The Endgame – Full White Genocide —
Want to read more about White Genocide?http://
Time to Repeal the Multiculturalism Act
Meet Alice Wong, Canadian citizen, MP for Richmond B.C., as a Conservative, believe it or not.
Judging by her political work, one would think she was working for the nation of China, not Canada.
Chinese Head Tax Redress? Alice is there promoting it.
Lavish Chinese New Year celebrations? Wong is there.
Meeting in Beijing with Communist Chinese Government? Wong is positively gushing. Celebration of 65th anniversary of the communist Peoples Republic of China? Alice is in the house.
Controversial Shark’s Fin Soup issue? Alice is slurping the delicacy at a Richmond restaurant.
EXACTLY WHO IS ALICE WONG WORKING FOR? HER CONSTITUENTS? HER PROVINCE? HER COUNTRY?
Pray tell, who pays for this?
Alice Wong with Dr. Henry S. Yu: Attempting to extract millions from present day taxpayers, innocent of all historical injustices:
Henry Yu, Professor of History at UBC teaches that:
“Until recently in its history, Canada had a history of white supremacy similar to South Africa… building its immigration policy around the racial category of “white Canada”
The time has come for Canadians to get wise to what is occuring in the name of Official Multicultural Policy:
Repeal the Multicultural Act of Canada. This legislated statute, which began as a relatively benign force in Canadian society, has been HI-JACKED by special interest groups, multicult organizations and ethnic political leaders. Not to mention our vote-grabbing B.C. government and Vancouver’s municipal council, both of whom appear to be more than willing to assist with the destruction of traditional Canadian culture.
Percentage of the world’s nations with multiculturalism entrenched in their constitution: 1%
Official Multicultural Policy: Legislated cultural suicide, brought to you by the Government of Canada.
If Immigrants Were Screened More Carefully, We Wouldn’t Blow $1-billion Per Year on “Immigrant Settlement” Programmes
A note which appears to have been prepared for Costas Menegakis, the parliamentary secretary for immigration, says the party’s base will learn as a result that the government spends close to $1-billion a year on those efforts.”
$1 billion dollars spent on the needs of Canadian citizens would surely eliminate poverty in Canada for those born and raised in our country.
Unfortunately, our government would rather spend money on new arrivals, refugees, those who cannot speak one of our official languages and those who have never paid a dime of tax money to our government:
Brad Saltzberg
Tories worried about base finding out how much they spend helping immigrants
STEPHANIE LEVITZ
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, Mar. 10 2015, 5:23 AM EDT
A note which appears to have been prepared for Costas Menegakis, the parliamentary secretary for immigration, says the party’s base will learn as a result that the government spends close to $1-billion a year on those efforts.
The note says the other risk of undertaking such a study is that the government’s relationship with Quebec may surface as an issue.
And while the study only began last month and the committee has only just started hearing from witnesses, the briefing note also lays out five recommendations for the eventual report.
A copy of the note was obtained by The Canadian Press.
Menegakis’ office declined to comment specifically on the note’s contents.
“Committee members are masters of their own proceedings,” said an e-mailed statement. “As always, we look forward to hearing testimony from all witnesses.”
Liberal MP John McCallum, who sits on the committee, called it “chilling” to see the reference to the party’s base in the document.
“It’s as if they are concerned their own supporters would be aghast at the idea of spending money to help settle immigrants,” McCallum said in an interview.
“It’s good not only for the immigrants, it’s good for the country if the newcomers settle quickly and work and not be receiving welfare and become productive Canadians.”
The Conservatives credit much of their electoral success in recent years to the inroads the party has made among new Canadians. They’ve also massively overhauled the immigration system which they’ve said is partially motivated by concerns raised from within the newcomer community.
Part of the overhaul has been shifting the focus to so-called economic class immigrants, those coming to Canada for work purposes.
The briefing note suggests, among other things, that employers ought to be more engaged in the settlement process.
But it’s clear what those witnesses say doesn’t matter, said Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, the NDP’s immigration critic and also a member of the committee.
“They already have their lines, and whatever the witnesses are bringing to the table, they already want to go forward with certain things,” she said.
“That’s not my view about what should be the work of a committee.”
The committee is scheduled to meet Tuesday morning.
WHY METRO VANCOUVER SHOULD VOTE NO IN THE TRANSIT PLEBISCITE Residents of Metro Vancouver should vote “NO” in a plebiscite in March on a proposal to increase the sales tax. The money generated by the increase is to help pay for over $7 Billion in transportation improvements. According to the Mayors in Metro Vancouver, those “improvements” will relieve the congestion caused by adding 1 million people to Metro by 2040.
