity, here is what Parliament should do immediately : REPEAL THE “SIKH HERITAGE MONTH” BILL . IN ITS PLACE, INTRODUCE NEW BILLS TO PROTECT CANADA’S FRENCH AND UK HERITAGE AND PROTECT CANADA’S BORDERS !! For details about Jagmeet Singh’s involvement in Sikh violence, see https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/hen2eb/reminder_jagmeet_singh_is_banned_from_india_for/ Dan Murray, Immigration Watch Canada \
Former governor general David Johnston has been named a “special rapporteur” into China’s interference into federal elections, but his connections to the Asian power are extensive, Terry Glavin writes.
There are so many crazy things the Trudeau government has been expecting Canadians to believe about the partisan advantage the Liberals have accrued to themselves owing to their cosy relationships with China’s agents of influence in this country that it’s really difficult to decide which is the most objectively unbelievable and easily disprovable.
It’s a target-rich environment, as military tacticians would say. But I’m going to lay out the evidence against just one howler, which is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposition that “horrific, partisan attacks against a man of extraordinary integrity” is anything like a reasonable way to characterize doubts about former Governor General David Johnston’s independence in the matter of Beijing’s influence-peddling operations in Canada.
In the muddle of the playby-play coverage of House of Commons committee manoeuvres and the fate of a resolution calling for a public inquiry into Beijing’s well-documented interference operations in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, there are two key things to keep your eye on.
The first is that Beijing’s influence operations in Canada went into hyperdrive after the Trudeau government came to power in 2015, and Beijing’s United Front Work Department undertook extraordinary clandestine measures in 2019 and 2021 to keep the Trudeau government in power. The second is that Trudeau has enlisted Johnston as his “independent special rapporteur” in the matter in order to avoid answering these straightforward questions: What did Trudeau know about what Beijing was up to, when did he know, and what did he do about it?
For argument’s sake, let’s set aside the relevance of the intimate relationship between the Johnstons and the Trudeaus — their neighbouring cottages in the Laurentians, the childhood ski trips the Trudeau boys and Johnston’s daughters went on together, and so on. You can even set aside Johnston’s role as one of the governing members of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, even though the foundation has been directly caught up in the scandal, owing to the clandestine donations the Foundation recently chose to return to a certain superrich Chinese benefactor following disclosures that the money was part of a Beijing-directed grooming operation targeting Trudeau himself, going back to 2013.
The unreported and unarguably pertinent facts to take into account involve Johnston’s own half-century of participation in Beijing’s strategy to draw Canada into its orbit of influence, and his own personal and ongoing association with figures deeply compromised by their collaboration with Chinese government institutions and by their own vested interest in the catastrophe of the Canada-china collaborations that were spun into high gear after the Trudeau Liberals came to power in 2015.
In the 1980s Johnston was laying the foundations of the Canada-china universities exchange program. Later, as president of the University of Waterloo, he oversaw the establishment of the Confucius Institute, a scandal-shredded arm of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda and espionage operations in western countries. Widely known in Chinese establishment circles by his nickname “Jiangshan,” Johnston was awarded an honorary doctorate by Nanjing University in 2012, by which time he’d already made more than a dozen visits to China.
Three of Johnston’s daughters attended university in China — one at Zhejiang University, Nanjing University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, another at the Beijing Language and Culture University and Hangzhou University, and the third at Fudan University in Shanghai. During a luncheon speech to the Canada-china Business Council in 2013, Johnston said it would be “wonderful” if all Canadians learned to speak Chinese.
While the federal government has been recently forced to issue strict guidelines to Canadian universities regarding the threat of technology transfers and intellectual-property accommodations with Chinese institutions, as recently as 2017 Johnston attended a conference on “science, technology and innovation” at Chongqing University where he professed a “profound Chinese complex” and boasted that even his grandchildren teach him things about China.
It’s a multi-generational “complex” the Johnston family shares with the Trudeaus, going back to Pierre Trudeau’s service to Mao Zedong during the 1960s as one of the regime’s most valued propagandists in the west. Back then, Trudeau Senior co-authored a book with his friend Jacques Hébert about their time as the regime’s invited guests during the Great Leap Forward and the famine that killed perhaps 70 million people. Trudeau and Hébert sneered at western journalists’ efforts to report on the famine and claimed to have noticed nothing more than “controlled distribution of foodstuffs.” The pair dined well during their entire time in the country.
But set aside the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation entirely. The board of directors of Johnston’s own Rideau Hall Foundation — a “parting gift” from Justin Trudeau’s government upon his departure from the Governor General’s office — is a snapshot who’s-who of Beijing’s best friends and business partners in Canada.
A Rideau Hall Foundation director emeritus is Paul Desmarais III, from the Desmarais family, which founded the Canada-china Business Council. Then there’s Dominic Barton, who served as an adviser to several Chinese state-owned enterprises and whose Mckinsey and Company consulted with Chinese corporations involved in the construction of militarized islands in the South China Sea while Barton was chair of Trudeau’s blue-chip Advisory Council on Economic Growth. Barton was appointed Canada’s ambassador to China following the firing of the disgraced John Mccallum.
There’s John Manley, the Telus director and former deputy prime minister from the exuberantly Beijing-compliant Chrétien era. Manley’s contribution to the debates about Xi Jinping’s kidnapping of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor was to suggest the Canada Border Services Agency should have surreptitiously allowed Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou to evade a U.S. Justice Department extradition request.
There’s Beverley Mclachlin, who has refused to step down from her position on Hong Kong’s highest court despite Beijing’s evisceration of Hong Kong’s rule-of-law system. There’s John Montalbano, chief executive officer of the Royal Bank’s Global Asset Management arm, which manages Beijing’s global natural-resources acquisitions through China’s National Council for Social Security Fund, one of the world’s largest pension funds. On it goes like this.
Believe as much as you like that there is nothing untoward about Johnston’s appointment. And to be fair, he did a wonderful job as Governor General. A Governor General’s job is to make Canadians feel good about themselves, despite everything, and to make a convincing case that no matter how bad things look, everything’s OK.
And that is the job he’s been asked to do for Justin Trudeau in the matter of Beijing’s long and sinister reach into Canada’s democratic political institutions, and it should not be surprising if he does the job well.
WHAT DID TRUDEAU KNOW ABOUT WHAT BEIJING WAS UP TO?
The expression “15 minute city” is a little under ten years old. It was about four to five years ago that it first began to circulate significantly and it really took off during the time when people everywhere proved themselves to be incredibly stupid by their willingness to submit to the all but total elimination of their most basic freedoms because of their naïve faith in medical experts who told them that they needed to stop living in order to avoid dying from the bogeyman of the bat flu. Last month, however, 15 minute cities became big news as mainstream media outlet after mainstream media outlet began running op-ed pieces about how critics of the concept were engaged in “conspiracy theory”. At the start of the last week in February I typed the words “15 minute cities” into Google and pressed the search button. The top results, both on the news tab and the main Google page, were articles of this sort from sources like CNN, The Guardian, and even the Weather Network. Indeed, the only one of the highlighted stories not to include the word “conspiracy” in the title was a piece from Bloomberg entitled “No, 15-Minute Cities Aren’t a Threat to Civil Liberties”, which, of course, was yet another denial of the “conspiracy theory” about 15 minute cities. At the time I did this search these stories and many more were all fresh, having been released in the previous two days, most in the previous twenty four hours.
Now, if someone wanted to convince people to take seriously the idea that there is some sort of nefarious international plot behind the latest buzzword expression in urban planning, one way to go about doing so would be to get the entire mainstream media to issue a denial in lockstep like this. When media companies all begin saying the same thing like a horde of brainwashed cult members chanting a mantra it is usually best to consider the exact opposite of what they are saying to be the truth. Indeed, if people like our Prime Minister, that contemptible lowlife Captain Airhead and J. Brandon Magoo, that creep who gives off the strong impression of someone who wandered off from the geriatric ward of an asylum for the criminally insane only to find himself in the White House were to start using their state pulpits to denounce anyone opposed to 15 minute cities as fringe extremists we would know with a certainty from this the supporters of 15 minute cities are up to no good.
So what are 15 minute cities? Are they part of a sinister plot to rob us of our freedom of motion and imprison us all within our own neighbourhoods? Or is the idea behind them an innocent one, aimed at renewing neighbourhoods and reducing traffic congestion, upon which unfair suspicion has been thrown by the unsavoury associations of those promoting and defending it?
