Is there a reason why media refuse to mention that contemporary white Canadians are not responsible for historical policies of prejudice against “racialized” communities?
“The Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo says its Equity Committee must be at least 50% non-male and 50% non-white in order to have gender and racial parity.” [While the general population is slightly more than 50% female, the non-White proportion of Canada’s population, at this point in our planned replacement is 22%, not 50%1}
In contemporary Canada, what goes around really does come around. Thinking back to civil rights leaders for the Advancement of Coloured People in the United States, we turn to a lady named Rosa Parks:
The United States Congress honoured her as “the first lady of civil rights” and “the mother of the freedom movement.”
“On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks rejected bus driver James F. Blake’s order to vacate a row of four seats in the ‘coloured’ section in favour of a white passenger.”
Parks went on to become an international icon of resistance to racial segregation.
Today, in PM Justin Trudeau’s “post-modern” society, racial segregation has returned. Only this time, the tables have been turned toward ostracization of White Canadiansbased on the colour of their skin.
“The faculty association also says it gives preferential treatment to Black and Indigenous peoples in the selection process whenever possible.”
Unabashed, egregious racism it is. None of it a problem for University of Waterloo’s woke crew of inverted bigots.
“In the late 1870s, Southern state legislatures passed laws requiring the separation of whites from ‘persons of colour’ in public transportation and schools.”
Several thoughts bubble to the surface. Firstly, an anachronistic move by Canadian academia to re-institute a reversal of civil rights that people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King worked for, and in the latter case, died for.
Secondly, the idea that as with all elements of DEI(Diversity, Equity & Inclusion), an unspoken goal of racial revenge lies at the core of the agenda. Indeed, University of Waterloo’s decree exists as a microcosm for the “social equity” movement in its entirety.
With woke political correctness as its support-system, an entire school-of-thought is cast aside. Mainstream media won’t breathe a word about it, even though at this stage of the game, 80-90% of leading journalists in Canada derive from an Anglophone or Francophone background.
Multiculturalism as conceived and institutionalized by ex-Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau contains no legal limit, or “ceiling” as to when social equity is achieved. No barometer of “success” exists to verify that its original purpose– racial equality within a pluralist society– has been accomplished.
The result? It can, and will, “go on forever.” Meaning that the steamrolling of Whites out of employment potential could transition from 50% to 100%, while no legal mechanism exists to prevent such a thing.
Paying for the sins of our forefathers? Upon which we turn to a critical, yet unspoken, observation. Government, media, academia– notice how none of them point to the fact that those who initiated “racist” policies in Canadian society are all dead?
CBC, Globe & Mail, CTV, Toronto Star— which one has ever referenced the fact that contemporary white Canadians are in no respect responsible for historical policies of prejudice against “racialized” communities.
In the case of racism perpetrated by University of Waterloo’sEquity Committee,this equates with the idea that these people are punishing the innocent. As in, an act of revenge. Bitter, angry woke warriors taking out their collective frustration on Canada’s Anglo-European communities.
In truth, that’s not the worst of it. The worst is that this travesty goes on without being challenged by any controlling institution in the country. PM Justin Trudeau is all for it, as is under-the-radar Anglophone-basher, New Democratic party leader Jagmeet Singh, who says:“The reality is, this is our Canada. We can’t deny it. We can’t reject that, because it does no one any help. The reality is: our Canada is a place of racism, of violence, of genocide. [Yet, no one calls this defamation of Whites for what it is — BULLSHIT! ‘Genocide’, Jagmeet? Are you and your turbanned confreres being genocided? No, you and they are thriving. Indeed, Sikhs, less than one per cent of Canada’s population, comprised 16% of Justin Trudeau’s first cabinet. The only people being genocided on the instalment plan are Canada’s European founding/settler people being replaced by immigration policy!]
Love you to, Jagmeet. Establishment media has not a problem with racism against White Canadians. Ditto for our Marxist-infused university system, which over the decades silently converted to bastions of anti-Canadian hatred.
An injection of irony springs forth as we reference a recent article published by True North News:
“Diversity, Equity And Inclusion Programmes Lead To More Bigotry, New Research Shows”
“Drawing from a wide array of research published in leading social scientific journals, including contributions from prestigious institutions like Harvard and Princeton, findings challenge the prevailing narrative that DEI instruction leads to lasting positive behavioural changes.”
Well, what do you know? It could well be that academic social equity programs are exacerbating the level of racism in society.
A couple thoughts here: for one thing, it will make not a shred of difference to Canada’s woke academic warriors. Secondly, the idea that, on a deeper level, forces exist in our society who want social chaos to ramp up ad infinitum.
As mentioned, Canada’s academic world contains an unspoken-of-foundation of Marxist-oriented political orientation.
“Marx wrote extensively on race and class in the American Civil War. These writings argue that capitalism was grounded in slavery and that racism attenuated class-consciousness among workers from dominant racial groups.”
“These Marxist writings, which have been discussed only sporadically over the past century, are especially timely today.”
You’re+ darn right they are, because academia is utilizing race to divide citizen from citizen, and community from community. In other words, beneath all the “equity” talk, exists a tacit form of socialist-oriented “revolution.”
We begin to see why the haters are the way they are. What is really in the works is a social inversion of profound proportions:
Whitey to the back of the bus, the “racialized” in the driver’s seat. Can this be the silent, overarching agenda as perpetrated by the Canadian government, media and academia?
The Horrendous War Crime at Dresden, February 13-14, 1945
To All Friends of Willis Carto February 12, 2024
Dresden
When WW1 broke out in 1914, the German Kaiser was having an outing on his yacht, cruising the Baltic. His defense minister at that time also was absent, taking the waters at Carlsbad, Bohemia. Germany was at peace, but England, France, and Russia were very much alert and busy preparing for war against Germany. By 1918 when the killing fields had been filled with the best of all the young men of all of Europe, the next war could be anticipated. Germany lost substantial territory; the Versailles Treaty divided eastern and western parts of Germany among the winners. Could no one visualize further upheavals to follow, and were their greed and their envy of Germany finally satisfied? At issue had been its strength in global markets, which the British especially resented. Substantial areas were given to France and Poland. The African colonies were devoured by the British during and before WW1. In South Africa, during the First Boer War (1899-1902), England unleashed against the Boer (Dutch) and installed the first concentration camps ever. 40,000 mostly women and children were the inmates of which 27,000 died of starvation and disease.