The Mayors have stated that they have no “PLAN B”, implying that there is no alternative. But it is very clear that there is one : The Mayors should unite to call for a dramatic cut to unnecessary immigration. It has been responsible for over 83% of Metro’s huge population increase since 1991 when Canada’s mass immigration policy began. It will soon be responsible for close to 100% of the 1 million population increase. Metro Vancouver’s population in 1991 was 1.6 million. It is now over 2.5 million. If the immigration madness continues, it will be 3.5 million in 2040.
Residents should vote “NO” for the following reasons :
There is no point to having 3.5 million people living here by 2040. Canada’s average yearly intake of 250,000 immigrants per year is corrupt and abnormal. It is a policy, not a constitutional requirement. It could be changed easily. Our federal government has never provided any justification for this intake. If there is no justification for the high intake, then there is no justification for huge unnecessary infrastructure expenditures that result from the intake. If Metro prevents the congestion, then Metro won’t need a “Congestion Improvement Tax”. If there were ever a time for Metro politicians to show some backbone, this is it.
Instead, the Mayors are trying to deceive the public by not saying why the area needs all the extra infrastructure. Two sample ballots that Metro Vancouver has published demonstrate the deceit. The first one began with this statement : “One million more people will live and work in Metro Vancouver by 2040. The region’s mayors worked together to develop a plan to reduce congestion on roads and bridges and to provide more transit to communities across the region.” To be blunt, this means that the Mayors didn’t have the guts to stand up to Ottawa and now they want residents to pay for their gutlessness.
The second sample ballot, the one that residents will use, says nothing about an additional 1 million people living in Metro Vancouver. The obvious question is “WHY?” The clear answer is that the Mayors and Councillors do not want Metro to ask who these 1 million people are and why they are coming here. The answer to “Who are these people” is unnecessary immigrants. The answer to “Why are they coming here?” is that all of our federal parties are equally gutless and scared that if they stand up for the majority of Canadians, they will lose their share of the immigrant vote.
None of the conventional reasons given for immigration such as the supposed necessity to deal with an aging population or the supposed need to stimulate the area’s economy are true. The federal government’s own research has shown that Canada should not use immigration to solve problems caused by an aging population. It has also shown that immigration provides no significant stimulus to the economy. In fact, recent research of thousands of income tax returns demonstrates that immigrants are taking close to $30 Billion per year more in benefits out of the economy that they are contributing in taxes.
Municipalities like to plead that they don’t have power over matters such as immigration. Yet, they often grovel to Ottawa for other things and manage to get concessions by doing so. The point is that now is an even more important time to get concessions and to avoid a senseless 1 million increase in Metro Vancouver’s population and the accompanying massive expenditures.
Municipalities should also stop pretending that their Green strategies will solve problems created by a massive population increase here. The truth is that Ottawa’s senseless high immigration policy will negate all the gains that might be achieved by Green strategies. For example, Vancouver boasts that it will become the Greenest City in the world. Meanwhile, it is clear-cutting huge areas of single-family detached houses in order to make room for high rise condos. The new people need resources such as water, heat and food. These demands will create huge new environmental pressures—as well as huge amounts of waste. In 2014, Metro shipped about 170,000 tonnes of garbage to places like Washington State. Annually, it generates about 900,000 tonnes of garbage, including single-family waste. What will these Green hypocrites say in 2040 when a new federal government wants to increase Metro Vancouver’s population by another 1 million?
The current municipal cast in Metro Vancouver does not seem capable of understanding that there are limits to an area’s ability to absorb people.
Metro Vancouver, Southern Ontario and many other urban areas in Canada reached that limit years ago. Canada desperately needs governments to develop some backbone and to stabilize our population.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/
http://www.vancouversun.com/
Why Cultural Compatibility Must Be A Necessary Immigration Criterion: Look at the Results of These Moslem Opinion Polls
|
TheReligionofPeace.com Muslim Opinion Polls A “Tiny Minority of Extremists”? “Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a “tiny minority of extremists” practice violence? … Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries. In truth, even a tiny minority of “1%” of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers – which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the “minority” of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn’t even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined. The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in “discovering” agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern. (These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active. We will continue adding to this).