Back in the 1960’s the term “walkability” entered the vocabulary of those with an active interest in revitalizing big cities or at least hindering them from dropping to a lower circle of Dante’s abyss. Making a city walkable meant making it as friendly and accessible to pedestrians as possible. The opposite of walkability was urban planning aimed at maximizing the ease and speed with which one could get around a city by car which was one aspect of the “urban renewal” movement that had influenced much or most of the city planning of the previous few decades. The 15 minute city is an adaptation of this concept of walkability or, to be more precise, a variation of an older adaptation the 20 minute city. The basic idea of a 15 minute city is that of a city in which people have access to everything they would need on an ordinary day in their own neighbourhoods within a 15 minute walk or bicycle ride from where they live. As with many ideas that generate heated controversies the heat comes more from the implications than from the basic concept. If it were possible to transform a city into a 15 minute city where everyone has everything he needs within such a small radius from his home without in any way altering anything else about the city and the lives of its inhabitants this would undoubtedly be an improvement and a very good one at that. If quality of life in a city were measured strictly in terms of convenience it would be an exponential improvement. The problem is that it is not possible to transform a city in this way without making many other changes. Since the advocates of 15 minute cities seem to be largely motivated by environmental concerns it would be appropriate here to cite Dr. Garrett Hardin’s First Law of Human Ecology “We can never do merely one thing.” It is those other things that would need to be done to transform cities into 15 minute cities that have a lot of people’s dander up.
Take, for example, the plans for low traffic neighbourhoods which Oxford, the city in Oxfordshire, England that is home to Oxford University, recently announced its intention to implement on a trial basis starting next year. A low traffic neighbourhood is a concept that is related to that of a 15 minute city and often promoted together with it, so much so that the two are sometimes mistaken as being synonymous with each other. The difference is that a low traffic neighbourhood is designed to keep something out of the neighbourhood – traffic congestion due to through traffic – whereas a 15 minute city is designed to put something in the neighbourhood – the necessities of everyday life easily accessible by walking or cycling. The Oxford city council has announced its intention, beginning next year, of dividing the city in to six districts and placing a limit of 100 on the number of times residents can drive from one district to the next, through certain routes between 7 am and 7 pm, to be enforced by licence-plate camera and fines. Residents would be able – for a fee – to apply for an additional allotment of trips through the limited routes.
Now this does not amount to locking Oxford residents within their districts. If Oxford goes ahead with this – and does not take it any further – Oxford residents will be able to pass between districts any time they wish and as many times as they wish if they do so on foot or by bike, and even by automobile if they take routes other than the more direct ones upon which the limits are being placed. This whole thing does, however, give off too much of a vibe of a high-tech, updated, version of “show us your papers, comrade” and so it is not surprising that the Oxford announcement was met with a large and vehement protest, especially since people were already fed up with this sort of thing from the three years of public health emergency tyranny. These measures do carry the potential for evolving into the permanent confinement of people within their own neighbourhoods through mission creep much like “14 days to flatten the curve” evolved into two and a half years of lockdowns, forced masking, and vaccine passports and mandates. Indeed, not only do they have the potential for evolving in this direction there is a very high probability that they will do so.
One reason for this is because those who are promoting low traffic neighbourhoods based on the 15 city model are openly motivated by the goal of getting people to drive less. When the earlier, more general, concept of walkability was conceived it was part of a response to several decades of urban planning based on utilitarian principles. The kind of urban planning that involved houses, small businesses, parks and playgrounds, local schools, libraries, hospitals and the like being torn down, often through the means of entire city blocks being seized by governments and handed over to developers, to make way for large apartment complexes, office buildings, malls, and the like. While large-scale urban planning on utilitarian principles went back to the nineteenth century, it had exploded around the middle of the twentieth century due to mass production’s having made motor vehicles increasingly available and affordable. This factor also, of course, affected the way the designs of these planners as utility now included such things as parking lots and freeways. A backlash against this sort of thing began in 1961 when Jane Jacobs published her The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which documented the negative side of “urban renewal”. Jacobs did not just write about the subject but was also an activist who fought against this sort of urban planning both in New York where she lived when she wrote her book and Toronto where she moved about a decade later, in both cities fighting against the construction of freeways or expressways. Among her criticisms of this kind of planning was that it was making cities into places for cars rather than for people. Those who began to promote the concept of walkability owed much of their inspiration to Jacobs. The promoters of the 15 minute city model would like us to think that they are following in these earlier footsteps and perhaps in a limited sense they are. Their primary objection to automobiles, however, is very different.
Jacobs and those whom she inspired in the 1960s objected to tearing down houses and digging up parks to make way for freeways and parking lots because these actions uprooted and dissolved communities and razed the neighbourhoods in which they had lived in order to replace these with dead, concrete, spaces made for machines rather than men. The promoters of the 15 minute city model, such as Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris, France, and her Columbian born advisor, Carlos Moreno, the professor at Sorbonne University who seems to be the one who came up with the concept, by contrast, don’t want people driving cars because they want to see a radical reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. People like this think that the drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions they want is necessary to save the world. People who think that the world is at stake are not people likely to accept or respect limitations on their efforts nor are they people likely to listen to reason coming from those who disagree with them. If, therefore, placing limits on the daytime use of high density routes fails to achieve a reduction in car use and simply diverts heavy traffic to other routes, the planners will be likely to revise the model – and keep revising it until they achieve their goal. Such revisions will move the model closer and closer to something resembling people being permanently locked into their own neighbourhoods.
There is another difference between the original pushback against the large building/parking lot/freeway type of urban planning and the advocacy of the 15 minute city today which supports the conclusion that the concept is inherently flawed in such a way that its implementation, however, good the intentions of those behind it may be, would inevitably lead to urban life becoming more tightly controlled. Prior to the invention and mass production of the automobile every city was a city in which every neighborhood had its local store, school, etc. so that there was no necessity for long daily commutes that were impractical before motorized transportation. Transforming cities that were like this into cities where many if not most people live in one district, work in another, and do all their shopping in yet another and where the city’s infrastructure is designed to facilitate the fast motor vehicle transportation that makes such an arrangement feasible required city governments to expropriate private property and spend massive sums of money in imposing a redesign upon their cities dreamed up by engineers who had been given an unprecedented amount of centralized control over what their cities would look like. In other words, the kind of urban transformation to which people like Jane Jacobs’ objected, in which older, traditional, more organic communities were bulldozed down and paved over to make way for concrete and asphalt edifices designed for machines rather than the people the machines were themselves built to serve, required government to insert itself far more actively and visibly in the everyday lives of urban inhabitants than it had before, which meant that this was a step away from a more free mode of life and towards a more controlled mode of life.
Any serious attempt to transform a city into a 15 minute city would require a further step in the same direction. This is because the model calls for all necessities to be available to people within a 15 minute walk or cycle ride from their home. Obviously, if a city has to be transformed into a 15 minute city then these necessities are not already available this close. Therefore, to remake a city according to this model would involve moving businesses and services into neighbourhoods that don’t already have them. A government that wants a certain type of business in a neighbourhood has to do a lot more to achieve its goal than a government that wants to keep a certain kind of business out of a neighbourhood. If a city, for example, does not want strip bars and casinos next to elementary schools, then all it has to do is pass a zoning restriction. If, however, a city decides that it wants a bakery in a neighbourhood that does not have one, a simple change to zoning laws would not in itself accomplish this. Somebody has to put the bakery in there. Either the city would have to build and operate a bakery itself or, if it was dead set on having one, it would have to lure a private baker in with some sort of incentive. A bakery is only one type of business. To turn a city into a 15 minute city its government would have to do this not merely with bakeries but with every sort of business and service it deems essential, and in every neighbourhood.
While those promoting the 15 minute city model claim to be the heirs of Jane Jacobs they are in spirit far closer to the city planners she fought against in New York and Toronto. As different as the two kinds of urban planners are in their attitude towards automobiles, they are united by a common belief that if you get the right urban engineers, with the right ideas, and sit them down together in a drawing room, they will be able to come up with a design for a city which if enacted would produce maximum happiness for the maximum number of the city’s inhabitants. If, however, freedom is essential to human happiness, and it is, then this sort of thinking is counterproductive because it can only move cities in the direction of being more planned and less free. Those who make pitches for the 15 minute city concept like to try and sell it to us as a restoration of an older, simpler, way of life. That way of life, however, belonged to traditional communities which possessed at least one quality that was more conducive to happiness than that in modern cities and which cannot be reproduced artificially by planning. That quality is that of being organic. This is a quality that comes about in a community naturally, when families live together in the same place, working in the same businesses, shopping in the same stores, worshipping in the same churches, for several generations over the course of which a sense of social oneness grows. This cannot be reproduced artificially by planning and attempts to do so will only produce ugly caricatures of natural, traditional, communities.
One does not have to speculate about sinister motives behind the 15 minute city concept – and without such speculation you do not have a “conspiracy theory” – to have serious misgivings about the idea. Urban planning of this nature cannot recreate true organic communities, inevitably requires an increase in government control and a decrease in human freedom no matter how benign the motivation, and, being wedded to an environmentalist ideal of eliminating carbon emissions that has in recent years taken on the characteristics of a cult of fanatics is set on course to evolve into something far more unpleasant. — Gerry T. Neal
Our recent Access to Information filings revealed just how chummy the Liberals’ finance ministry is with the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The WEF, chaired by its founder Klaus Schwab, aims to influence governments worldwide to implement its vision and shape policies to comply with the organization’s agenda, which includes digital IDs, carbon budgets, no animal agriculture and a reset of the world economy.
Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise since our finance minister and deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, sits as a board member of the WEF. Conflict of interest much?
In the documents we obtained thanks to donations at www.RebelInvestigates.com, we learned that while Bill Morneau served as finance minister for Trudeau, he only sent out a couple of communications to this ominous globalist front group.
But once Chrystia Freeland took over, the communications between her and the WEF exploded!
So what do our two-timing deputy PM’s office and the WEF have to talk about?
[I knew Dr. Roger Pearson for half a century. He was a mentor and dear friend. I participated in the pivotal World Anti-Communist League Conference in Washington, D.C., held under his chairmanship. His decades of devotion to the publication of three academic journals which kept solid racial and political ideas in university libraries was a labour of love and self-sacrifice. To lessen the power of the rabid attacks by far left and Jewish censorship organizations, he avoided movement conferences and the contacts they might have afforded him. He was a brilliant and generous man. I usually lunched with him on my trips to Washington, D.C. He would call me about once a month when he received the newsletters I publish [The Canadian Immigration Hotline and the Free Speech Monitor]. I last talked to him in January of this year. He republished many important racial books including the prescient 1915 War and the Breed, which predicted the genetic catastrophe for European man of the fratricidal World War I. He told me sadly that World War II finished off the genetic destruction begun by WWI, killing off the best and brightest (fighter pilots like his only brother.) This giant, this scholar, this publisher, this friend is irreplaceable. — Paul Fromm]
Obituary – Professor Roger Pearson M.Sc. (Econ), Ph.D., (London): 1927 – 2023 by Mark Cotterill, Heritage & Destiny
Dr Roger Pearson (above right) has died aged 95: he is seen here with his good friend Dr Ed Fields in Washington DC, in 2000, during the time when H&D editor Mark Cotterill worked at Dr Pearson’s office.
All of us at H&D were saddened to hear of the recent death of Dr. Roger Pearson, who was a long-standing subscriber to Heritage and Destiny magazine – in fact he was our eldest subscriber, aged 95, when he died in Washington DC, on 23rd February.
Dr. Pearson was a true English gentleman in every sense. He was born in London, in 1927, but spent much of his childhood in Yorkshire. In October 1944, towards the end of the Second World War, he joined the British Army, despite his entitlement to exemption from military service to attend University after completing his Higher School Certificate examinations.
He had volunteered for military service and was inducted into the British Army with a view to obtaining a commission in the (British) Indian Army. After completing basic infantry and corps training with the Queens Royal Regiment in Maidstone, Kent, Roger and his fellow cadets embarked for India to attend the British Indian Army Pre-Officer Training School (Pre-OTS) at Bangalore.
Dr Pearson as an officer in the (British) Indian Army in 1946.
In July 1946 he was commissioned from the British Indian Army OTS Kakul (which today is the Pakistan Military Academy) to serve as a 2nd Lieutenant with Indian troops in Meerut. However, with the approaching Independence of India and Pakistan, he was shortly transferred to service as a 1st Lieutenant with the British Indian Division in the occupation of Japan (Shikoku and Tokyo), from January 1947 to January 1948.
I remember him telling me of how shocked and saddened he was by the behaviour of the American GIs in occupied Japan, and their brutal treatment of the local people, including beatings, theft and numerous rapes of young Japanese women. I asked him about the conduct of our own squaddies over there and he said in general they were very well behaved, and he would have expected nothing less from them. Dr. Pearson always had a very low opinion of American soldiers, and hated their “hazing” tactics, which he described as “very unprofessional”.
His final military service was as a 1st Lieutenant with the British Army in Singapore and Malaya, from January to April 1948.
On leaving the army in 1948, Roger attended university in England. After obtaining a B.Sc.(honours) in economics and sociology, he returned to India in 1952 in a business capacity, first as an assistant accountant in Calcutta (now Kolkata), but eventually as the CEO of several companies in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), primarily in the tea industry – then Pakistan’s second largest export. During this period (1959-65) he served on the Board of the Pakistan Tea Association and was elected President, 1963-4. During that year he was ex officio a member of the Pakistan Tea Board, and the Managing Committee of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
During his service in India and East Pakistan, Roger retained a strong interest in cultural matters. While in Calcutta (1955-1959), he made numerous journalistic contributions to The Statesman and to The Hindustan Standard and a few short broadcast presentations on All-India Radio. He also wrote Eastern Interlude, a Social History of the European Community in Calcutta from 1649-1911, described by the Hindustan Times (India) as “a vivid picture of European social life in India free from prejudices and prepossessions”; by the Hindustan Standard (India) as “objective …brilliant”; by the Indian PEN “Exceptionally well-balanced”; and by The Times (London) as “most diverting and readable…amusing and vivid… it comes to life on every page”. While I was working for him at his DC office, he republished the book (the original was well out of print by then) around 1999 and sold a further couple of hundred copies.
He was invited to serve as a member of the Cultural Advisory Committee of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, but this honour was brief because he soon afterwards left India for Pakistan. Roger Pearson is also proud of having saved the historic and architecturally important South Park Street Cemetery (dating from 1765-1815 when Calcutta was the capital of British India) from demolition. On his offer to set up a restoration fund, the Christian Burial Board, which lacked the funds to restore the decaying monuments, agreed to halt demolition and allow him to establish a fund which, with the eventual support of the Calcutta architect Bernard Matthews, Aurelius David Khan, ICS, and Sir John Woodhead, former and last British Governor of Bengal, succeeded in restoring most of the monuments and having the cemetery declared a National Monument by the Government of India.
Having lost his only brother (a Battle of Britain pilot, killed in North Africa shortly after his 21st birthday), four cousins (three pilots/one aircrew) and two close school friends, all without offspring, to the Second World War, Roger was shocked by the massive dysgenic loss resulting from internecine war in Europe.
He was also saddened by the cultural destruction when he visited war-torn Europe as a student in 1950 and found inspiration at a student summer school in Aachen University in Germany, funded by several European governments with the goal of promoting healing across Europe. Roger instinctively perceived its value and four years later, when employed with a British bank in Calcutta, he founded Northern World, a cultural, non-political Journal of North European Friendship, with the particular goal of promoting reconciliation between the closely related nations of Northern Europe who had so recently been engaged in destroying each other in two “Brothers’ Wars”.
Northern World was favourably received in like-minded circles, including the famed author J.R.R. Tolkien (who also subscribed to AK Chesterton’s Candour journal) and the agrarian environmentalist, Rolf Gardiner, both of whom sent personal letters of congratulation. The success of this venture led Roger, now a rising business executive, to announce the formation of a society – along with Peter Huxley-Blythe, to promote North European friendship, called The Northern League for North European Friendship (more commonly known as The Northern League). Under Roger’s leadership the League remained mainly a cultural and essentially non-political organization. With his business responsibilities mounting rapidly, by 1961 he found it necessary to resign his membership and from all Northern League activities.
Following his withdrawal, the Northern League became more political and published a new journal called The Northlander. British members included Robert Gayre, Alistair Harper, Colin Jordan, and John Tyndall,
By 1965, the situation for old-established British firms operating in India and Pakistan was deteriorating. China had already fought a war with India over the borders of Assam, and India was shortly to invade Pakistan and convert East Pakistan into Bangladesh. Roger could see the tide was turning and sold his own commercial interests and moved to America. On his departure he received a farewell address from the Pakistani employees stating, “Your love, affection and sympathy for your staff are never to be forgotten and specially during the reorganization we have found that you have put yourself out to a great extent in finding the retrenched staff employment, which we feel, can only be equalled by a very few.”
Dr Roger Pearson
After leaving Asia East, Pearson returned to England for a few months before leaving to the United States, just before the infamous 1965 Immigration Act, which was aimed at stopping British and other Western Europeans from emigrating freely to America. Once, there he spent a year or so in California editing and writing articles and engaging in lecturing before embarking on a ten-month tour of the Caribbean and Southern Africa.
Returning to the United States, he joined the faculty of the Department of Sociology at the University of Southern Mississippi as an Assistant Professor (1968), wrote his Introduction to Anthropology (published in 1974 by what was then the largest Anthropology publishing house in the USA), accepted a position as Associate Professor and Department Head of the Sociology at Queen’s College, Charlotte (today Queens University of Charlotte), before returning to the University of Southern Mississippi (commonly known as ‘Ole Miss’) as Full Professor and Chairman of a new Department of Anthropology offering both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.
At ‘Ole Miss’ Dr. Pearson launched the the Journal of Indo-European Studies and the JIES Monograph series (1972) in collaboration with and under the guidance of the distinguished UCLA archaeologist Marija Gimbutas and University of Texas linguist and mythologist Edgar Polome. He continued to publish JIES via The Institute for the Study of Man until well into his late 80s. It is now edited by Emily Blanchard West (St. Catherine).