Looking further ahead to the 1930s and life in Germany which had recovered only slightly from WW1. When Hitler became chancellor, England very quickly thought of ways and means to finish off Germany for good. They were lagging behind in industrial output and had lost valuable land in Africa which they could not rustle back from the Boers. Germany suddenly again became an issue to be watched. The Versailles Treaty had given a large section of Upper Silesia in eastern Germany to Poland. For a number of years, Polish elements tried to terrorize the German population which was native to that part of Germany for generations. The situation turned worst with continuing assaults on the Germans by the Poles. Hitler warned them off numerous times but finally decided to move in some German troops to protect the German population.
If Germany had anticipated WW2, they would never have entered Poland. At that point, no war had broken out at all. However, the British had their offer to Poland couched in friendly terms, should outsiders, (Germans) try to move into the German section of Poland.
The following document makes clear that the British intention was war against Germany. No doubt, many people still believe today that Hitler was the warmonger in 1939, when in fact the opposite was true. He tried to keep the British out of it and in general, the German people agreed with Hitler that Upper Silesia was part of Germany and rightfully theirs.
The Text:
AGREEMENT between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Poland Government regarding Mutual Assistance (with protocol) London, August 25, 1939.
Presented by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Parliaments by Command of His Majesty.
Article 1
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
We all are only too familiar with the outcome of WW2. Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939, when war was declared. He became Prime Minister in May 1940. The minute he came into office, England lost its Empire it is said.
In l945, Poland, fighting Germany, was destroyed by Russia. It became in essence part of their communist empire for 50 years. The last Russian troops left the country in 1991. Between Churchill and Roosevelt, a large part of our civilizations ended up behind the Iron Curtain. Germany was divided between East and West. Half was given to Russian communists for over half a century until President Reagan and Gorbachev ended it.
Today’s upheavals are again caused by outside forces who would like nothing better than to put the United States, again, in the middle of it. The British don’t have much to offer, some troops perhaps. NATO is forced into positions where the 31 member countries don’t choose for themselves. The warmongers and Israel supporters in the U.S. are controlling NATO. Ukraine is highly unpopular and Israel is being condemned the world over for its gruesome behavior in Gaza. The 30 million Christian Zionists in our country are controlled by the Jewish media with their lackeys like Hannity. We do not need another war that is not in our interest and religion should have no part in it. Let Israel fight now and run later, they cannot survive in the Holy Land forever.
Quoting from Sir John Glubb, known as Glubb Pasha, who was the British expert on the Middle East. During his lifetime his work with the Palestinians and many other Arab states, especially with Jordan and the huge numbers that Israel forced out of their homes, he was very popular and truthful. Willis had invited him to address a meeting of conservative Americans in Los Angeles in 1968. He was much admired and The Spotlight sold his published work for many years. “The Middle East Crisis” (1967): “Peace can be made by dictation or negotiation.”
Dresden was destroyed on February 13-15, 1945. 240 British bombers attacked for two hours, killing old people, women, and children. Dresden has no military targets. The city had no defense. Again, Churchill was the warlord. The city was attacked for three days. He joyously watched the fires and explosions raining down and knew of the destruction his bombers were causing. There were no human feelings for the sacrificial lambs who died there. Glorification for monsters like “Bomber Harris” and Churchill, and yes, the Queen Mother, who it was said, had been cheering on the bombers toward Dresden, was soon to follow the haters. The number of burned and melted victims will never be totally known. Within days afterward, the number of deaths was made public by the local searchers. Rescuers were completely wiped out with the first assault.
The numbers –
35,000 fully identified, 50,000 not identified, but jewelry and wedding bands were found and recognized. 108,000 victims could not be identified, no body parts were left, and the fires had burned and melted them.
Today these numbers are still being debated. 20 million Germans were to be eliminated under the Morgenthau Plan before the war ended. Roosevelt was not opposed but he was stopped.
An important source is the memoirs of Vladimir Semjonows from 1945. He worked at the Russian foreign office; the Russians were only about 30 miles away from Dresden that day. He wrote of the terrible picture of Dresden, the heat and smells of a quarter of a million corpses buried underneath the rubble of the town, melted, a terrible stench for days after the “Anglo-American” bombing attacks.
Gaza, as of this date, has a death count of at least 25,000. Just as in Dresden, the number of children killed is very high. Mothers held on to them to get out of the burning streets and buildings; the asphalt was melting. Little children were unable to hang on but were ripped away from their parents and thrown with the flames into the air. Half the dead in Gaza are children; how can anyone not have sympathy with the mothers and children? The butcher Netanyahu promises, while killing the innocents, that he will empty Gaza.
The Creed is Christianity’s most important statement of faith. By contrast with Confessions like the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Reformed Belgic Confession, or our Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which are lengthy statements of how the Christian faith is understood and taught by particular communions or denominations within Christianity, the Creed is Catholic, which means that it is the statement of the basic faith of all Christians everywhere in all times. In the earliest centuries of Christianity multiple different versions of it could be found in different regions of the Church. In the fourth century an Eastern version of the Creed was modified in the First Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) into the Creed that remains the most truly ecumenical (belonging to the whole Church) to this day. What we call the Apostles’ Creed is a shorter and simpler version that also dates from the earliest centuries. The name Apostles’ Creed comes from the traditional account of its origin – that it was drawn up on the first Whitsunday, the Christian Pentecost the account of which is given in Acts 2, by the Apostles (including Matthias) themselves with each contributing one of the twelve articles. This account is ancient – St. Ambrose and Rufinus of Aquileia both made mention of it at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries. The Apostles’ Creed as we know it today is slightly modified from the version these men knew which is the Creed that was used in baptism by the Church in Rome at least as early as the second century in which it was quoted by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. The early attestation to the traditional account indicates that there is likely truth to it, although such truth as there is to it must apply either to the Roman Creed as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian knew it or perhaps more likely to an earlier version that became the template of both the Roman Creed and the Eastern version that was adapted into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Religious liberals in their efforts to purge Christianity of all that is essentially Christian have made much out of the fact that none of the articles in the Creed is an affirmation of the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible. It is true, of course, that nothing like “and I believe in one Holy Bible, verbally inspired by God, infallible and inerrant in every way” can be found in the Creed. It is also true, however, that it was never thought necessary to include such an article because it is assumed as underlying every single article that is confessed in the Creed. What liberals dismiss as the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible is more accurately described as the Catholic view of the Bible – that which has been held by Christians, throughout the whole Church, in all regions and ages, since the Apostles.