Terrorism ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq. YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children: World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative). Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. 16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is “acceptable”. Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified. Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never). Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities. Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack. ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police. Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified. Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified). Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh). PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say. See also: http://wikiislam.net/
al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Islamic State (ISIS) Pew Research (2007): 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (27% can’t make up their minds). Only 58% reject al-Qaeda outright. Pew Research (2011): 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (14% can’t make up their minds). Pew Research (2011): 1 in 10 native-born Muslim-Americans have a favorable view of al-Qaeda. al-Jazeera (2006): 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden Pew Research: 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003 Pew Global: 51% of Palestinians support Osama bin Laden MacDonald Laurier Institute: 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate al-Qaeda World Public Opinion: Muslim majorities agree with the al-Qaeda goal of Islamic law. ICM Poll: 13% of Muslim in Britain support al-Qaeda attacks on America. World Public Opinion: Attitude toward Osama bin Laden: Pew Research (2010): 49% of Nigerian Muslims have favorable view of al-Qaeda (34% unfavorable) Pew Research (2011): 22% of Indonesians have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (21% unfavorable) Gallup: 51% of Pakistanis grieve Osama bin Laden (only 11% happy over death) Zogby International 2011: “Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favorably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head [Osama bin Laden] in Pakistan” Populus Survey: 18% of British Muslims would be proud or indifferent if a family member joined al-Qaeda. Policy Exchange (2006): 7% Muslims in Britain admire al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Informal poll of Saudis in August 2014 shows 92% agree that Islamic State (ISIS) “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” Hurriyet Daily News / Metropoll (2015): 20% of Turks support the slaughter of Charlie Hebdo staffers and cartoonists.
9/11 Attacks al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% “fully”, 6.5% “mostly”, 23.1% “partially”) Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy
Violence in Defense of Islam 40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam. Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons; NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain’s Muslim population; Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable. Terrorism Research Institute Study: 51% of mosques in the U.S. have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% have no violent texts at all. Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. Pew Research (2013): 19% of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam are at least partially justified (global average is 28% in countries surveyed). Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings “justified” in defense of Islam (only 58% say ‘never’). Die Presse (2013): 1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone wanting to leave Islam should be killed. Motivaction Survey (2014): 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. BBC (2015): Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, 27% of British Muslims openly support violence against cartoonists. Another 8% would not say, meaning that only 2 of 3 surveyed would say that the killings were not justified.
Sharia (Islamic Law) 83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers Center for Social Cohesion: 40% of British Muslim students want Sharia ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam; MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory) World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country World Public Opinion: 64% of Egyptians said it was “very important for the government” to “apply traditional punishments for crimes such as stoning adulterers.” Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft. Pew Research (2013): According to an interpretation of this study, approximately 45% of Sharia supporters surveyed disagreed with the idea that Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Economist (Pew 2013): 74% who favor Islamic law in Egypt say it should apply to non-Muslims as well. WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in. FPO (2014): 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
Honor Killings Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings Civitas: 1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband’s bidding BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over “dishonor”. Middle East Quarterly: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide. 95% of honor killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies. A survey of Muslim women in Paris suburbs found that three-quarters of them wear their masks out of fear – including fear of violence. 1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that ‘honor’ violence is acceptable. Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia. Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in ‘moderate’ Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia. Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country. Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified. (2013) Jordanian teens support honor killing.
Assimilation Muslims have highest claimed disability rates in the UK (24% of men, 21% of women) 2011: 16% of UK prisoners in 2010 are Muslim (Muslims comprise about 3% of the total population) Pakistani Muslims in the UK are three times more likely to be unemployed than Hindus. Indian Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed as Indian Hindus. Policy Exchange: 1 in 4 Muslims in the UK have never heard of the Holocaust; Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim Policy Exchange: Up to 52% of British Muslims believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives Policy Exchange: 61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech; ICM Poll: 58% of British Muslims believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution Pew Global (2006): Only 7% of British Muslims think of themselves as British first (81% say ‘Muslim’ rather than ‘Briton’) Policy Exchange (2006): 31% Muslims in Britain identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits. Die Welt (2012): 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany. Ipsos MORI: Muslims are 3 times as likely as Christians to believe that their religion is the only way. Pew Research (2011): Muslim-Americans four times more likely to say that women should not work outside the home. Pew Research (2007): 26% of Muslim-Americans want to be distinct (43% support assimilation) Pew Research (2011): 20% of Muslim-Americans want to be distinct (56% support assimilation) Pew Research (2011): 49% of Muslim-Americans say they are “Muslim first” (26% American first) Pew Research (2011): 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community. ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for political ends acceptable Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Pew Research (2013): “At least half’ of Muslims surveyed believed polygamy is morally acceptable. Die Presse (2013): 1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 45% of Muslims in Europe say Jews cannot be trusted.
|
If they overstay, find them and deport the, Put the RCMP to something useful — other than “revenuing” trying to catch motorists going a few clicks over the speed limit. Hunt down illegals and toss their sorry asses out of the country.