In the mid-1960s Dr. Pearson teamed up with Willis Carto (who would later go on to run Liberty Lobby and publish the Spotlight newspaper) for a while and they published a magazine called Western Destiny (1965-66), which was probably the first high quality journal the “American Right” had published since the end of WWII. They stayed friends up until the late 1990s when Willis Carto fell out with Dr. Pearson for not being extreme enough! From 1966 to 1967 under the pen-name “Stephan Langton”, Dr. Pearson published (via Noontide Press) The New Patriot, a magazine devoted to “a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question”.
However, not content with standing still, in 1974, Dr. Pearson accepted a position as Dean of Academic Affairs and Director of Research at Montana Tech of the University of Montana in Butte, Montana, a mile high in the beautiful Rocky Mountains, in the course of which he also became ex-officio Secretary of the Montana Energy and Magnetohydrodynamic Research and Development Institute.
During his time in Montana he joined the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Further adventures now called, and after one year Dr. Pearson again moved, this time to Washington, D.C. (1975) where he founded the Council on American Affairs as the new U.S. chapter. He went on to become Director of the North American Chapter of WACL and publisher and editor of a new journal entitled The Journal of American Affairs (founded 1975), which later changed its name to The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies). In the early years the journal published articles by both scholars, and senators and congressmen. Dr. Pearson continued to publish JSPS via Scott-Townsend until well into his late 80s.
Traveling widely to attend WACL conferences throughout the Far East, South and Central America, and Europe, Dr. Pearson conferenced face to face with several Heads of State, including King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. In 1978 he was elected World Chairman of the World Anti-Communist League in 1978 and hosted the 1979 World Conference of the League in Washington DC. The five-day proceedings were attended by upwards of a thousand WACL members and guests from free countries around the globe (including Lady Jane Birdwood from the UK). The Opening Ceremony was conducted with the aid of The U.S. Joint Armed Services Honour Guard and the Marine Corps Band and addressed by two U.S. Senators!
Delegates (including Lady Jane Birdwood from the UK) at a World Anti-Communist League conference in the 1970s, chaired by Dr Roger Pearson.
While Pravda in Moscow was ready to condemn the Conference out of hand, the left-wing Washington Post (WP), which had had a reporter at the Conference, totally ignored it for some thirty days while preparing a virtually full-page attack on both the WACL and its president, Dr. Pearson. Writing fancifully about “fascists” and South American “death squads”, the author of the Post article also levelled charges against Dr. Pearson’s alleged efforts to enrol “extremists” into WACL – surely not!
Indeed, it is a fact that, unlike the delegates from Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Central and Southern America, Pearson found the WACL European and Asian chapters replete with delegates who were almost soft on Communism (not including Lady Birdwood of course!). One Indian delegate constantly attacked “neo-colonialism”, but seemed never to mention the very real Communist threat to freedom in the 1960s and ’70s.
Dr Pearson chairing the WACL Conference
Dr. Pearson consequently promoted the recruitment of more genuine anti-Communists, such as the Italian Social Movement (MSI), at that time the fourth largest political party in Italy, whose successors – the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) won Italy’s parliamentary elections in September 2022: their leader Giorgia Meloni became her country’s first female prime minister. I’m sure that brought a smile to his face!
After the WACL Dr. Pearson continued to work with the American Security Council, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Journal of International Relations. But efforts by the liberal-left to frustrate his work continued. His scientific comprehension of Darwinian reality, and the importance of genetic, cultural, and environmental concerns for the survival of humanity, made him a target for those who care only about the present generation, and not those numberless generations hopefully still to come. His sociological and anthropological training meant that he never stressed the biological at the expense of the environmental, because biological organisms are dependent on the ecosphere – and also on a culture that supports both the biological and the environmental heritage. This the liberal-left hated, and they carried on a campaign against him and his work well into the 2000s.
Concerned about the future of the human race, Dr. Pearson became a Member of the British Eugenics Society, now known as the Galton Institute, as early as 1963, and was elected a Fellow in 1977. In 1979 he also assumed publication of Professor Robert Gayre’s Mankind Quarterly, which the latter had founded in 1960 with the aid of distinguished scholars such as Henry Vallois, S.D. Porteus, and Sir Charles B. Darwin. As the earlier generation of contributors passed on, he was able to recruit distinguished scholars to replace them, such as Joseph Campbell, Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck and William Shockley. Dr. Pearson continued to publish MQ via Scott-Townsend until well into his late 80s, and around 2010 passed it over to Prof. Richard Lynn, who publishes it via the Ulster Institute for Social Research.
Dr Pearson welcomed many delegates from around the world to anti-communist conferences
In 1990 Pearson founded the bi-monthly Conservative Review, an American version of Right NOW!, and published it via the Council for Social and Economic Studies. The magazine lasted almost seven years, but folded in 1997, due to lack of support from the “right-wing” of the GOP.
Not forgetting the importance of Universities to the rising generation, and concerned by the premeditated campus disruptions during the 1960s and 70s, Dr. Pearson joined the University Professors for Academic Order (UPAO), and served as its President 1980-84. Combining his credentials in the social sciences with his practical experience in the commercial world, his bank training in accounting, and his professional status as a former Fellow of the British Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators and member of the British Institute of Directors, he also served as a Trustee of the Benjamin Franklin University in Washington D.C. for a number of years before that respected institution, noted for the quality of its alumni, was absorbed into Georgetown University.
In 1984 Pearson received a Certificate of Appreciation signed by General Daniel O. Graham, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency under President Reagan, and later of High Frontier, expressing “grateful appreciation for the important work you have done to prepare the way for a more secure world.” Also, a 1985 written accolade from the US Department of Education for “outstanding service to U.S. Education, and Education Reform Efforts”. But perhaps the most significant tribute, and one that annoyed Pearson’s critics most strongly, was a signed letter from President Ronald Reagan commending Pearson for “promoting and upholding those ideals and principles that we value at home and abroad …bringing to a wide audience the work of leading scholars who are supportive of a free enterprise economy, a firm and consistent foreign policy and a strong national defence.” Later an embarrassed White House official asked Dr. Pearson not to use the letter for publicity purposes, after they had come under attack from the Washington Post!
Dr Pearson introduced genuine committed activists to strengthen anti-communist campaigns during the 1970s.
Dr. Pearson wrote over a dozen books including:
Eastern Interlude. Thacker Spink, Calcutta; Luzac and Co., London (1953) – republished by Scott-Townsend 1999.
Eugenics and Race. London: Clair Press; Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1958).
Blood Groups and Race. 2nd ed. London: Clair Press; Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1966).
Evolution, Creative Intelligence, and Intergroup Competition. Cliveden Press (1986)
William Shockley: Shockley on Eugenics and Race: The Application of Science to the Solution of Human Problems. Preface by Arthur Jensen. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers (1992).
Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe. Introduction by Hans Eysenck.[47] Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington, D.C., 1991. (2nd. Ed. 1994).
Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers (1991) [2nd ed. 1998].
Dr Pearson in 1975 with distinguished Saudi, Yemeni and Taiwanese government ministers, ambassadors and university leaders
I first met Dr. Pearson in 1996 a year or so after I had moved from Devon in England to live the States. A mutual friend Carl Knittle, who was working for him at his down-town DC office at the time introduced us. Carl had just handed in his notice, and they were looking for his replacement, which turned out to be me!
I ended up working there for over six years, and only left when the US Government issued me with a ten-year exclusion order towards the end of 2002, so I had no choice but to leave and return to dear old Blighty.
From his DC office – which was only six or seven blocks from the White House – and only one block away from a black (now Hispanic) ghetto! – Dr. Pearson edited and published three journals, the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (JSPS), the Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) and his pride and joy the Mankind Quarterly (MQ). He also published numerous books and monographs, many sold through his mail order (and later online) book shop – Scott Townsend Books.
Dr Pearson’s home and office at 1133 13th Street NW, Washington DC. His office was on the ground floor, while he and his wife had a flat on the fourth floor.
Both Dr. Pearson and his wife Marion – who died around ten years before him – were very kind to me. In fact, if it had not been for them, I don’t think I would have survived so long Stateside. They had four children, two boys and two girls. The girls both married Europeans (a Frenchman and a German) and they were very proud to have a true pan-European family. Their eldest son Edwin was born (in India) on exactly the same day as me (in Worcester) on October 3rd, 1960, which they both found amusing. Sadly, Edwin died very young in his forties.
During those six years working at his office at 1133 on 13th Street, NW, I met so many interesting people, including to name but a few Dr. Philippe Rushton, Prof. Glayde Whitney, Attorney Sam Dickson, Paul Fromm, and the men with the deep pockets – Harry Weyher and Bill Regnery.
American Renaissance, which is run by Jared Taylor, used to hold their annual conference near to their office in Northern Virginia, not too far away from down-town Washington DC, so many conference attendees use to pop into the our office to say hello, and sometimes taking Dr. Pearson out for lunch, en route to the conference. It was always nice to meet new and old friends.
