“Refugees” in Germany still find European toilets a “mystery,” cannot use them despite being given pictogram instructions, are continuing to leave human excrement on bathroom floors and showers—and this is why Germany has to introduce a new “multicultural toilet.”
Although this might sound as if it is from some bizarre TV comedy sketch, it is not. Right now, German engineers are working on a “multicultural toilet” at the Global Fliegenschmidt toilet manufacturers in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, and news of their first design has appeared in the German media.
As reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), in an article titled “A Toilet that Everyone Can Use” (Ein Klo, das jeder benutzen kann), the new toilet has been necessitated by the fact that the 1.5 million nonwhite invaders just simply cannot learn how to use ordinary European toilets—and that, after many months of failure, they have given up trying to teach them how not to foul up a bathroom.
According to the remarkable FAZ article, “German toilets are a mystery to many refugees and this has already led to problems. A new mobile multicultural toilet should remedy this—and along the way teach something about the coexistence of cultures.”
It goes on to describe some of the many problems which German sanitary engineers have had to face after being overwhelmed with the nonwhite invasion: “Many of the refugees have no experience of such toilets in their culture.”
It says that all efforts to educate the nonwhites as to how a toilet works have failed, even though detailed instructions have been provided in pictogram and in Arabic script.
“Many refugees, especially those from poorer classes,” FAZ continues, “only know of the concept of latrines. The toilets have indeed been used as such, but certainly not the way they were originally intended. They have stood on the toilet bowl when they were supposed to have sat there, and more often than not, the bowl has broken.”
Or, the FAZ tastefully informs its readers, the invaders have “done their business anywhere in the house, except in the designated place.”
Furthermore, the newspaper continues, “showers have in this regard also been misunderstood”—in other words, used as toilets.
“Added to all of this, is that many of the Muslim refugees do not know what toilet paper is,” the article continued, adding that they “clean up with the left hand, the unclean hand.”
Largely because of these “problems,” as the FAZ politely calls them, these “cultural differences have been an unbearable addition to an already difficult situation” in the invader centers.
“Employees of mobile toilet rental companies have refused to work at the shelters anymore because they no longer want to clean the centers,” FAZ said.
“And because many of the refugees did not even know what to do with the toilets, they make their way straight into the bushes. And that is why the mayor of the municipality Hardheim im Odenwald, in his much-maligned guide for refugee etiquette, stated inter alia that ‘Our call of nature is done exclusively in toilets, not in gardens and parks, and not even in hedges and behind bushes.’”
Other challenges being faced by the German sanitary engineers include “different latrines for different cultures,” the fact-filled article goes on to tell its readers.
“For Muslims, it is important that when using a toilet, one’s back does not face Mecca. In addition, latrines for men and women have to separate from each other, and the floor cannot be green in color, because that is the color of Islam.”
Therefore, FAZ says, the new “German toilet manufacturers are working to arrive at a solution to this problem. Thus, at the mobile toilet manufacturer Global Fliegenschmidt in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, they had been working on a so-called oriental toilet, consisting of a hole with two foot stands on either side of it.
“But even that did not work, because there are enough refugees who still use it differently,” the article continued, necessitating the development of “multicultural toileting.”
This new “multicultural toilet” allows for both sitting and squatting, the FAZ proudly informs its readers.
It is not yet known when the new toilets will be deployed, but, going by the problems being faced in the invader centers, the Germans had better hope that it is relatively soon.
Yu has racked up over 2 million in grants calling Canadians “white supremacists”
Henry Yu, professor of history at University of British Columbia, believes that “Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are settler colonies that were built around white supremacy.” He asserted this in a recent article, White Supremacy and the Foreign Investment Debate. White supremacy is “an overt structuring of society that gives privileged access to resources to those who could be considered white.”
He believes the recent debate over Chinese investment in real estate in Vancouver is yet another example of the prevalence of White supremacism in Canada. Objecting to wealthy investors from mainland China is nothing less than “racial scapegoating”. What about the affordability crisis brought on by Chinese buyouts of Vancouver homes? The Canadian government should simply provide more public housing for Canadians who can’t compete with entrepreneurial Chinese foreigners. They should just learn to build public housing as in Hong Kong.
Inferiority Complex?