Despite there being 1.5-million unemployed Canadians and 900,000 involuntarily in part-time work, we now have over 491,000 “temporary” foreign workers, It’s a cheap labour and wage suppression scheme.
Remembering Sam Francis — He’s Been Gone a Decade
by Gerry T. Neal
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2015
Remembering a Philosopher-King
It has long been recognized that there are two ways in which civilization can break down into barbaric conditions. The rule of law can collapse altogether leaving ordinary citizens powerless against the criminal elements that now call the shorts. This is called anarchy. Or the state can become intrusive and controlling, curtailing its people’s freedoms, dictating their everyday decisions, and ruling by sheer force in an atmosphere of fear. This is called tyranny. It has also long been recognized that there is a cyclical pattern to the rise and fall of civilizations in which after civilization breaks down into one of these conditions for a period, the other emerges in response, and eventually a new civilization is born out of the rubble.
What if, however, civilization were to break down in both ways simultaneously and the same state was to fail in providing the basic protection of the law on the one hand, while tyrannically harassing and abusing its people on the other? Twenty years ago one of the greatest American political thinkers of the last half of the twentieth century saw this happening in the United States and all around the Western world and coined a term to describe it – anarchotyranny, the synthesis of anarchy and tyranny. On February 15th, ten years ago, he passed away due to complications following heart surgery at the age of 57. His name was Sam Francis.
Sam Francis was far more than just the man who thought up a clever name for this phenomenon – he was also its chief chronicler, analyst, and critic. In his twice-weekly column, syndicated by Creators but carried by far fewer newspapers than it ought to have been for reasons we will shortly get into, he provided a bold, uncompromising, commentary, expressed in a dry, sardonic wit that was perfectly complemented by the way he seemed to look out at you with amused disdain through his heavy glasses in the publicity photo attached to his column, on the news and issues of the day and the narrative beneath the news and issues – the ongoing war being waged by those presently in power in the West and particularly in the United States on the traditions, cultures, symbols, and ways of life of Western peoples. Nor did he shy away from addressing the taboo aspect of this subject, the racial element.
Dr. Samuel Todd Francis was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee on April 29, 1947, and it was in Chattanooga that he was raised and where as a young prodigy his literary talents and brilliant mind first gained attention. It was also in the Scenic City, under the Appalachian mountains, that we was finally laid to rest in 2005. He studied English literature at John Hopkins University in Baltimore before taking his Ph.D in history from the University of North Carolina.
It was at Chapel Hill that he became acquainted with two of his fellow students, the classicist Thomas Fleming and the historian Clyde Wilson. These men would become his lifelong colleagues. They worked together on the Southern Partisan, a conservative quarterly that was started up in the late 1970s in the spirit of the Vanderbilt Agrarians. Each contributed to The New Right Papers, a 1982 anthology put together by Robert W. Whitaker. Their most significant collaboration however was in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, founded by Leopold Tyrmand in 1976 and published by the Rockford Institute of Rockford, Illinois. Thomas Fleming became the editor of Chroniclesfollowing Tyrmand’s death in 1985. Clyde Wilson is an associate editor, and until his passing Sam Francis was the magazine’s Washington or political editor. Under the direction of these men Chronicles became the flagship publication of paleoconservatism which, in opposition to the neoconservatives who were calling for a Pax Americana, a new world order in which the United States would use its military might to export liberal, capitalist, democracy to the farthest parts of the globe, called American conservatism back to its roots in the Burkean traditionalism of Russell Kirk and the small-r republicanism of the American Old Right that had opposed the New Deal, American entanglement in foreign conflicts, and the development of the “welfare-warfare state”. This was very much bucking the trend in the larger American conservative movement. As the neoconservative viewpoint came to increasingly dominate the movement, conservative writers who having opposed mass, demographics-altering, immigration, both legal and illegal, criticized Israel and objected to America’s being drawn into wars in the Middle East on her behalf, called for a rollback of the American federal government to its constitutional limits, refused to concede the victories of liberalism in the culture wars, and otherwise offended the neoconservatives, found themselves exiled from the pages of National Review and other mainstream conservative publications.Chronicles became a place of sanctuary for these writers. By the middle of the 1990s it was a sanctuary Dr. Francis was himself in need of.