Two other “doctors” from time to time used to visit the office, when passing through DC – Dr. William L. Pierce and Dr. Edward R. Fields – they would normally go out with Dr. Pearson for either lunch or dinner depending on the time of the visit. I later found out that during Dr. Pierce’s last visit the FBI had staked out the building! They tailed them both to a local restaurant, sat inside at a table close to theirs while they ate and talked, then tailed them back to the office. It seems that every time Dr. Pierce left the National Alliance compound in West Virginia, to go out of town, the Feds went with him! Anyway, it was good to see American taxes were put to good use!
President Reagan’s controversial letter to Dr Pearson
And then there was “9-11”. On September 11th 2001, I got into the office on time, which was a couple of minutes before 9am and started to drink my coffee (I would do the typically American thing of eating my bagel while walking to work!). Up until then – as they say – it was just a normal day at the office!
Dr. Pearson was already in his office (which was the room next door to mine) hard at work. He normally got there before me, around 8.45am most mornings. However, he did not have very far to travel – as he lived in an apartment (flat) just above the office, on the 4th or 5th floor (I think). We said our usual pleasantries, and I then got on with going through the mail from the previous day (I did not normally work on a Monday) and from the weekend.
Looking back on it, around the time I was getting my breakfast, around 8.46am, New York was turning into a scene of devastation after the first of the two planes smashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. And around the time I was sitting down at my desk and starting to open the mail, around 9.03am the second plane was smashing into the South Tower.
Both 110 storey towers collapsed within an hour and forty-two minutes, leading to the collapse of the other World Trade Center structures including the 7 World Trade Center, and significantly damaging all the surrounding buildings.
Of course, Dr. Pearson and I were oblivious to all this, as we did not have a radio or TV on in either office, and it was just before the days of smart phones.
The first we knew that something was wrong, was when Dr. Pearson’s wife Marion rang him from their upstairs flat, where I guess she was watching the events unfold on TV. He told me what she had told him, but to honest it did not really sink in there and then what was going on. So, we just carried on working as normal.
I guess five minutes later, just before 9.20am we got another phone call which I answered this time. It was BNP leader Nick Griffin! He told us basically what Mrs. Pearson had just told us, that two hijacked planes had crashed into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center, but then added that two more planes were now on their way to DC to blow up the White House and Capital Buildings, and that we needed to get out quickly!
Of course, even we wanted to get out – which we didn’t – where were we meant to get out to? However, Nick meant well, and I appreciate him warning us anyway, even though there was nothing we could do about it. I thanked him and told him we would not be moving from the building at this time, but if he could ring back with any updates, that would be very useful.
I talked over the situation with Dr. Pearson, and he said he did not think the planes would even reach DC, and even if they did, their targets were so far away from us that we would “probably be ok”! So, we sat back down at our desks and carried on working.
Dr Roger Pearson at his Washington office in 2013
However, we had only been back at our desks for a couple of minutes, when we heard a hell of a commotion going on outside our building. At 9:37am, the third of the hijacked planes crashed into the west side of the Pentagon (the headquarters of the American military, as well as a large underground shopping mall), which was just over the Potomac River in NW Arlington, Virginia, causing a partial collapse of the building’s west side.
To give you an idea of distance, The Pentagon is about three and miles south east of our office, maybe a ten-minute drive away. It’s just south of Arlington National Cemetery, and just north of Alexandria.
I can remember hearing an explosion, and then the noise of hundreds of other office workers, and locals outside our office on the streets. I said to Dr. Pearson that I was going outside to see what the heck was happening, because we had no windows in the office so I could not peer out. Once outside I could see all the smoke in the distance, and word got round that the Pentagon had been hit.
I can’t remember there being a panic, but a lot of my fellow DC workers were very concerned as word had got around that the 4th plane was on its way to DC!
However, the 4th plane – United 93 – never reached DC. And US authorities even to this day, don’t know for sure if the target was to have been the White House or the Capitol.
The story put about by President Bush’s spin-doctors that the passengers aboard United 93 decided to act once they realized all was lost – i.e. storm the flight deck, attack the terrorists and bring the plane down before it reached Washington DC – sadly did not happen. But why would it have done, it never happened on the other three hijacked flights, and they had many more passengers.
What did really happen, was that Bush ordered United 93 to be shot down before it got anywhere near DC. This flight was the only plane not to hit its intended target, instead after being shot down it crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, about 170 miles from DC at 10:03 am.
Once the news spread around DC that plane number four had crashed and that there were probably no more hijacked planes up in the skies, most of the workers either returned to their offices – as I did – or they left and started to make their way back home.
Dr Pearson’s institute received funds from important American donors including the Pioneer Fund
I asked Dr. Pearson what we should do, and he said, “just carry on working Mark”! Which is what I did until around noon when I went for an early lunch. All public transport in DC was in the process of being stopped, but most of the bars and restaurants seemed to be open, with customers glued to the TVs. I found a Subway close by and got a meal and a soda (pop to you Brits!) and tried to check my cell phone, only to find it not working. The internet had also gone down, but landlines were still working.
I made my way back to the office, where Dr. Pearson was still working. He informed me he was then going up upstairs to his flat for his lunch. So, I just went back to work. Strange when you look back on it.
My girlfriend of the time (Jackie) was calling the office every half an hour or so, asking when I was going to get out of DC and come home. I told her the same thing each time: as soon as I can.
Dr. Pearson came back down to the office around 2pm I guess, and told me to pack up for the day, since it would take me ages to get home as there was no public transport. Even most of the ‘enriched’ taxi drivers had gone home by then. So, I called Jackie back from the office landline and said I was going to start to make my way back to Falls Church, but be prepared for a long wait as it may take a while!
There are so many incredible stories I could tell you about Dr. Roger Pearson and the goings on at the office and around DC, including our trips to the Martin Luther King Jr. Post Office, which used to run out of stamps!; our trip with Zach (who use to work part time at the office himself in the early days) to Burger King, where Dr. P. ordered off the cuff not from the set menu, which completely baffled the young black counter assistant!; the day Dr. Pearson telephoned Zach’s home and his brother Corey answered the phone and thought it was, and I quote “the King of England calling”! The day Dr. P. went for a lunch time drink with Zach and I in a bar near McPherson Square, and a lefty looking bloke with very long hair stood by us waiting to be served. Zach said to Dr. P. “what do you make of him”, to which Dr. P. replied “he’s probably a homosexual”! The day after Princess Diana died (I was at work even though it was a Sunday): Dr. P. and I went out for lunch near the White House and Yanks were coming up to us in the restaurant giving us their condolences, as if we knew her!
Of course, we had our ups and downs, but overall, I had six very enjoyable years working for Dr. Pearson, where I learnt not only how to run an efficient office (a well-oiled machine – you should see the H&D office now!), but so much more about race, eugenics, anthropology, history and American politics.
The last time I spoke to him was shortly before Christmas. I think my phone call had woken him up from an afternoon nap, and it took a couple of minutes for him to realise who I was. But after that he was fine, and we had a good old natter, chatting about old times in DC and the political situation in the UK. He was still very sharp even at 95.
I will sorely miss Dr. Roger Pearson, he was one of a kind. And if there is a Valhalla, he will surely have a place there.
From chapter 8 of Fagrskinna, one of the kings’ sagas, written around 1220. The composition is by an anonymous author from the 10th century and is referred to as Eiríksmál, and describes Eric Bloodaxe and five other kings arriving in Valhalla after their death. The poem begins with comments by Odin (as Old Norse Óðinn):
“What kind of a dream is it,” said Óðinn, “in which just before daybreak, I thought I cleared Valhǫll, for coming of slain men? I waked the Einherjar, bade valkyries rise up, to strew the bench, and scour the beakers,
Wine to carry, as for a king’s coming, here to me I expect heroes’ coming from the world, certain great ones, so glad is my heart.”
There will also be an obituary in a future issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine.
Immigration Reformers Attend Rally Demanding Resignation of Liberal MP Han Dong Whose Nomination Was Aided By Red Chinese Meddling
TORONTO. March 6, 2023. A lively protest was held outside the constituency office of Don Valley North MP. Loudspeakers carried impassioned calls for Liberal MP Han Dong to resign. Reports from CSIS indicate that the Red Chinese consulate in Toronto helped bus in Chinese to ensure his nomination in 2019. He has since seemed to toe the Chinese Communist Party line, being absent on two votes condemning the abuse of China’s Uygher minority, which many have called a genocide.
“Heh, heh, ho, Han Dong has got to go,” and similar chants were taken up by the vocal crowd of about 100.
Don Valley North is one of 11 federal ridings that was the subject of Red Chinese election meddling.
About a dozen supporters of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee joined the protest and the old Red Ensign flew high. Gus Stefanis carried the flag of Hong Kong (a blue ensign) prior to the British handover of the colony to Red China in 1997. The ensign got nods of approval from several Chinese attending the rally. “The Red Ensign was Canada’s flag before the neo-communist takeover. The Hong Kong Ensign was their flag before the communist handover,” Stefanis explained.