Some liberals disparage the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible as being too literalist. What is excessive literalism to a liberal is not necessarily excessive literalism to a normal, intelligent, Christian, however. When Psalm 91:4 says “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust” nobody takes this as proof of God literally having avian characteristics. If anybody were to interpret this verse that way this would be regarded as excessive literalism or hyper-literalism by every “fundamentalist”. When, however, the final chapters of each of the Gospels give an account of the tomb of Jesus being found empty on the Sunday after His Crucifixion and of His followers encountering Him in His restored-to-life body, liberals think it excessive literalism to understand these as historical accounts of Jesus having actually come back to life. To a liberal, any reading of these accounts as meaning anything more than that His disciples felt Him present with them after His Crucifixion is excessively literal. The reality, of course, is not that the “fundamentalist” interpretation is excessively literal but that the liberal interpretation is insufficiently literal. The Catholic view of Biblical truth is that it is more than literal, not that it is less than literal. In addition to the literal sense of the Bible, there is also the typological sense (for example, Moses led Israel up to the border of the Promised Land but could not lead them in, it was Joshua, who had the same name as our Lord and Saviour, who brought them into the Promised Land, illustrating that the Law cannot bring anyone to salvation, only the grace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that), the tropological sense (when a practical moral for everyday living is illustrated from the text), and the anagogical sense (in which truth about the eternal and the beyond is gleaned from texts that literally pertain to the temporal and to this world, somewhat the opposite of “immanentizing the eschaton”). In traditional hermeneutics and exegesis, however, each of these senses rests upon the foundation that is the literal sense. Get rid of the literal sense and each other sense collapses. Therefore, when you hear someone explain these other senses in such a way as to disparage the literal sense, you are not hearing the Catholic understanding of the Bible but rather liberalism trying to pass itself off as Catholicism.
Other liberals disparage the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible for its conviction that the Bible is inerrant. James Barr, for example, a Scottish liberal “Biblical scholar” who a few decades back wrote several anti-fundamentalist diatribes, maintained that the problem with “fundamentalism” was not its literalism but its commitment to inerrancy which led it to adopt interpretations that in his opinion were less literal than the text warranted. Biblical inerrancy, however, is not just a “fundamentalist” view but the Catholic view of Christianity. The Christian faith has always rested upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, i.e., the Old and New Testaments. The books of the New Testament have been regarded since the earliest days of the Church as belonging in the same category into which the Apostolic writers of the New Testament place the books of the Old Testament, books in which God is the Author speaking through the human writers. God does not make mistakes, the Bible as His written Word is infallible and therefore inerrant. Those who like Barr claim to find mistakes in the Bible can only do so by elevating some other source of information and making it out to be a more reliable source than the Bible by which the reliability of the Bible can be measured. They purport, by measuring the Bible against these other standards, to prove it to be less than infallible and therefore merely a collection of human writings. Their conclusion, however, is the necessary premise for measuring the Bible against some other standard to begin with. If the Bible is not merely a collection of human writings but what the Church has always maintained it to be, the written Word of God, there can be no more reliable standard against which to weigh it. Indeed, all other standards against which Modern critics of the Bible purport to measure the Bible, are of admitted human origin and fallibility. Modern man’s attempt to debunk the infallible truth of God’s Word is just one big ultimate example of the petitio principia fallacy.
The Catholic view of the Bible is that God spoke through the human writers of the Old and New Testaments in such a way that the Bible is one book with a single Author and that since that Author can make no mistakes His book is infallible and inerrant. This is what Jesus Christ Himself claimed for the Scriptures when He declared that “scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35) and that “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18), when He answered the devil’s temptations with “it is written”, and when He rebuked people like the Sadducees for their ignorance of the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29). This is what the Apostles claimed for the Scriptures, (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21) including their own writings (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13-15). This is what the Church Fathers claimed for the Scriptures beginning at the very beginning with Clement of Rome (1 Clement 45:2-3). While the Fathers’ belief in the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God is more often displayed in their usage of the Bible as the authority for proving doctrine than in discussion of it as a doctrine in its own right notable examples of explicit statement of this faith include St. Irenaeus’s affirmation of the inspiration and perfection of the Bible, (Against Heresies, 2.28:2), St. Justin Marty’s statement of his conviction that no Scripture contradicts another (Dialogue with Trypho, 65), Origen’s comparison of those who think there are such contradictions to those who cannot detect the harmony in music (Commentary on Matthew, 2), and St. Augustine’s running defense of the truth of the Scriptures in his letters to St. Jerome include the statement with regards to the canonical books of Scripture “Of these alone do I most firmly believe that their authors were completely free from error” (Letters, 82).
While the Catholic (or “fundamentalist”) view of the Bible is not explicitly affirmed as an article in the Creed this is because it is implicit in all of the articles, each of which affirms a basic truth of the faith that we know to be the faith the Apostles received from Christ because it is recorded as such in the Bible. It was not left without direct allusion in the ecumenical and conciliar version of the Creed which follows St. Paul’s declaration of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 in affirming of Christ’s resurrection that it was “according to the Scriptures” and which affirms of the Holy Ghost that He “spake by the prophets”. The verbal, plenary, inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the Bible as God’s written Word, therefore, is the unspoken, unwritten, article that is the very foundation of the Creed.