Now, why would someone seriously believe that Canada is ruled by White supremacists considering there is:
a massive bureaucratic apparatus pushing multiculturalism and special group rights for immigrants across Canada,
Chinese have already been paid reparations for the head tax at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and
non-Whites or “visible minorities” already constitute the majority in Vancouver, 51.8 percent, as of 2011, whereas Eurocanadians have been drastically reduced to 46.2 percent of the population, with projections showing that they will constitute “only two out of five residents by the year 2031”?
It is not as if Henry has not been extremely successful at the Anglo-created University of British Columbia, collecting over two million dollars in two recent grants: a $1.17 million project entitled “Chinese Canadian Stories”, and $950,000 from the Federal government to show that the Chinese were one of the founding peoples’ of Canada.
Why does he keep arguing, to this day, in every paper and every conference he goes, that Canada is a White supremacist nation and that Chinese millionaires should be allowed to buy out Eurocanadian natives out of their own cities?
I detect in him a psychological trait I have noticed among some professional non-Europeans inhabiting European-created lands. Henry is an ethno-nationalist, attached to his heritage and his race; and yet he feels uneasy in this ground, unsure about it, because deep down he knows he is inhabiting a European-created country, a land he craves to claim as his own. He can’t suppress the reality that Europeans were the actual creators of it, but as a Chinese ethno-nationalist he can’t accept this reality, so he needs to be constantly harping against White supremacy as a way of fighting this disconcerting reality.
With these resentful feelings, and determined to advance the ethnic interests of the Chinese race, he has decided to make the most of White ethnomasochistic tendencies, falsifying the history of Whites, enhancing the role of the Chinese, and thus reclaiming for his people the Canada he wishes had been created by Asians.
“Pacific Canada”?
In an Op Ed piece in The Vancouver Sun (February 1, 2010), Vancouver’s Own Not-So Quiet Revolution, Yu claimed that the English language “stunts diversity”. Calling it a “colonial” language, he demanded that Asian languages, long “silenced” by “white supremacists”, be given the same official status. He then equated the presence of a high number of Whites in leadership positions in Vancouver with “the legacy of a long history of apartheid and white supremacy”.
Only our multicultural self-flagellation has given Henry the nerve to talk about Eurocanadian “apartheid” today, even though Chinese immigrants come from a country that officially engages in eugenics research, the Han majority in China, 92 percent of the population, has a monopoly control over all the institutions, prohibits immigration, and disallows any foreign purchases of real estate in their country. There are no minority rights in China; Mongols, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, and Uighurs are routinely described as superstitious, lazy, ignorant, and dirty.
Look at this video of an orphaned Uyghur kid beaten in China:
Yu enjoys taunting White Canadians that they are soon to become a minority in Canada, writing a few years ago:
Our city [Vancouver] will soon be over 50 percent visible majority, with the vast majority of these non-whites of Asian heritage. Who is the minority in a city that has such strong historical and demographic connections to the Pacific?
He claims to be a historian who has proven that this “new Pacific Canada” marks a return to a Canada that was originally Pacific, that it was only the “dominance of white supremacy in immigration policy” between the 1920s and 1960s that disrupted this original Pacific/Chinese orientation. The history of Vancouver, British Columbia, and Canada between the 1920s and 1960s should be seen “as an aberration” to the original, and future, Pacific Canada.
“I’m a historian, and what I’ve said builds on the past”, Yu brags. Yet he relies on two measly facts to support this outlandish claim that Canada was originally a Pacific nation; namely, that Chinese coolies built portions of the transcontinental railroad in the late 19th century, and that the proportion of the population in British Columbia that was Chinese in 1901 was 10 percent. That’s it.
Canada and Vancouver Totally Created by Eurocanadians
In 1901, 96 percent of the Canadian population was European in origin, and it remained 96 percent European as late as 1971, when all the institutions and modern infrastructure had been created from the ground up. In 1901, when the Chinese population was supposedly building everything across Canada, and Canada was supposedly “Pacific”, there were only 17,043 Chinese immigrants (born outside Canada) relative to a population of 5.3 million.
The city of Vancouver alone, which had the highest Chinese proportion throughout Canada’s history, was virtually a White European city from its beginnings in the 1870s to the 1980s. In the 1950s, when the city had been fully developed into a metropolis, the British accounted for about 75 percent of the population, and other Europeans accounted for about 18 percent, whereas the Asian proportion (Chinese and Japanese) accounted for only 3 percent.