“The CSIS report said the Red Chinese consulate funnelled money and personnel to candidates it supports. We demand that this nest of subversives be closed to show the Red Chinese we take election integrity seriously,” said Paul Fromm, Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee.
“We know two of the 11 ridings CSIS says were the targets of communist meddling — Don Valley North and Steveston-Richmond East. In the latter, Conservative MP Kenny Chiu was defeated by a Red Chinese orchestrated social media smear campaign because he was an outspoken opponent of Red China. We demand to know the other nine ridings,” Fromm insisted.
Also joining the protests were a number of Iranians critical of the vile human rights record of that regime and the long arm of its security services even here in Canada.
The protest was covered by Rebel Media and some local Chinese media.
Homeless Out, Illegals In, As Feds Dump 4,313 Illegals in Local Hotels — Mayor Sworn to Silence
On CBC today, Mayor Jim Diodati of Niagara Falls revealed there are 4,313 illegals in NF hotels. In winter, the city houses some of its homeless there. He said: “I’m receiving calls from homeless people being evicted to make room” for illegals. Our scumbag federal Liberals put illegals first.
On Thursday, on CBC, Mayor Diodati explained that, back in the summer, Immigration approached him to house 87 illegals in local hotels. Very interestingly, he was told to keep the issue quiet
The best way to forget history is to rewrite it. And in the rewriting, to carefully delete references to any historical events or circumstances we find uncomfortable. Thus, American history books are totally silent on the matter of these white slaves, mostly of European stock with a great number of Irish, but also English and Scottish, who were kidnapped or otherwise forcibly deported to the US as slave labor. In fact, an examination of available documentation indicates that white slavery in the Americas was a much more extensive operation than was black slavery, and the numbers may be severely under-estimated.[1]
Several authors have claimed, and I have seen reports that appear credible, that white slaves in America outnumbered the black. In his book, They Were White and They Were Slaves,[2]
Michael Hoffman wrote, “Negro slavery was efficiently established in colonial America because Black slaves were governed, organized and controlled by the structures and organization that were first used to enslave and control Whites. Black slaves were late-comers fitted into a system already developed.”
The new nation had a need for cheap labor since the settlers were in the process of exterminating the inhabitants of a large country and taking possession of the lands, but lacked the workers to develop it. These white slaves were more important than the blacks, in both number and economic advantage. One white slave owner, Virginia planter John Pory, stated that white (not black) slaves were the nation’s “principal wealth”. It was due in large part to the overwhelming majority of white slaves that America built its foundations of wealth, since slavery was exclusively a matter of economics and profit. American capitalism was viciously predatory from the days of its birth. One eyewitness to the mass kidnapping of poor Whites estimated that from his personal knowledge alone, at least 10,000 were sold into slavery every year from throughout Great Britain for perhaps two centuries.
American history texts make reference to what is called indentured servitude, as a kind of “benignly paternalistic system whereby colonial immigrants spent a few years working off their passage and went on to better things”. The myth is that overseas passage was expensive and British and European civilians willingly signed indentures requiring them to work for a few years to pay off the cost of their passage, after which time they would be given land and their freedom to pursue a glorious future in the New World. But it was no such thing. There may indeed have been a few such indentured persons fitting this description, but they were a minuscule minority with their conditions not better than that suffered by all slaves. In fact, their indentures most often amounted to a life sentence at hard labor, and with a life that would be preciously short when we look at the hideous mortality rates. There are documented records of white convicts asking to be hanged in Britain rather than sent to the gulag that was America.
It is only the elite establishment in America today who present a disingenuously impassioned propaganda to soften the brutality. The fact is that if this indenture process were really the standard, then thousands of the contracts would have survived and our museums would be full of them. There is no evidence of this. Some Jewish and other sympathetic historians pretend that this system of indentures, a kind of privileged form of bound labor, was representative of the entire experience of White bondage in America. But this definition would apply only to those voluntarily binding themselves to service, and of these there were very few, with the contracted indenture being maintained only as a spurious cover for plain and simple lifetime chattel slavery. Even the Whites referred to themselves as slaves who were not better than cattle, and who were by all accounts degraded chattels on a par with farm animals. There is evidence of many hopeful but illiterate migrants who were duped into signing indentures, ignorant of the actual content of the documents that legally designated them as personal property that could be bought and sold, gambled away, or killed without concern like any other animals. In any event, the indentures provided countless excuses for the slave-owners to extend the period of servitude indefinitely, often by 7 years for the most minor of offenses and 10 or 15 years for others. Few escaped.
The slave traders exerted grand efforts in inducing free whites to sign indentures, supposedly placing themselves in ‘temporary’ slavery with the promise of 50 acres of farmland at the end of the indenture term, but this was nothing more than a despicable racket. The promised lands were entrusted to the slave-owner on the understanding the land titles would later pass to the slaves, but these land rights could be forfeited for almost any reason, including laziness, with the land titles then becoming the master’s rightful property. Many slave-owners purchased large numbers of these so-called indentured persons and quickly concocted excuses to seize all the entrusted lands, occasionally with a gift and a wink to the relevant authorities. Certainly, hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of acres of fertile land were obtained in this manner, with many slave-owners accumulating vast estates and great wealth, which is precisely why this “benignly paternalistic” system was created. Indentured servitude was never more than an immense and cruel fraud.
One author wrote that historians deliberately maintain the fallacy that “wherever White ‘servants’ constituted the majority of servile laborers, they worked in privileged or even luxurious conditions which were forbidden to Blacks. In truth, White Slaves were often restricted to doing the dirty, backbreaking field work while Blacks and even Indians were taken into the plantation mansion houses to work as domestics.” A Major named Mordecai Manuel Noah, who was described as “the most distinguished Jewish layman of his time”, promoted slavery by equating it with freedom. Incredibly, he made pronouncements like this: “There is liberty under the name of slavery. A field Negro has his cottage, his wife, and children, his easy task, his little patch of corn and potatoes, his garden and fruit, which are his revenue and property. The house servant has handsome clothing, his luxurious meals, his admitted privacy, a kind master, and an indulgent and frequently fond mistress.”
David W. Galenson wrote a treatise titled ‘White Slavery entitled White Servitude in Colonial America’, in which he stated, “European men and women could exercise choice both in deciding whether to migrate to the colonies and in choosing possible destinations.” These comments, and so many more like them, are pure fiction, very large lies meant to erase the evil of centuries. White slaves were obtained from the poorest levels of British society who were regarded as expendable by the ruling class. Economists advocated the enslavement of poor Whites because they saw them as the cheapest and most effective way to develop the colonies in the New World while ridding themselves of the surplus poor who were “unprofitable” to England. As American agriculture expanded, landowners demanded the legalisation of the practice of kidnapping poor Whites for slavery. Parliamentary legislation was passed to specifically permit the capture of White children, with this becoming what we can call an “open hunting season” on the poor of Great Britain as well as anyone the British aristocracy happened to despise.
Given the secrecy of the entire matter of white slavery, it isn’t surprising that few are aware that a great many of the slaves deported to the Americas or Australia were not convicts as the record states, but were actually political prisoners and political dissidents, and many more were prisoners of war. England in particular made a point of rounding up every political dissident of substance, imprisoning them, then deporting them as ‘convicts’. It was also a policy of England to cooperate with the slave traders in permitting what were called “slave-hunting gangs” who roamed freely throughout the country and vacuumed up virtually anyone not looking rich, this process viewed with much approval by the British aristocracy. It was Henry Cromwell who ordered all the homeless poor throughout Great Britain to be captured and deported by the slave traders, for being “unprofitable to the Realm”. Laws permitted the seizure of any persons in any part of England who appeared to be vagrant, or who were begging, and to have them conveyed to a British port and shipped to America to be sold. Accordingly, judges ordered the enslavement and shipping to America the total number of “those who made life unpleasant for the British upper class”. Westerners are generally aware that Australia was populated almost entirely with convicts from British prisons, but few are aware that the New World of America was initially populated in the same way from the same sources. The government of England virtually emptied its prisons, transporting most of its convicts, both men and women, to America to be sold to plantation owners and other industrialists, and brothels were forcibly emptied to provide unwilling human breeding stock for American slave-owners.
The historical record tells us that “American slave-owners quickly began breeding the white women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit”, but this expression denies a brutal truth. The white women, especially the Irish, were simply stripped naked and repeatedly raped until they were pregnant, then kept in that condition. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman managed to obtained her freedom, her children would remain slaves and she would seldom abandon them, thereby remaining in servitude. Other American masters found a better way to use these white women – who were in many cases girls as young as ten or twelve – to increase their market value by breeding them with African men to produce slaves with a “mulatto” complexion which brought a higher price than their Irish livestock.
This practice of interbreeding White females with African men became so long-term and widespread that legislation was passed forbidding the practice because this production of offspring interfered with the profits of a large Jewish slave trader. The more perverse versions of Judaism also played a part. One of the reasons the African slave trade began was that African slaves were “not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology” that infected the Irish. In part because of this, African slaves became more expensive to purchase and were often treated far better than their White counterparts. Black slaves were indeed cruelly used but not often worked to death as were the Whites who were available for almost nothing and were fully expendable. Upon arrival in America, these White British would be stripped naked, put in chains, and paraded on the auction floor where they were probed, examined and sold like livestock.