Earlier we discussed how some liberals use the accusation of excessive literalism in order to evade the truths of orthodox Christianity. Both excessive and insufficient literalism can lead to serious error or heresy, although in the case of liberalism its insufficient literalism is merely a mask to hide its essential nature which is rank infidelity or unbelief. The articles of the Creed are helpful in demonstrating the proper limits of literalism. Each of the articles is a literal truth the denial of the literal truth of which amounts to unbelief in the Christian faith. The passages which speak these truths are the clearest in the Scriptures. These are the passages to which the perspicuity of the Scriptures, that is to say their plain clarity so that laymen can understand them, so emphasized by the Reformers and ironically illustrated by the absence of words like perspicuity from the Bible, refer. Any attempt to use the allegorical, tropological or anagogical senses to explain away the literal meaning of the passages in which the truths of the articles of the Creed are found is a serious abuse of these hermeneutics for these truths are also the truths to which these other senses of Scripture generally point in passages that are less clear.
A primer for Democrats who are new to football and clueless about elections
Mr. Democrat, if I understand your situation correctly, you want to watch the upcoming Super Bowl game, but you are a novice to football. You want to understand the rules of the game before you sit down to watch it. Very well, let me spell it out to you in a nutshell. Let me explain the rules of football by comparing them to the rules of Presidential election contests. So put down your glass of wine, turn off NPR and listen up.
American football:
American football is a team game. One team competes with another team on a big field.
The objective of both teams is to win the game.
Which team wins the game?
The team with the most points on the board when the game ends.
If your team ends the game with fewer points than the opposing team, it has lost the game.
Get it?
It doesn’t matter that your team gained more net yards. Or that it possessed the ball for more minutes than the other team. Or that your quarterback completed a higher percentage of pass attempts than did the opposing quarterback. Or that he threw fewer interceptions. Or that he threw more touchdown passes than his counterpart. His team lost the game because it put up fewer points on the board than the opposing team. That’s it. Are we clear?
US Presidential elections:
Two or more candidates compete for office. Only one can win.
Which of the two or more candidates win the election?
The candidate who gets more electoral votes. Repeat: ELECTORAL VOTES
If the Democratic Party candidate gains fewer electoral votes than his or her opponent(s), the Democratic Party Presidential candidate loses the election.
Are you with me?
It doesn’t matter that your candidate achieved a higher popular vote. It is not about the popular vote. The popular vote is irrelevant. It is about electoral votes. Both parties know that from the outset. So leave your sour grapes in the fridge.
Now, you might think that these rules are unfair. You might think that total yards or total votes would be a more accurate and fair metric to determine winners or losers in football or Presidential elections . But if the objective of each team in a football game was to gain more net yards, the game would be played differently. Each team would employ a different strategy.
Under current rules, for example, If your team is ahead by 7 points with 5 minutes left on the clock, and the opposing team has a first down on its own 20 yard line, your team’s coach would provide more downfield coverage to ensure that the other team could not complete a long pass. He would be prepared to give up short yardage so as to “eat up the clock”. He doesn’t care that the opposing team might rack up more total yards in the process. He doesn’t care about those stats. The only stat he cares about are the stats on the scoreboard. Are we getting through to you now? Has that basic fact entered your brain yet?
It has? OK, good
By the same token, if there was no electoral college in American Presidential elections, Presidential candidates would campaign differently. They would focus their attention on states, counties and cities that are densely populated. They would bypass hinterland states with smaller populations. Those communities would be largely ignored. And so would their concerns.
If elections were decided by popular vote, there would be more regional alienation and calls for secession. The United States once went through a Civil War that resulted in the death of four percent of its population. Sensible Americans want to avoid that prospect at all costs. That is why there is a Senate where each state large or small in population or area gets two Senators. No more, no less. Notice that most European countries with a lower house elected by popular vote (aka “proportional representation”) also have an upper chamber that is elected in the same fashion as our American senators. They do this to thwart separatist sentiment.
Now we come to the point.
Democrats, HEAR THIS:
If ‘Dementia Joe’ wins the popular vote but Trump wins the election by picking up more electoral votes, QUIT WHINING. You knew going in that those were the rules of the game. Your candidate had the option of spending more time in less populated hinterland states, but he didn’t do that. Why?
Two possibilities.
He was stupid or
He, like most Democrats, have a contempt for rural folk, for ordinary, down to earth, blue collar people and farmers. They label them as a basket of deplorables. Ignorant bible clutching, gun toting Walmart shoppers who just love Country music. Oddly, these Democrats are the people who lecture us about racial stereotyping. But they have no problem stereotyping white working class Americans.
The most virulent disease in America is not racism, but classism.
As long as Democratic Party elite and their base carry that prejudice, more and more blue collar voters will switch to the Republican Party, as they have in droves.
How can these bigoted Democrats bring those voters back? It’s quite simple, really.
They can prioritize the welfare of AMERICAN citizens over the welfare of people who are not.
For starters, they can seal the borders and reduce the incoming flow of cheap labor which undercuts the wages and working conditions of American workers and destroys the social safety net upon which they depend. Take a look at Chicago and New York today and you’ll see what open borders does. That is what America will look like in the near future if the bigoted snobs and insane radicals in the Democratic Party remain in control. When Democratic Mayors of “sanctuary cities” ring the alarm bells, as they have been doing, it should be a wake up call for Democrat voters everywhere. Or one would hope.
Instead of throwing billions of dollars down a bottomless pit in Ukraine, they can spend that money on securing the border. They can avoid abandoning hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to the enemy. They can defund DEI and deploy the freed up money to the training of lower income people so that they can win jobs by MERIT……and so on.
Tim Murray February 3, 2024
PS I know that you are disappointed that I didn’t take the bait by claiming that Biden didn’t win the popular vote in 2020 because the election was rigged. You were ready to discredit me for repeating what you regard as an absurd accusation, which the courts have summarily rejected.
Well, let me tell you that I do believe that the election was rigged. But not for the reason you think I do. It was not about ballot box improprieties or voting machines. It was about censorship. About denying voters information which would surely have changed their votes. When Democrats in focus groups were exposed to the facts concerning Hunter Biden’s lap top, a decisive number of them indicated that had they know about those facts before voting day, they would have switched their votes to Trump. Trump would have won the election handedly.