Patricia Roy’s Vancouver, An Illustrated History (1980), exhibits a city that was overwhelmingly British in its architectural landscape, notwithstanding its Chinatown and Little Tokyo. All the major landmarks were British: the Post Office, built 1905-1910; Dominion Trust, the Canadian Pacific Railway station; Canadian Bank of Commerce; the Strand Theater and Birks Building, with their sidewalk canopies in 1933; the Tudor revival style homes in Shaughnessy Heights in the 1920s. The sports, the education, the legal system — every institution was British. The Founding Fathers of Vancouver, the Mayors, the magistrates, the school trustees, the chief constables, the physicians, the presidents of the Board of Trade were all British descendants.
Abiding by the historical record does not make one a supremacist.
Opportunism and Cheating
Yu is cited (in 2007) saying, with obvious pride, that Vancouver is
now the most integrated Asian city in North America…in Vancouver, you can’t go to a neighbourhood now where Chinese aren’t living in significant numbers. It’s incredible.
Notice how confidently he calls it an “Asian city” while classifying anyone who calls the city European a “white supremacist” even though the city was overwhelmingly European for most of its history.
Yu views Canada’s past strictly from the perspective of Chinese interests. He even says that the Hong Kong Chinese are a “new kind of immigrant” superior in education, in wealth and in expectations; they not only deserve the best neighbourhoods created by Whites, but they are too globally minded to be constrained to Vancouver only, but instead view this city as:
a global city that is one stop within the Pacific world, with two-thirds of male Canadians of Hong Kong origin between the ages of 25 and 40 living and working outside Canada.
These males “know that a key to making money is not to view the place you make money as necessarily the same place you live.” They are:
residents with multiple homes throughout the world, creating great demand for real estate in Vancouver, but also leaving many condominiums unused for portions of the year.
This is why Yu prefers the term “migrant” over immigrant — it captures this new type of opportunistic immigrant that corporations prefer, a global economic consumer who can move in and out of cities, find ways not to pay taxes, while showing no loyalty to the European-created cities they acquired citizenship from. They look upon Vancouver not as a city to which they are rooted, with memories of its landscape, its beautiful old British homes, but as a place to be bulldozed to make way for generic houses. This Facebook page documents in photographs how Vancouver has been vanishing right before our eyes.
We at the CEC object to the use of the term “White supremacist” against the working classes, including Aboriginals, who worked so hard to create Canada. Multiculturalism in Canada grants all ethnic groups the right to affirm their culture. Yu is an ardent promoter of Chinese ethnic interests in Canada, which is understandable. But he is inconsistent in the way he opportunistically borrows Marxist ideas to curtail Eurocanadians from pursuing their own ethnic interests. We object to this double standard. We believe in historical veracity, in the Western principle of individual rights; we oppose dog-eating, and child slave labour. We are for a clean environment and object to the “horrific practice of eating aborted fetuses” (see images here) as a business for medical companies.
When any nation that is not part of ‘The Neo Con Empire’, for example China, silences the opposition to its governing regime by accusing its critics of ‘Hate’ and locking them away under ‘Hate Laws’ , the Western liberal media goes bezerk and fires off a volley of denunciations. However, the same media is hypocritically either strangely silent, or full of applause when its own liberal Western ruling regimes use the same methods and laws to imprison and silence their own dissidents. To be a dissident in the West these days is to be a defender of the true Western values and to be against the extermination of things we used to take for granted, such as: family; community; culture; nation, race and indeed the West itself. People of European origin in North America, as elsewhere in the world, are the victims of a cultural Marxist political and media elite dedicated to their replacement by massive Third World immigration. Simultaneously, there are strenuous efforts by the same elite to suppress criticism of this policy of dispossession by a variety of legal measures, (hate laws, etc.), media boycott and social sanctions for dissenters. Paul Fromm speaks extensively on immigration and free speech issues worldwide. He heads the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and The Canadian Association for Free Expression. He has battled Canada’s oppressive internet censors and supported Ernst Zundel and David Irving. For the past four years, he has been media spokesman for the European American Heritage Festival, held annually in late October in Pulaski, Tennessee. He has a daily one hour commentary show on WhiteResistanceRadio.com. This autumn he covered the 12-day trial of Arthur Topham, (Radicalpress.com), who was charged with promoting “hate” under Canada’s notorious “hate law”.– Jez Turner, London Forum.
Tell Canada’s politicians to cut our immigration intake.