The trade in White slaves was a natural one for Jewish merchants in England who imported sugar and tobacco from the American colonies. Whites kidnapped in Britain could be exchanged for these goods in America, permitting the merchant ships to convey cargo in both directions. But the disposability of these humans in the minds of these inhuman merchants, staggers the heart. There are documented reports that one ship dumped more than 1,300 white slaves into the Atlantic Ocean to ensure an adequate food supply for the crew. Other documented reports tell of 20 or 30 children at a time being tossed into the ocean to drown. There was also a provision in many contracts that white slaves were sold in advance to plantation owners who would be responsible for full payment “if the slaves survived beyond the halfway point of the journey”. Apparently ship captains regularly stocked sufficient food for only the first half of their ocean voyage with the intention of starving the slaves for the remainder of the trip. One documented record stated, “Jammed into filthy holds, manacled, starved and abused, they suffered and died during the crossings in gross numbers.” Nobody bothered to record the number of deaths.
Even those fortunate enough to land in the New World would fare little better, suffering a shocking mortality rate. Sixty percent of all white slaves reaching the Americas did not survive their first year. One clergyman visited a plantation outpost and described the scene as “a land of the living dead, a vault full of living corpses”. A policeman referred to them as “vermin-haunted heaps of rags”. He claimed that when he opened a door into one of their hovels, he saw, “Ten, twenty, thirty, who can count them? Men, women, children, for the most part naked, heaped upon the floor like maggots in a cheese factory, a spectral rising, unshrouded, from a grave of rags”. White slaves who rebelled or became disobedient were punished in the most savage and inhuman ways. Owners would hang their slaves by their hands and set their feet on fire. Often, they were burned alive, with their severed heads then placed on pikes in a public marketplace to serve as a warning to other slaves.
Particularly shocking was the abduction and enslavement of a great many white children who were openly seized from orphanages, workhouses and the streets, and shipped to America to labor in factories and plantations. There were countless shipments of these doomed children to America for perhaps 300 years, with very few living to become adults. In one case, when a census was taken in Virginia only seven children were listed as alive from the many thousands kidnapped that year. All the rest were dead, and statistics for other years are equally grim, with sometimes only three or four surviving that year. Orphan children as well as the children of poor parents were targeted for the White slave trade, these latter being described as a “plague” and a “rowdy element”. The London police were instructed to seize any children found on the street and take them to a containment facility where they would await shipment to America. Often, their only crime was being in the street when a constable happened to pass by. The Jewish slave-traders specifically targeted poor families, demanding they surrender their children for sale on threat of being starved into submission by the withdrawal of all relief assistance from any source. They could give up their children to the slave-traders, or be forced to starve and die. This centuries-long inhuman use of “disposable” children was the beginning of the American fondness for child labor which began with the agricultural plantations, but which was soon extended to American factories.
Irish Slaves
It appears to be generally accepted that Ireland was severely depopulated in the past, the most quoted percentage reduction being 80%. One useful article on England’s Irish slaves:[3]
The current standard narrative attempts with some vigor to attribute this severe population reduction to disease or famine, but the reality appears to be that kidnapping for slavery was the main reason. There are sufficient records to tell us that the Irish were abducted and shipped by the hundreds of thousands, this including not only adults but even the youngest of children being forcibly taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the US and the West Indies. We can certainly credit Henry Cromwell for much of this, since he seemed especially determined to capture and deport all Irish women: “Concerning the young [Irish] women, although we must use force in takinge them up, yet it beinge so much for their owne goode, and likely to be of soe great advantage to the publique, it is not in the least doubted, that you may have such number of them as you thinke fitt to make use uppon this account.” There is no way to misunderstand the man’s words, and Cromwell wasn’t referring to “indentured servitude” in these remarks.
The first white slave sales document was drawn up in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown, Virginia. In 1625 James II officially decreed that all Irish prisoners be sent to the West Indies (Caribbean) and sold to plantation owners. The first ships deported 30,000 Irish, by the mid-1600s they constituted the majority of slaves in the colonies.[4]
A Portuguese website gives us the following: “The proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent abroad and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. In 1600, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of Montserrat’s total population were Irish slaves. Ireland quickly became a huge source of human cattle for English traders. Most of the first slaves in the New World were actually white.”[5]
As I wrote earlier, one of the tenets of propaganda is that we have a powerful tendency to believe the first thing we read or hear about a topic, especially if those statements are repeated a number of times. Later, even when faced with incontrovertible proof, facts that cannot be disputed, proving that our now-accepted beliefs are in fact false, we are surprisingly reluctant to change our minds, and we will “hesitate and waver and continue to believe there must be some other explanation”. Our minds are apparently unable to accept that we have believed lies. This is important because the Jews use this to great advantage to pre-empt the discovery of their atrocities and prevent rational thought. Typically, if knowledge of their past crimes is showing signs of escaping historical confinement, the Jews will use this propaganda tactic to “get there first”, with some Jewish author quickly writing a book or treatise on the subject that is replete with lies and falsified history that attempts to exclude the Jews from involvement and, if at all possible, to blame the victim.
There are many indications that the Jews are making efforts to either eliminate awareness and discussion of the Irish slave trade or to hopelessly confuse the issue so that the focus is lost and conclusions become difficult or impossible. Wikipedia is naturally one of the leaders in this effort. True to its Jewish roots and lying as always, Wikipedia has an article titled the “Irish slaves myth”[6] , even the title preparing readers to disbelieve anything about Irish slaves when it is Wikipedia that needs to be disbelieved. Their treatise refers to a book by Dr. Michael A. Hoffman II, titled “They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America”. Wikipedia conveniently tells us this book was published by “a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier”, who also “blamed Jews for the Atlantic slave trade” – in which Jews were clearly very involved. Wikipedia also tells us (as usual) that “The book has been described as shoddily researched” and “highly problematic”. If you recall, these were the same accusations made about the books by James Bacque that revealed the mass murders of Germans in American concentration camps after WWII. These accusations of holocaust deniers writing shoddy history books is part of a standard template when Jews don’t want the public accessing information that reveals Jewish crimes. Wikipedia further informs its readers that Dr. Hoffman presents a “careless blurring of the lines between slavery and indentured servitude”, but in fact it is Wiki and its brethren who deliberately blur the lines to disguise the fact that “indentures” are merely today’s euphemism meant to bury the truths of white slavery.
Wikipedia’s Italian website on this issue tells us, “Ireland has always been subject to strong emigration, so much so that today it is estimated that ten times more people of Irish origin live in the USA than in Ireland. In the eighteenth century about 9-10 million Irish left Ireland. Of these, the poorest went to Britain, especially to the Liverpool area, while those who could afford it, about 5 million, moved to the United States of America. From the nineteenth century, following the Great Potato Famine, emigration became massive: in 1890 40% of all Irish people lived abroad. Nowadays there are about 80,000,000 people in the world who claim to have Irish ancestry, and of these only 4,700,000 live in the Republic of Ireland.”[7]
Wiki then further tells us, “In 1800 the phenomenon of emigration from Ireland to the United States of America, was caused by religious persecution in Ireland, the excessive cost of living in Ireland and the great famine that struck the country. The phenomenon was massive: in fact, in ten years from the beginning of this phenomenon, the population of the United States doubled.” That’s bringing us a bit closer to the truth, but not sufficiently. As with other Jewish websites, Wikipedia equates abduction and slavery with “indentured servitude” and “emigration”.
Another indication is that Global Research published an article by John Martin on the Irish slave trade, “The Slaves that Time Forgot“[8], but then suddenly published two other articles partially denying the existence of this trade. GR then informs us that the original article “skims the surface of a complex historical process which has been the object of critical debate, controversy and confusion”, and that the subsequent articles were posted “in order to promote further discussion” and “with a view to providing a broader historical background”. Uh huh. Either that, or someone put a lot of pressure on GR to either revise their position or be removed from the Internet.
Perhaps the best indication is an article introducing an Irishman named Liam Hogan that is published on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, of all places. For those who don’t know, the SPLC is a totally Jewish organisation that is heavily political and with a thoroughly nasty reputation. Hogan apparently works (or worked) in a public library in Ireland and is presented to us as an “independent scholar“, the SPLC article with a headline telling us (like Wikipedia) that Irish slaves are “a myth” and serve only as a “meme” for “racists online”.[9]
It leaves us to guess who are the “racists” and against whom they express their racism. The article refers to a series of essays written by Hogan that purport to debunk the entire topic of Irish slaves, but they actually do no such thing. I have to say that Hogan’s essays appear fundamentally dishonest to me because all he really does is demonstrate that some photos used in support of slavery articles are drawn from unrelated sources, and that is entirely irrelevant to the topic. But the point is that this organisation is becoming actively involved in pre-empting open discussion of the Irish slave trade and, given their biases, this would happen only if Jews were concerned about the gradual revelation of their participation in this travesty. Without this fear, there would be no need for their involvement, nor for Wikipedia to take such a strong stand in contradiction of the available facts.