The reality is that by controlling information governments, in collusion with Big Tech, are able to swing elections and influence the medical choices people make, as they did during the Covid period. If opposing sides of a medical issue, for example, are unable to debate on an even playing field, citizens cannot make informed decisions regarding insufficiently tested “vaccines”. Their compliance therefore cannot be regarded as voluntary, under the terms of the Nuremburg Code.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”― Pravin Lal
Another Knee in the Groin to Canada’s European Founding/Settler People
Blacks account for 4.3 per cent of Canada’s population of 40+-million. Yet, they’re given a whole month devoted to their history. No month is devoted to the history of Canada’s European founding/settler people.
Pearson International Airport in Toronto features this sign at the International Arrivals area of Terminal 3. No need to wonder if there’ll be some recognition of Canada’s still Majority European founding/settler people. The Woke-meisters at Pearson recently had a huge rainbow flag in the domestic terminal.
The wording of this ad is precious. While individual Blacks have made contributions, we’re a bit surprised the ad would hail “the great contributions of Black communities” like wildly disproportionate violent crime rate in Negro communities in Toronto and Montreal and the disproportionate number of Negro criminals in prison. And speaking of an “inclusive future”, was Canada’s dispossessed Majority ever asked whether they wanted to have their demographics changed? Were their views ever included?
Outrage as Massachusetts Dem’ governor closes cherished sports center in majority-black Boston suburb for FOUR MONTHS so it can be used to house migrants
Governor Maura Healey gave less than 48-hours notice that the popular Roxbury rec center would be turned over to 125 migrants families
‘I don’t know what we’re going to do for a couple, three months,’ she told them
But she was accused of treating the neighborhood ‘like garbage’ at an angry public meeting
A deprived Boston community has been left ‘on fire’ after the governor of Massachusetts requisitioned a vital rec center to house the surge of migrants arriving in the city.
Democrat Maura Healey was accused of treating the Roxbury neighborhood ‘like garbage’ after she locked residents out of the Melnea A. Cass Recreational Complex with less than 48 hours notice.
She insisted it was needed to house the new arrivals, dozens of whom have been sleeping rough in the city’s airport for months.
But residents in the majority-black neighborhood demanded she explain why their cherished facilities had been chosen to take the hit.
‘You’re really putting us in a bad, bad situation,’ resident Rodney Singleton told her at a public meeting, ‘and it’s not fair.’
The neglected facility will receive a makeover worth $500,000 to make it fit for the 125 families that are expected to move in State Senator Liz Miranda told the Boston Globe.
‘The outrage you’re seeing is valid. Roxbury has never gotten its fair share out of the city and the state,’ she added.
‘I’m hoping West Roxbury steps up, I’m hoping Wellesley steps up, other communities that have rich resources.’
Massachusetts’ shelters reached capacity in November, with 7,500 families in its system. Some are now being housed in hospital waiting rooms and church halls.
Migrants are expected to start moving in on Wednesday to the Roxbury site as it becomes the state’s fourth ‘safety-net site’ for those waiting for a place in Massachusetts’ emergency shelter system.
But it is also home to community sports groups providing a precious outlet for vulnerable youngsters.
‘It’s the long-term effect that we’re concerned about,’ said Domingos DaRosa of the Boston Bengals youth athletic organization.
‘Reengaging these kids might not be as easy as 1-2-3.’
Said Hassan Ahmed, of Boston United Track and Cross Country said the decision had left his program instantly ‘homeless‘.
The center in Roxbury is home to more than a dozen programs as well as community groups
‘We come in, and folks at the front desk were like, ‘Just to let you know, today’s your last day’, he said. ‘We were told that our permit was revoked and we were out.’
State officials have predicted the migrant crisis could cost Massachusetts $915 million this year and Healey has asked for an additional $250 million in Federal funds.
The state’s shelter system reached capacity in November as it fell victim to the flow of people at the southern border.
The scenes in Boston’s airport replicate those in Chicago‘s O’Hare where 216 migrants were sleeping at the start of January.
Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, has since 2022 been sending busloads of migrants from his state north, to make Democrat mayors and governors share his struggle – and to put pressure on Joe Biden.
‘We need DC to act. We need Congress to act,’ Healey said at a press conference last week.
‘The path is there in terms of what needs to be done to fix the border situation, to fix some of the asylum processes and to get much needed funding to some of the interior states who have had to shoulder the burden for a problem that is geopolitical and is not the state’s making.’
Dozens of migrants have been sleeping rough at the city’s Boston Logan Airport
Healey promised the rec center, which boasts a popular pool and a 24,000-square-foot indoor field house would reopen to the public by June.
‘The fact that they can’t tell us today that they have alternate sites for the programs they displaced is just despicable to me,’ said former state Senator Dianne Wilkerson said.
‘It’s inexplicable. It should not be acceptable on any level.’
‘I don’t know what we’re going to do for a couple, three months. I’ll call universities, I’ll call other places,’ Healey told residents at a community forum on Monday night.
‘Rich communities won’t get this,’ one resident told her, ‘It’s disrespectful.’
‘Roxbury is on fire! On fire! And this is a wake-up call,’ Derrick Evans, added.
‘So there’s no plan for the kids in Roxbury?’ another resident demanded.
‘The state is taking care of the migrants, so who’s taking care of the kids in Roxbury?
I am worried. Very worried. In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire Primary, and Biden’s ongoing failures, I now believe that Donald Trump is unstoppable. He will not only win the GOP nomination, but the White House.
While this is great news for the United States, it is very bad news for Canada, especially those pockets of Canada where progressive Americans of means seek refuge. I live in one of those pockets. Worse still, I live in a tourist destination well known to this demographic. I am in close proximity to three blue states in the Pacific Northwest.
I have seen this (horror) movie before.