Up to that point his career as a thinker within the American conservative movement had been quite successful. It had three basic stages. In 1977 he joined the Heritage Foundation, a Washington D. C. think tank that had been founded four years earlier by New Right activist Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner with money put up by beer baron Joseph Coors. Dr. Francis was hired as a policy analyst in the fields of intelligence and security, particularly with regards to the threat of terrorism as a strategy employed by the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
In 1981, following the publication of his The Soviet Strategy of Terror, he left the Heritage Foundation to take a position as legislative assistant to Senator John P. East, R-North Carolina. It was as an expert on national security matters that he was hired to this position but, interestingly, in the course of his work for East he was called upon to write a document that both required this expertise yet also had to do with the cultural and racial concerns on which his later, and lasting, fame rests. In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that made the third Monday in January into an American national holiday in honour of Martin Luther King Jr. The bill had been hotly debated, and leading the opposition to the holiday was the other Republican Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. Senator East worked closely with his colleague and mentor in the campaign against this ridiculous holiday and on October 3, 1983, Helms read out in Congress a paper written by Dr. Francis that documented King’s collaboration with Soviet agents and Communist fronts.
Dr. Francis worked for Senator East until the latter’s death in 1986 at which point he joined the staff of the Washington Times. He served the newspaper as an editorial writer, opinion columnist, and editor and it was here that his career started to really take off. His column was nationally syndicated, and his articles won him the Distinguished Writing Award in 1989 and 1990. He was runner up for another award both those years as well. Then, in 1995 all of that came to an end.
It started with his column for June 27, 1995, entitled “All Those Things to Apologize For”. Written one week after the Southern Baptist Convention issued a grovelling apology for the stance they had taken 150 years previously in the controversy over slavery that divided them from the Northern Baptists, this column pointed out that the Baptists were making a big deal about repenting for something never condemned as a sin by the Bible. “Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery,” he wrote, “despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was”. All of this is true. Unfortunately, it is the kind of truth that people in this era cannot bear to hear.
Dr. Francis was not arguing for slavery. He was arguing against what he called a “bastardized version of Christian ethics”, that had appeared in the 18th Century and had so permeated the churches that they “now spend more time preaching against apartheid and colonialism than they do against real sins such as pinching secretaries and pilfering from the office coffee-pool.” He observed, correctly, that to read the abolitionist message into the New Testament and dismiss the passages that tell bond-servants to obey their masters as irrelevant is to undermine the authority of passages that “enjoin other social responsibilities.” These truths were especially embarrassing to the kind of Christians who, on the one hand pride themselves on the Christian roots of abolitionism, while on the other hand trying to defend what remains of traditional authority and order against the modernizing influences of those who see the abolitionist movement as the first stage in their perpetual revolution against the “slavery” of marriage, family, and traditional morality.
This embarrassment proved too much for Wesley Pruden, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief. He rebuked and demoted Dr. Francis, cut his salary, and began censoring his columns. In September of that same year, he fired Dr. Francis outright. This time it was not over something he had written in a column but something he had said in a speech the year previously.
In May of 1994, American Renaissance, a monthly periodical devoted to matters of race, intelligence, and immigration hosted its first conference and Dr. Francis was invited to speak. He gave a message entitled “Why Race Matters”, the text of which was later published as an article in the September 1994 issue of American Renaissance. In this speech, he talked about how the culture of Western countries, especially the United States and in particular the South had come under attack, with traditional symbols being attacked, demonized, and replaced, how anti-racism was an effective strategy in a campaign being waged against the white race, how whites themselves were digging “their own racial and civilization grave” through liberalism and leftism, and that a merely cultural strategy in defence of Western civilization would not be sufficient – there needs to be conscious racial element to Western identity as well. He said:
The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.
This is so obviously true that one wonders that it needs to be stated. Nevertheless, it was the last straw for Wesley Pruden. The way in which Pruden learned of the remark did not help matters. Dinesh D’Souza, who had attended the conference, wrote a book, The End of Racism, which was published in 1995. D’Souza’s book discussed many of the same issues American Renaissance specializes in, and often took positions similar to theirs. D’Souza was, however, a firm believer in propositional nationalism and the ideal of the United States as a “universal nation”, who objected very much to the idea of defending Western civilization in explicitly racial terms. The chapter in which he talked about the conference contained many distortions – even after D’Souza was force to rewrite the chapter when Jared Taylor andLawrence Auster, along with Dr. Francis, wrote to the publisher to complain of the many ways in which D’Souza had twisted their words. In September of 1995, at the time the book finally saw print and reviews were beginning to appear, an article by D’Souza about the American Renaissance conference appeared in the Washington Post. D’Souza selectively quoted from Dr. Francis’ speech and presented the quotes in a very unfavourable light. And so, Dr. Francis lost his job at theWashington Times.