In case you are not aware, Immigration Watch Canada has launched an online petition entitled: “TELL CANADA’S POLITICIANS TO CUT OUR IMMIGRATION INTAKE.”
If you believe that Canada admits too many immigrants, you’re not alone. Polls show that about half of your fellow citizens, including immigrants, feel that Canada admits too many immigrants.
Since 1991 Canada has admitted about 250,000 newcomers to the country each year, and some want to increase that level to 500,000! Yet no regard is given to the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts that current immigration levels are having on Canada.
TARGET: J. Trudeau, T. Mulcair, S. Harper, E. May, G. Duceppe
If you believe that Canada admits too many immigrants, you’re not alone. Polls show thatabout half of your fellow citizens, including immigrants, feel that Canada admits too many immigrants.
Since 1991 Canada has admitted about 250,000 newcomers to the country each year, and some want to increase that level to 500,000! Yet no regard is given to the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts that current immigration levels are having on Canada.
According to 2006 Statistics Canada census data, the median real earnings of Canadians did not change between 1980 and 2005, while those of the top 20% increased by 20.6% and those of the bottom 20% fell by 16.4%. With a current unemployment rate of nearly 7%, there is no need for a mass intake of newcomers.
Canada has lost 3.9 million hectares of prime farmland, about the size of Vancouver Island, since 1971, and the increase in Canada’s population by close to 7 million people has put enormous strain on the roads and other infrastructure of our cities. The additional people have created congestion and loss of greenspace. The number of ethnic enclaves in Canada has mushroomed from 6 to 260 between 1981 and 2012. This has led to the loss of some of our best agricultural land, and put severe pressure on the environment.
Furthermore, Canadian citizens have never been consulted on the immigration policy that is changing their country’s culture and society, testing the limits of the country’s economic, social, and cultural capacity to absorb so many people, and placing a severe strain on its environment and biodiversity.
Therefore, we call upon our government to greatly reduce immigration intake to levels that benefit all Canadians and to develop an immigration policy that takes into account the impact of immigration on the economy, the environment, and the limited capacity of Canadian society to integrate people from many different cultural backgrounds.
Afew days ago the Canadian Race Relations Foundation sent an invitation to Kerry Starchuk to “two very important events” being hosted by this organization in the Greater Vancouver Area. The first event, “The Urban Agenda Vancouver. Creating a Great City of Communities”, is taking place at UBC Robson Square on January 19, 2016. The second one, “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, is taking place in Richmond, on January 21.
These two events, and other similar ones, have been occasioned by a need to reinforce among Vancouver residents the blessings of diversity in response to the dissenting actions of Kerry Starchuk, a fourth-generation resident of Richmond, which is sometimes identified as a city itself, or as part of “greater” Vancouver, against the usage of Chinese-only signs in businesses.
Starchuk has drawn local, national, and even international media attention. She is not a designated speaker at any of these events, but is expected to sit and listen to officially approved diversity ideologues. I will be writing about these two “very important events” in Part II.
I have spoken to Kerry a few times, and she is extremely upset and psychologically depressed about the way Asian immigration has ransacked the Anglo identity of Richmond. Her questioning of Chinese-only business signs poses no threat, and yet it has frightened the establishment for fear that her objections may open the door to a groundswell of discontent against the impending marginalization of Anglo-Europeans in Vancouver.
She has been an keen eye witness to an extreme demographic shift in Richmond, from a congenial and harmonious British city to a crass immigrant land-lot plastered with ugly Chinese commercial signs in just a matter of three decades. The Chinese proportion of the population has grown from 34% in 1996, 40% in 2001 and 45% in 2006, to 47% in 2011, and still rising. Overall, more than 70 per cent of Richmond’s population is currently categorized as a “visible minority”. The 30 percent White residents are still categorized as the “majority” and in need of learning to cope with diversity.
Journalists have flown in from places such as South Korea, Germany and Japan to spend days with Kerry Starchuk, to talk about the dramatic demographic changes occurring in Richmond, B.C.
Community Engagement: Language on Commercial Signs
What she, along with other and Richmond residents, has been pursuing in the last few years is a simple bylaw requiring English-only signage. But a few months ago, May 2015, Richmond Mayor Malcolm said there would be no language by-law. Instead there would be “education programs” “to facilitate community harmony”. The “two very important events” are a continuation of this effort. A preceding first effort, “Community Engagement: Language on Signage”, took place on March 2015, organized directly by the City of Richmond, described in the official website as “a multi-pronged outreach and education campaign to explore the issue of language on signs in the context of community harmony”.