When Trump won in 2016, my community was inundated with these accursed contemptibles. One could not safely walk one’s dog or stroll down an isle of the local supermarket or frequent an outdoor cafe without bumping into one of them. Beneath their superficial good cheer, there was a seething cauldron of rage looking for any opportunity to vent. On too many occasions I was the chosen sounding board. Lucky me. Apparently these woke head cases mistook me for a trained clinical psychologist. But I am simply not equipped to treat Americans with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
These encounters would follow a predictable pattern. After a brief exchange of banalities. the creative American liberal would find a way to insert a gratuitous anti-Trump remark entirely out of context. Much in the same way that virtue-signalling Covidian cultists felt obliged to inform you that they had just been vaccinated, as if it were a badge of honour rather than what it actually was. A badge of fear, wilful ignorance, indoctrination and groupthink.
Typically their tirade was launched from the presumption that Canadians know as little about American politics as Americans do about Canada’s. So they would proceed to school me. It was like having MSNBC played back to me. When we parted I felt so stuffed with lying bullshit that I had to resist the impulse to sprint to the nearest drugstore in search of a laxative. I am pretty resilient but there is only so much misinformation I can digest in one sitting. Frankly I have found these people insufferable, and have come to tremble when they approach each and every summer, when their numbers become overwhelming.
While one can theoretically endure their rantings by wearing earplugs or feigning deafness, localresidents have not been able to endure their devastating impact on real estate prices and rents. As Professor Alberto Saiz of the University of Pittsburgh concluded from his study of the negative impact of tourism on housing affordability, affluent tourists behave much as Julius Caesar did. Only instead of “He came, he saw, he conquered” it’s “They came, they saw and they bought”, real estate that is, epricing locals out of the housing market. The result is a community like mine. A madhouse for four warm months and a ghost town in the colder months. A place where forty percent of housing units belong to absentee owners and essential workers could n’t find shelter. That’s the xenophobic fact of the matter.
The spectre of a waves upon waves of mask-wearing morons pouring across the border to escape Trump shakes me to the core I can barely contend with the CBC parrots who make up two- thirds of permanent Canadian residents here, but when their idiocy is shored up by American blue state progressives, I will feel like Custer at Little Big Horn. How can I repel these zombies? I feel helpless. I know they’re coming but I can’t fight them off. At least the Texans at the Alamo had guns, but in Jacinda Trudeau’s Republic, Canadians may soon be forbidden to arm themselves with a pea shooter.
Canadians, that is, reality-based Canadians, desperately need protection from this woke horde. We can rid our country of Trudeau in the next election, assuming there is one, but how can we stop a tidal wave of blue county hordes in 2025?
Perhaps I should sell my house to one of them and use the proceeds to buy a house in Idaho or Montana. Or in one of the 11 counties in eastern Oregon who want to secede and cut themselves off from Leftwing lunacy. It would be a win-win. They can live out the rest of their life in California North and run it into the ground the same way they ran Seattle, Portland and San Francisco into the ground.. And I can spend the rest of my life hanging around people with a modicum of common sense. The culture shock might kill me. But I’d take the risk.
Imagine me living in a place where I was able to say what is on my mind without first looking over my shoulder. Imagine not being compelled to publicly say something I don’t believe to be true, like the contention that a man can have a baby or the US Mexico border is secure. Imagine not having to celebrate mental illness on “pride” days. Imagine living in a jurisdiction where parents could protect their kids from Drag Queens and groomers. Or living in a world where election results are not determined by the ability of governments and their Big Tech collaborators to deny access to crucial information? Or living in a state or province where citizens could make an informed decision about an inadequately tested gene therapeutic because skeptics could debate government appointed medical "experts" on an even playing field.
Well, I can dream, can’t I?
If I could cross the Iron Curtain and reach that Promised Land to the south, it would be Back to the Future. A return to the Canada I once knew. That was when Communism was a dirty word and people knew what a woman was. Tim Murphy
Editor’s Note: The following analysis of the wholly manufactured Texas border crisis, within the greater context of both Civil War 2.0 and the Second American Revolution, is a must read.
It ought to be clear by now to every Patriot that every event that contributes to the burgeoning chaos, confusion and conflict across the USA is being meticulously engineered. Just like the First American Revolution and Civil War were, the present existential crisis is being surreptitiously plotted by the New World Order globalist cabal. They want the United States of America completely disunited—FOREVER!
However, that does not mean the countless traitors to the Republic will prevail. Yes, they have greatly weakened the country but that weakness had to be exposed so that the multitude of co-conspirators could be revealed (they have been)… so they can be eliminated from their positions of power and influence nationwide.
Much of the American body politic is a LOT smarter and aware than most folks think. Even many on the Left understand that the communist-run Democrat Party must be shut down and permanently outlawed … just as many on the Right perceive the shocking preponderance of deceitful RINOs who must be banished from government.
As for the fastidiously choreographed showdown at the Texas border, it has to take place no matter what the cost or sacrifice. This extremely critical issue had to be forced out into the open as never before so that every US citizen becomes starkly aware of the non-stop illegal alien invasion facilitated by the Biden administration, Supreme Court, US Congress, among many of institutional collaborators. For example:
The bottom line here is that it’s really crucial that the Patriot Movement do everything within its power to both subvert and pre-empt the long-planned bolshevik revolution being slyly set up by the Uniparty, Deep State, US Intel Community, WEF, NWO Cabal, etc. The more these dastardly entities are meaningfully thwarted, the more Patriots in all 50 states can run with our own plan of saving the Republic.
State of the Nation January 31, 2024 Greg Abbott And The Invasion Of The Border Snatchers
by Donald Jeffries “I Protest”
We’ve come a long way from the Boston Tea Party. What would happen to “extremists” throwing tea into a harbor today? Independence Hall. Lexington and Concord. The Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry declaring, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my dying day your right to say it.”
The Founding Fathers (sorry, there were no Founding Mothers, and certainly no Founding Transgenders) would all be marginalized if they were living and breathing in the Orwellian mess that is America 2.0. They’d be relegated to writing on Substack. Maybe some of them would be subscribers of mine. No mainstream media outlet would give them even a momentary platform. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Keep your “insurrectionist” thoughts to yourself. That little line should be confined to Ben Franklin’s womanizing. Yes, Ben actually used “would you like to join me in the pursuit of happiness?” as an eighteenth century pickup line. When he wasn’t consorting with prostitutes dressed as nuns in his demonic Hellfire Club.