But there is another matter here, of much interest. Ireland, of all countries in the world, apparently has no population statistics prior to about 1850, and even the records from that late period appear to have been fabricated and forged. All the country’s population figures are gone. In the cities and towns, villages, government offices, churches, cemeteries, everything seems to have disappeared. It should be obvious this could not have happened by accident. One office in one location might suffer a disaster, but when all the population statistics for an entire nation disappear, it must be the result of willful action, and carried out by a considerable number of people. It should also be obvious that this could not have been a domestic enterprise: no government would take upon itself the task of destroying all of its own population records for all of its history. This means the destruction of the records would have to involve a foreign agent, and this leads us back to our Jewish slave traders. If you can’t prove that Ireland had people, you can’t prove those people were abducted as slaves. We have no direct proof, but the main beneficiary of the destruction of this evidence would certainly be the Jewish slave traders, and it should be remembered that the Khazar Jews were the most active slave traders in the world for hundreds of years, and certainly during this time frame. In fact, the Jews were bitterly hated by citizens of many nations for their abductions and slave trading, one of the main reasons the Jews were expelled from so many countries – and not because of prejudice or “anti-Semitism” as we are so often told today.
Also, since there is evidence the slave traders were very active in England and Scotland, there is no logical reason to assume they ignored Ireland, and the severe depopulation would appear to speak for itself.
There is one website that deals with the Ireland population issue.[10]
Its information is scattered but it does provide bits of enlightenment. It states, “There are no reliable population figures for Ireland before 1841”, and that “The only hard data that has survived is the 1841 and 1851 censuses, but the accuracy of these has been questioned.” However, it then pretends (as do many websites) to show Irish population graphs going back as far as 1200, which are of necessity entirely fiction. The same website tells us that “Emigration has been a feature of Irish history more than almost any other country in the world”, accenting this with a claim that “This is shown by the fact that, apart from the 5 million people in Ireland, there are an estimated 55 million people worldwide who can trace their ancestry back to Ireland”. That would be remarkable, if true, and would certainly support the thesis of millions of Irish being abducted as slaves over the years. The website also states that – in support of its “emigration” claim – the Irish accounted for a third of all “voluntary traffic” across the Atlantic. The fraction may be true, but the “voluntary” assertion has no supporting evidence, and I’m not sure I would classify abduction and slave-trading as “emigration”.
Brilliant Expose of the Subversion of Past Canadian Gov’ts, Liberal and Conservative, By the Red Chinese Lobby, Especially the Demarais Family’s Power Corp.
The PMO’S history of subservience
National Post
4 Mar 2023
Raymond J. de Souza
Pierre Trudeau meets with Mao Zedong when Trudeau was on an official visit to China as prime minister in 1973.
Regarding the Chinese election interference scandal, there was this little nugget that came to public attention. The Chinese donors — who were to be reimbursed by the Chinese communist state — who ponied up a cool million for the Trudeau Foundation wanted to build a joint statue for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Chairman Mao at the University of Montreal law school.
The law school demurred on the Mao bit, saying that, “Obviously, since Mao had no connection to the university, that suggestion was not an option for us.”
It’s not obvious actually, as universities tend to set a very low bar in terms of whose cash they take. It is notable though that being one of the greatest mass killers in history did not disqualify Mao, but that he hadn’t done even a semester abroad on campus. If he was an alumnus, or perhaps had agreed to accept an honorary degree, then things may have been different.
It seems that the entire Trudeau-mao statue project was dropped. It may have had a better chance if it had been proposed for the Desmarais family’s Power Corp. headquarters in Montreal. That is the corporate seat of Canada’s multi-generational bipartisan soft-on-china policy. The Desmarais family had business interests in China and powerful friends in Ottawa — Trudeau Sr., Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. The latter were eager to be put in service of the former.
Thus a statue of a Canadian prime minister shaking the bloodsoaked hand of a Chinese tyrant would have been a fitting expression of Canadian policy.
Recall that the greatest crisis in foreign relations for Beijing was the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. Would that prevent China’s integration into the world economy and its capacity to project its power abroad?
Canada came to the rescue of the Chinese communists, working hard to minimize the impact of Tiananmen. First up was Pierre Trudeau in 1990, retired but mightily active in federal politics, leading the charge against Meech Lake. He went to China, escorted at all times by agents of the communist regime, along with sons Justin and Sacha. The sign was clear. The G7’s longest-serving head of government was saying that Tiananmen should be put in the rearview mirror.
Sacha would later write of the trip, recalling the fond memories his father had of touring Maoist China decades previous. The Trudeau affection for Mao was long-standing.
Next up was Mulroney. One of his last acts before leaving office in June 1993 was to host a dinner at 24 Sussex Drive for Chinese Vice-premier Zhu Rongji, along with Paul and André Desmarais. Despite post-tiananmen sanctions, Canada was eager to get back to business as usual. A few months later, Mulroney himself was in China getting on with business.
The campaign reached its height when Chrétien — who was employed by the Desmarais family in the 1980s and whose daughter married André Desmarais — began his premiership with a mammoth Team Canada visit to Beijing. In due course, Chrétien would be succeeded by Paul Martin, who came into his own fortune courtesy of the Desmarais family.
Thus by 2018, Beijing had every reason to be confident that with another prime minister from Montreal installed in Ottawa, Canada would continue to be agreeable. Then China seized the Two Michaels. While they knew that Justin Trudeau would accept the kidnapping with equanimity, what if he lost power? The plight of the Michaels had made an impression on Canadians, personalizing the gangster state China had become. What if another party came into office?
For his part, Trudeau let Beijing know not to worry when, on the eve of the 2019 election, he appointed the Beijing-friendly Dominic Barton as ambassador. Barton wouldn’t make trouble, having spent his previous time at Mckinsey cozying up to the communist regime.
Was that the motivation for Beijing to do its best to keep Trudeau in power in 2019?
By 2020, the Two Michaels meant that the China consensus was breaking down. Mulroney distanced himself from seeing China policy through the lens of Power Corp.’s interests.
Hence it was all the more important to keep Trudeau in power. It was not a sure thing; Trudeau had lost the popular vote to Andrew Scheer in 2019. Hence the ramped up interference in the 2021 election.
The Chinese attempt to sway the election to the Liberals was so brazen in 2021 that it was openly complained about at the time. Trudeau ignored it then, confident that what he knew from our intelligence services would never be revealed.
The limited good news of the China scandal is that for nearly four decades, 1968-2006, Beijing counted on a sympathetic Canadian prime minister, no matter which party was in office. No need therefore for interference. Now that only the Liberals are reliably willing to do their bidding, Mao’s successors need to get into the game.
We’ve known for a long time that Trudeau admires China’s basic dictatorship, but now we also know how much China’s dictatorship admires Trudeau!
Over the last few weeks, there have been numerous leaks from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) documenting connections between the Chinese Communist Party and Trudeau and his Liberal Party.
In recent days we’ve learned that the Chinese Communist Party engaged in broad political interference in Canadian elections in the form of disinformation campaigns, undeclared cash donations and the use of Chinese students studying in Canada as campaign volunteers to support preferred candidates.
What has Trudeau’s response been to this damning news?
He’s criticized CSIS officials, demanding they weed out whoever is making these leaks, and dodged any questions about an independent inquiry.
Instead of holding China accountable for interfering in our politics, Trudeau is attacking our own intelligence services for working to protect us! It’s unbelievable!
And what does Pierre Poilievre have to say about this? He’s too scared of being labelled a racist to offer any real opposition.
In a statement issued earlier this week, Pierre referred to the Chinese government as the “Beijing Communist Party” rather than its true name, the Chinese Communist Party.
He’s scared Trudeau or the corporate media will call him racist if he uses the word “Chinese”!
Here is what needs to happen starting immediately:
We need an INDEPENDENT inquiry into all claims of election interference. The Commissioner of this inquiry can not be another hand-picked Liberal insider like we saw with the Freedom Convoy inquiry. It must be a non-partisan judge who will act in the interest of Canadians, not Justin Trudeau.
There must be an independent audit of the Trudeau Foundation. We know that the Chinese Communist Party donated $1 million to buy Trudeau’s favour. How many more bribes have been laundered through the Trudeau Foundation from foreign governments, pharmaceutical companies, or super rich elites?
Don Valley North MP, Han Dong, must resign immediately, as well as any other MP whose election or nomination contest was affected by foreign interference. There must be prompt, free, and fair by-elections held in all these ridings.
Finally, and most importantly, Trudeau must RESIGN as Prime Minister and MP for Papineau.
These CSIS leaks have made it clear to Canadians and the world that Trudeau does not have the credibility, moral authority, or integrity to continue governing Canada. Therefore, he must step down immediately to restore faith in our government and institutions.