This workshop is worth examining in some detail. Innocuous a gathering as it may appear, a mere local affair, it is actually a salient embodiment of the ruling ideology of our times across the West.
The workshop “presentation” is totally committed to further diversification, with the signage issue turned into an opportunity to “enhance intercultural harmony and co-operation in Richmond”. In order to make Richmond “the most appealing, liveable and well-managed community in Canada”, the presentation states that Richmond citizens need “to better incorporate a value for and understanding of diversity into all its planning and services.” Never mind that every other town and city in Canada has exactly the same mandate, celebrating each city as “unique in its diversity,” while making everyone feel that this is what all Canadians are doing, what is normal everywhere else. Every inhabitant ofevery city in Canada is being told that diversification is a unique component of their city’s vitality; making it the “most appealing and liveable” city. Not just in Canada, but in every country in the Western world.
Richmond residents will be educated to have “pride in and respect for diverse heritages and traditions”. Be assured that this is primarily directed at White residents; the whole workshop, after all, was occasioned by the Anglo residents in Richmond who objected to Chinese-only signs. Richmond is already 50 percent homogeneously Chinese, and over 70 percent Asian, and the objective is to encourage the remaining White minority to accept the further expansion of Asian residents in Richmond. This is why the mandate looks to the future and speaks in terms of making Richmond “the most welcoming, inclusive and harmonious community in Canada”.
There is stuff about “inter-faith dialogue” and, of course, about natives, with a brilliant new idea to hold “the first National Aboriginal Day Celebration at City Hall”. Natives are now regularly exploited as mascots by diversity promoters.
There are two videos; in the first one we see the participants, mostly Whites and Chinese, with a few other Asians. They are all adults. Everyone gives pre-packaged answers, everyone is an agreeable participant in the diversity project; they are all “accepting” people; it is all about making diversity “work.” No one in the audience actually debates the merits of immigration or diversity itself. Whites are expected to be “accepting” about this “intercultural” state of affairs. This is why the new lingo of these promoters is “dialogue”, not “debate”, as we will see in more detail in Part II.
Debating, a singularly Western trait, the spirit of inquiry, questioning, not accepting the claims of powerful elites, is now deemed by academics and leftist bureaucrats as too disruptive and not conducive to “community harmony”. These are the same arguments elites made in Communist and Nazi controlled societies.
The second video consists of pro-diversity answers about Richmond and the signage issue. Most of the respondents are non-White, and they all love diversity; some say it might be a good idea to add English in the Chinese-only signs, but the fact that Richmond originally an Anglo community and is undergoing a radical demographic transformation with no end in sight, is not even an issue. Everyone interviewed was a conformist or a minority enjoying multicultural welfare. Diversity is great, and it does not matter if it means less Whites, that is the objective. One Asian in the video is sympathetic to the presence of Chinese-only signs, for, after all, she noticed that this “community” is mostly Chinese; so why should non-Chinese immigrants expects the Chinese majority not to use only their language?
This is the “ideas board”:
This is what politics among adults in Canada has been reduced to; child like images and child like slogans interpreted as “ideas” — all amounting to the acceptance of mass immigration and the displacement of Whites from their homelands.
Artistic Rendition of Canadian/Western Values
There is an “artistic rendition of workshop discussion,” which is even more revealing in capturing all the central tenets, feelings, and cliches of the diversity regimen. This work of “art” is the front image for this article, which can be foundhere. According to this artist, “community harmony” was agreed upon by the participants, and by this they meant “multiple sounds”, “empathy”, “inclusive”, “capacity for difference”, “understanding before judgment”, “addressing racism”, “multiculturalism”. These values are inherently inclusive and everyone agrees that they are good; capacity for difference does mean a capacity to think whether diversity may be entailing the radical dissolution of Eurocanadian communities, whether Richmond was already harmonious and democratic before the Asian invasion.
No, it means a capacity to accept the dissolution of Canadian communities, to accept on your knees millions of immigrants, their different customs, languages, even if this brings an Asian ethnic majority in many cities in Canada. One of the values stressed in this workshop is “good conversation” and “shared vision”; sharing, that is, the diversity vision, and talking about issues in a way that is not disruptive, through amicable dialogue, amicable acceptance of the goals.