Aside from Franklin, and certainly the bankers’ stooge Alexander Hamilton, the Founders were a legendary lot. The “greatest generation” if such a thing ever existed. As recently as 1963, Thomas Jefferson was thought so highly of that President Kennedy would tell a state dinner comprised of some of the leading cultural figures of the time, “The is the greatest assemblage of talent ever gathered together in the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” That kind of comment would get any Democrat, and probably any American, “cancelled” today. Sally Hemings was the real talent behind Jefferson. She wrote the Declaration of Independence. Designed Monticello. Ask any court historian. He was a racist rapist.
One of the few responsibilities ceded to the central government under the Constitution is defending the border. Article 4, section 4, states clearly that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion…” Our southern border has been under an invasion of illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented migrants, whatever you want to call them, for over forty years now. More significantly, the federal government has gone beyond enabling this invasion. They have assisted it. Made it possible. Probably financed much of it.
Greg Abbott has been governor of Texas since 2015. He epitomizes the Stupid Party’s tradition of issuing lukewarm rhetoric about “border security,” but ultimately doing nothing to stop the invasion. For unclear reasons, he has now stepped up the rhetoric decisively. After the Supreme Court- Trump’s supposed court, with his lovely nominee Amy Coney Barrett voting with the Left as usual- made one of its trademark disastrous decisions, Abbott threw down the gauntlet. The Court ruled that Texas can not try to stop the Feds from cutting down the barbed wire fencing they’ve put up in places, in a laughable attempt to stop the flow of immigrants.
Think about that; the highest court in the land- the Supreme Court- has ruled that a state cannot defend its borders. True, the Feds are constitutionally delegated with that power, but they quite blatantly have neglected to do this for several decades now. Under the Biden administration, the numbers coming across the border with literally no resistance from U.S. authorities, have reached such a critical mass that it has finally caught the attention of even the sleeping Republicucks. When you have one of the three branches in government- the Executive- aiding and abetting a foreign invasion, another- the Legislative- encouraging it as well, and now the Judicial branch giving the invasion a legal imprimatur, then you understand the situation.
Abbott’s fiery statements brought to mind visions of Sons of Liberty dancing in our heads. He has sounded remarkably like the Confederates did back in 1860, when he charged that the federal government has broken their “compact” with the states. This was the central premise behind the decision of the southern states to secede. Our fast food culture insists it was all about slavery. The dastardly, tobacco spitting whiter than White secessionists wanted their slaves, and that was that. Abraham Lincoln, the secular saint of our crumbling civilization, responded by declaring, “The Union of these States is perpetual.” That contradicted, of course, the guiding principle of our War for Independence, which was that all people have a right to consent to those who govern them. In 1860, the Confederate states no longer consented.
What exactly does “consent” mean, anyhow? In America 2.0, it has come to be a carte blanche power given to women (well, when there were women- now all gender is fluid), over whether a sexual act can take place. This power has been extended to well beyond the act itself, so that women who have had time to reflect on a bad decision can claim they were “date raped,” or simply maintain that they had said “no,” but the hapless, mindless, horny male used force. If you think about it, Abraham Lincoln was a rapist. Or at least a date rapist. Those poor southern states clearly said “No!” But Honest Able pushed on relentlessly, resulting in nearly a million American deaths. He took their consent and shoved it in them with extreme unconstitutional force.
Now I don’t know that Joe Biden has Lincoln’s raping capabilities, but he is certainly a time-tested hair sniffer and all around creep. Not that he’d be making any decisions anyhow. He’s barely capable of eating his own ice cream cone at this point. If I understood it correctly, the deadline for his first ultimatum to Texas has already passed. Videos of Texans firing their guns have gone viral. There is supposed to be a huge trucker convoy going to the border, to stand with the brave Texans. And most shockingly, the governor of twenty five other states have signed on with their support. This includes the putrid RINO in Utah. This is extremely uncharacteristic behavior on the part of Republicans. The Washington Generals. The apology experts.
If history is an indicator, Abbott will return to form and back down. The other Republican governors will become Republicucks again. “State’s Rights” is an anachronistic term in America 2.0. It brings to mind images of Strom Thurmond, back before he married that pretty woman some forty years younger than him. Or George Wallace, trying to block Black students from entering the University of Alabama, and proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But in both those instances, the underlying motivation appears to have been race. Call it “White supremacy” if you must. You have to go back to 1860 to understand the real principles at stake. The Confederacy and Lincoln weren’t on the same page. Neither are the Biden administration and Texas.
I’ve written extensively about our immigration policy. Which has become a no enforcement policy. A policy of overt favoritism towards those entering this country illegally. Free healthcare. Free VISA cards. Free transportation to various spots across America, usually by a startling coincidence to Republican enclaves with lots of “White privilege.” Free housing and food in some very nice hotels. And now, the Biden administration is supposedly instructing banks not to turn down loans to illegals. I don’t know, maybe that’s all Republican propaganda. It certainly seems hard to comprehend. Especially given that so many American citizens are sleeping in tents on the street, and foraging in dumpsters for food.
I confess to feeling an illicit thrill over the prospect of Texas state authorities standing up to the biggest and most odious Goliath that ever existed. Maybe that’s how people felt nearly 190 years ago, when Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and a small band of other worthies steadfastly defended the Alamo against far superior forces. Remember the Barbed Wire! doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. To whatever degree our horrific leaders still care about public relations optics, it might give them pause before attempting to forcefully overpower Texas officials, and perhaps a lot of angry truckers. Maybe they’ll send a special Transgender SWAT team.
I don’t know how any American could possibly support the federal government sending agents to a sovereign state, to remove the only weak blockade put up to repel a nonstop foreign invasion. But I know millions do. The Supreme Court does. So does the state controlled mainstream media. So does the entire entertainment world. Why would any American citizen be in favor of flooding the job market, and our tenuous government safety net, with unimaginable numbers of the poorest people in the world? We have way too many poor people of our own, and have little desire to help them, so why such generosity for poor people from other countries?