He remained on the editorial staff of Chronicles, of course, to which he contributed each month, either his “Principalities and Powers” column or a book review or feature article. The Creators Syndicate continued to distribute his column. In the latter he offered his commentary on the news of the day and, while immigration was the issue that he most frequently addressed, he covered a broad gamut of topics, including free trade and globalization, gun control, and the erosion of civil liberties. He supported the presidential candidacies of his friend Patrick Buchanan and kept a watchful eye on the doings of those who actually made it to the White House. Scathing as his criticism of the Clinton administration was, he was no less severe in his assessment of George W. Bush. He contrasted the way in which the Bush administration had expanded its policing powers, undermining the civil liberties of Americans in the process, by means of antiterrorist legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, with the way in which it refused to use its existing, lawful, powers to control immigration, this contrast being a classic example of anarchotyranny. In 2002 he wrote several columns against the Bush administration’s plans to invade Iraq and when that invasion took place saw his arguments more than justified. His arguments against the war were far more sane, sensible, and interesting than either the neocon arguments for the war or the blithering banalities uttered against it by the left-wing peaceniks. His final column was about George W. Bush’s second inaugural speech and it concluded by saying that Bush had “confirmed once and for all that the neo-conservatism to which he has delivered his administration and the country is fundamentally indistinguishable from the liberalism many conservatives imagine he has renounced and defeated.”
In his Chronicles column, where he had more space to work with, he discussed the same topics at a deeper level. From James Burnham, about whose ideas he had written a book, he had learned much about the nature of power and the elites who inevitably hold it, including the present elite of technocratic managers who preside over the dismantling of the traditions, culture, and civilization of Western societies and rationalize their actions with the universalistic ideology of liberalism. From liberal sociologist Donald Warren he had gleaned insights into how the alliance of the uppermost and lowermost classes in the welfare state was putting the squeeze on the middle class, radicalizing what is ordinarily the most stable of classes, and thus generating a support base that a populist movement could use against the elites. From these insights, Dr. Francis framed his argument for such a populist “revolt from the middle”, bending the cold, hard, theory of Machiavellian power politics to serve ends that was anything but cold and hard – the cause of white, middle class Americans, who were seeing everything they held dear, their culture and religion, traditions and way of life, on every level from the regional to the national, including the constitution of their republic and their habits and institutions of freedom, being mercilessly swept away by elites they seemed powerless to stop. First in the New Right that brought Ronald Reagan into power, and later in the movement that failed to deliver the presidency to Pat Buchanan, he had found movements that could potentially achieve his ends. The dilemma for which he was seeking a solution to the very end of his life, as can be seen in his last “Principalities and Powers” article entitled “Towards a Hard Right”, was how such a movement could gain success without being sidetracked from its goals by corporate globalists dangling the carrot of the free market before its eyes.
Wonder what the poll results would be in Canada? Of course, with our current political environment,Canadians will never know.
Liang Chen Wishes Me “Gung hay fat choih”: I’m Not Impressed
Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. |
Dear Mr. Chen & Christine Elliott:
I am not impressed with this Chinese New Year stuff.
I for one am sick of politically correct politicians catering to minorities while ignoring the values of the party’s traditional Canadian base.
So, Christine Elliott wants to be the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.
We need a politician to tell the truth: that massive immigration at a time of high unemployment is cruel to newcomers and an affront to the unemployed; that the horrific traffic gridlock is the result of uncontrolled immigration and almost static infrastructure.
An Ontario leader must advocate for those of us trapped by the horrific traffic gridlock. The time has come to tell the Feds of all parties: We need a moratorium on immigration until we can get our own unemployed, especially recent graduates. into the labour market and until we can build the roads and public transport to efficiently move the people already here.
Instead of a cute greeting in a foreign language, I’d like to hear a promise to to reverse the Liberals’ anti-Christian compulsory indoctrination about homosexuality and transgenderism in the school curriculum as far down as kindergarten, for heaven’s sake. It’s offensive to parents of many religions. It’s offensive to common sense and to healthy kids. It’s another example of politicians favouring minorities and tossing the Majority under the bus.
I hope you’ll address these issues, Christine and Liang.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