There is “rendition” of questions about assimilation: should new immigrants assimilate the same way Eurocanadians did, learning the English language? I am sure there were participants in this harmonious workshop with queries, comments about what exactly multiculturalism entails; does it mean retaining one’s culture, or do new immigrants assimilate to “Canadian values”? But in reality this question is deservedly on the margins of the artistic rendition, since “Canadians values” have already been predefined by the harmonizers as “multiculturalism”, “respect” for “difference”, for the Chinese language.
“How do we learn from other ethnic leaders?” It is a done deal: Diversity = Canada, and it means accepting it, and those who want to debate the principles will not be tolerated, accepted, included in the workshop, but instead will be labelled as beyond the pale of acceptable dialogue, ostracized in the most damaging ways, with labels intended to avoid any discussion with them.
This artistic rendition sums up the entire philosophical outlook dominating the West today. It is the same view Justin Trudeau continually voices when he says that Canada is not really a nation but a place in which humans from multiple cultures around the world hold the same common values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness. It is the view every leader of the West, be they socialist, liberal, or conservative, expresses whenever they make a general statement about their most deeply held beliefs as leaders of their countries.
Shortly on the heels of news that a petition was circulating calling for the replacement of the name of coastal B.C.’s highest peak, Mt. Waddington, with the name of a former Chief of the Chilcotin band, the B.C. Ferry Corporation announced in July 2015 that three new vessels were going to benamed in honour of Coast Salish history. They were “Salish Orca”, “Salish Raven” and “Salish Eagle”.
The announcement came after the Corporation received 7,000 suggestions from citizens who were asked to participate. Of course, the Corporation was careful to emphasize that the selection was made in consultation with native representatives.
Earlier, the Victoria Times Colonist ran its own contest, in this case receiving 550 suggestions. As two of their journalists reported, “Aboriginal names were prominent…and the word ‘Salish’ appeared 72 times…The winner of our contest was based on the popularity of names and themes submitted by readers. Queen of the Salish Sea, as suggested by Victoria’s Laura Weston, combined the desire of entrants to retain the old class names with a swell of support for all things Salish.”
Of course, one Indian, that is, “Indo-Canadian”, Suki Grewa, wanted to get in on the action too. His suggestion? “Spirit of Multiculturalism”. I have a more apt name. “Spirit of Eurocanadian Displacement”. A submission by one Sharon Sinclair captured the spirit of Cultural Marxist collaboration, enablement and white self-abnegation with her suggestion of “Shores of Diversity.” How about “Shores of Ethnic Quislings”?
They were several suggestions that the ships be named after people like Rick Hansen, Terry Fox, Hanna Day and newborn Princess Charlotte, but apparently they lacked the ethnic credentials to be considered serious candidates in this year of Truth and Reconciliation. One man even suggested that the three vessels be named after pivotal battles like Vimy Ridge, Dieppe and Normandy. But it turns out these trivial events did little to shape Canadian identity and history in comparison to the contributions of hunter-gatherers.
I think it is only appropriate that “First Nations” nomenclature should be substituted for any locality, vessel or institution named after a wicked White ‘settler’, even if he happened to have been born in Canada. After all, what did Canadians of European origin ever do for this country, except build it?
Yes indeed, the name changers are on a roll.
They took down South Carolina’s Confederate battle flag, they’re intent on taking down Mr. Waddington’s reputation and they have a whole host of statues to take down too. There’s been talk that even Thomas Jefferson isn’t safe anymore, and in Canada, I hear that Wilfred Laurier is on the hit list now. Round and round she goes, where she’ll stop, nobody knows. No doubt if the Statute of Limitations was the “Statue” of Limitations, it would topple too, because the Grievance Lobby wants to keep going further and further into the past so it can “out” more and more Dead White Racists. Perhaps a merger is in the offing. “Racists Getting Fired” will become “White Racists Getting Fired or Retroactively Discredited Dead or Alive.”
Who knows, maybe centuries hence, when there is not even a trace of European-Canada to be found, paleontologists will posit the existence of a “missing link” between the pre-Columbian peoples and conquering Asian supermen. Dubbed “Homo Eurocanadas”, it will be widely thought of as a figment of the imagination of Crypto-zoologists who insist that a few remnants of this species are hiding in the wilderness. All they have as evidence, skeptics will claim, is the skeletal remains of a hominid without a backbone.