Could this all turn into a Civil War II? Think of the ugly logistics involved. In my own family, outside of my wife and kids, I’m not sure any of my other large collection of relatives would be on my side in any such conflict. Not that I’d be taking up arms, mind you, but I’d have a logical rooting interest for those that are resisting tyranny. If brother fought brother in Lincoln’s war, think how many would be opposing each other in Civil War II. You would have father versus son, mother versus daughter, wife versus husband. As if American families weren’t already dysfunctional enough. I don’t think any of us would be literally fighting, with blue and red uniforms I guess, but the ideological battle would be brutal. And centered around Trumpenstein.
Trump has praised Governor Abbott for his resolve. Frankly, by merely putting up barbed wire, Abbott has done more than Trump did in four years. It’s not much, of course, but it beats tweeting out toothless threats to put troops on the border, end sanctuary cities, end birthright citizenship, deport millions, and the like. Trump couldn’t even end DACA, which Obama created with an executive order. It wasn’t legislation. But he’s preoccupied, what with being ordered to pay millions to an off-the-wall woman who can’t remember the year in which he raped her. The border may be the boiling point, but this conflict is centered around a corrupt and politicized “justice” system, taxation without representation, and a huge cultural divide.
I guess it’s fitting that illegal immigration should be the triggering mechanism for whatever battle that follows. It was Trump’s foundational issue in 2016, and what turned out to be his empty rhetoric on the subject precipitated an intense hatred towards him unlike that for any other public figure in our history. Ever since Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration “Reform” Act in 1986, this has been a bubble issue, waiting to explode like the “dream deferred” Langston Hughes wrote about. The Reagan Supreme Court, no friendlier to liberty than Trump’s Court, decreed that the children of illegals must be given a free public school education. And the 1965 “Reform” Act directed that almost all legal immigrants be nonwhite persons.
As a fiery young radical, I watched all those old timers, along with the yuppies and soccer moms, accept bilingual signs. Bilingual ballots. Shouldn’t you have to be able to read a ballot in the predominant language of the country you’re voting in? Can you imagine being able to vote in France, or Greece, without understanding either language? But no, it’s “Press 2 for Spanish.” Is cheap labor really worth all that? Worth rendering your citizenship status meaningless? After all, if you don’t have to be a citizen to vote, just what advantage is there to being a citizen? And every “Woke” person in America supports noncitizens being able to vote. They’re the ones who will be opposing us in any prospective Civil War.
I have said many times that America cannot continue in its present, balkanized state. I hate quoting the despot Lincoln, but a house divided against itself cannot stand. There is not a single foundational principle today which all Americans agree upon. God? Millions not only don’t believe in God, but mock and ridicule the concept. We don’t agree on when life begins. Probably at least 80 million Americans will never accept the transgender madness. Cancel us all you want, but you cannot make us believe that men can give birth. We will not accept the mutilation of little boys and little girls, sacrificed on the altar of identity politics.
More Whites are becoming fed up with the Great Replacement. And that lies at the heart of what’s happening at the border. Everyone coming across that border is nonwhite. Persons of color. We who oppose this are cast as colorless and privileged. As I’ve noted, this massive influx of nonwhite migrants is happening exclusively in Western nations. Majority White nations. At least for now. Where is the shrill “Woke” demands that China experience some of our “diversity?” Japan? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? India? This is a very simply equation; import nonwhites into White nations. Sure, it’s expensive, but obviously someone is paying for Haitians and Africans to travel great distances to “diversify” England, Canada, Australia, and the U.S.
Nothing reveals the deterioration of America like our immigration policies. That open southern border is the poster child for America 2.0. And that’s with political prisoners everywhere, and citizens fired for politically incorrect social media posts, made on their own personal time. Legal precedents are being set to sue Thought Criminals for speculating about national events, or “exaggerating” the extent of their wealth. Or for even suggesting electoral fraud. The Orwellian term “Hate Speech” is accepted by almost all. Free speech is more unpopular than ever, and not allowed as a defense in American courtrooms. And our infrastructure “rebuild” consists of renaming “racist” roads, not fixing pot holes. Click your heels and repeat “Build Back Better.” But it’s that open border that epitomizes everything. The Beatles of corruption.
If Greg Abbott and other Republicans surprise us all and stand strong, they will be thoroughly demonized. In a society run by the worst criminals in the world, dissent must be crushed. And so it has been. But it’s gone beyond that. The notion of dissent must be as demonized as any present-day dissenters. So the Founders become dead White male “racists,” memorable only as examples of “White Supremacy.” The stirring fight for liberty and independence becomes converted into endless lectures on how awful American slavery was, juxtaposed against the amazing accomplishments of Black Americans who were simultaneously prevented from accomplishing anything. The Civil War was about slavery. Period. Ask the great Nikki Haley. And World War II was a “good war.” It was about the Holocaust. Period. All enemies are “Nazis.”
If the crisis at the border turns out any other way than the Texas officials skulking back to their offices with their tails between their legs, I’ll be shocked. They aren’t going to let states secede. Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, demonstrated that to the tune of about 800,000 deaths. You aren’t leaving. Our government is like a cheating, abusive spouse, who won’t give us a divorce. The majority of brainwashed, unthinking Speeple have a special brand of Stockholm Syndrome. Let’s say the unthinkable happens, and the Texas guard and trucker convey defeats federal forces decisively. Would the state controlled media even report it? How would they spin even a federal victory? “U.S. Forces Prevent Texas From Defending its Border?”
One senses that we are in the final act of a play. America 2.0, staggering around the ring, primed to be counted out. Have Texans, at least, been pushed perhaps a bit too far? Despite decades of non-enforcement at the border, has the incredible increase in migrants finally got their attention? Are Texans, or any appreciable number of Americans, capable of saying enough is enough? Our ancestors sacrificed everything for the right of self-determination. I’ll be watching with keen interest, remembering Bull Run, and Valley Forge, and Yorktown, and whistling “Dixie.” Just don’t tell the authorities. I’m pretty sure that’s a Thought Crime at this point.
