[I find this utterly hilarious. I think this is so funny. It shows you how ridiculous and childish these people are. Decades ago they were striking and killing Whites and engaging in warfare to throw Whites out of Africa SO THEY COULD RULE THEMSELVES! Now these people want to flee Africa. I’m game for that. Let Whites take Africa. That would be AWESOME. Jan] Hundreds of millions of Africans want to move abroad, and Europe remains a top destination
June 14, 2022
A migrant disembarks the Open Arms rescue boat at the port Augusta Port of Sicily of Italy, after being rescued at sea, Saturday, March 12, 2022. (AP Photo/Andoni Lubaki)
More than half of young Africans have expressed their intention to emigrate in the coming years, as attitudes shift considerably from previous polling conducted at the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
According to an African Youth Survey of 15 African countries, 52 percent plan to move abroad in the next three years — an earlier poll from 2020 showed that more than two-thirds of young people wanted to stay in their home country.
Although the survey does not specify where most Africans want to go, Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s conservative League Party, warned that over 20 million Africans may be headed to Europe due to a looming food crisis sparked by the war in Ukraine. A Pew Research study in 2018 indicated that already a million sub-Saharan Africans moved to Europe since 2010, which does not include migration from North African nations. Those numbers are only set to accelerate over the coming years.
Salvini warns that fueling the war in Ukraine with more weapons could prolong the conflict, lead to a food crisis in Africa, and eventually a new migrant wave to Europe
Another survey from the United Nations found that 90 percent of Africans who entered Europe illegally were happy they made the journey, indicating that many have no plans to ever return to their homelands.
Factors contributing to the pessimistic views of the continent’s future include Covid-19, climate change, instability, and violence. The former optimism of a large group of young people to migrating has been dampened by a lack of access to financing and opportunities, for which they blame the elderly leadership of their countries, according to Czech news outlet IDNES.
“A lot of people, especially from the middle class, say they don’t have much to invest in here, so they want to go abroad,” said Cholud Chairova, founder of the Sudanese think tank Confluence Advisory. According to her, there is a massive outflow of young people, a process that further reduces the country’s ability to implement the necessary political and economic framework, leaving the state in a vicious cycle.
According to the survey, only 32 percent of the 4,500 young people aged 18-24 were optimistic about Africa’s prospects, down 11 percent from the previous 2020 survey.
Young people dominate Africa’s demographic profile
“For many African countries, this year will see an election or pre-election, so it makes sense that people will view instability as a problem,” said Ivor Ichikowitz, whose South African family foundation commissioned the report. Many young people have also dropped out of school due to the pandemic, and their families have lost their income because of it.
In almost all countries, at least two-thirds of young people thought their country was moving in the wrong direction. The two exceptions were Rwanda and Ghana, where 60 and 56 percent of young people were optimistic about their country’s prospects.
The news has shocked Italy, with major politicians weighing in on the reported mass sexual assault involving North Africans
Respondents from Nigeria and Zambia, on the other hand, ranked last. Opinions regarding the prospects of the continent as a whole were more divided — only in Ghana did most respondents believe that Africa was moving in the right direction.
About 60 percent of Africa’s population is under the age of 25 with more than a third between the ages of 15-34. By 2100, Africa is predicted to have the youngest population in the world, with an average age of just 35.
Canadian diplomat Brian McAdam was posted at Canada’s Hong Kong consulate between 1989-1993. He became Canada’s immigration control officer in Hong Kong. He soon uncovered evidence of what he believed was a major scandal. Both Canadian and Chinese consular staff were selling visas to members of Hong Kong’s and Mainland China’s mafia as well as to Communist China’s intelligence service. The price, he heard, ranged from $10,000 to $100,000 per visa.
According to Postmedia reporter Don Butler, “McAdam had evidence that members of Chinese criminal gangs, known as Triads, were applying to enter Canada as entrepreneurs under the country’s business immigration program. And many were getting visas.
“What was very, very disturbing to McAdam was that he kept seeing connections of these Triad members to Canadian politicians.
He started writing reports — ultimately 32 — documenting the names of the gangsters who were getting into Canada. His reports provided details on murderers, money launderers, smugglers and spies.
The reports caused panic in the immigration minister’s office and at headquarters in Ottawa. McAdam alleged, “I was exposing incredible negligence. I was exposing incredible corruption. And I was exposing the flaws in our whole immigration system.
“People in Ottawa didn’t want to investigate anything. They just shut their eyes to everything.”
According to an Ottawa Citizen report, McAdam received dozens of threatening calls (from the Chinese Mafia) with messages such as “Stop what you’re doing or you’re going to find yourself dead”.
What finally broke him down, he said, was “the incredible feeling of betrayal from my colleagues”. One day, a Hong Kong police officer told McAdam that a Triad member whose phone was tapped, told the Hong Kong police officer that the Triad member had complained to someone in Canada’s immigration department. The Immigration Department official reassured the Triad boss, “Don’t worry about McAdam and what he’s doing. We’ll take care of him.”
And, says Mr. McAdam, they did “take care of him”
Macadam was shocked at what the Hong Kong officer said to him. I’d worked with these people for years.” “It goes to your very soul,” he says. “It is a spiritual crisis. It is a psychological breakdown.”
Immigration Canada offered him a good new job in Ottawa, supposedly in a new organized crime unit at Foreign Affairs. But when he showed up for work in 1993, he discovered the job didn’t exist. The personnel manager urged him to take a retirement package, though he was just 51.
Days later, he went on sick leave and never returned to work. His 30-year career in Europe, the Caribbean and Asia was over.
McAdam started preparing details about his experiences. In an 850-page manuscript titled “The Dragon’s (China’s) Deception” He writes: “I was mocked, demeaned and threatened in a hostile environment while dealing with some of the world’s most ruthless criminals. Staff in both Hong Kong and in Ottawa gave copies of my confidential reports about some of the criminals to the gangsters themselves, and that greatly put my life at risk. I received death threats for a number of years but no one was ever concerned about my safety. My big question (was): Why did Canadian diplomats in Hong Kong and bureaucrats in Ottawa do whatever they could to destroy my work and myself?”
Around that time, he was formulating the idea of a formal investigation to verify and enlarge his findings in Hong Kong. By 1995, a dozen CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) and RCMP officers formally launched their first joint project. Its name was “Operation Sidewinder”.
In spite of dealing with his ill health, Mr. McAdam supplied the team with extensive documentation of China’s criminals and the Communist government’s ambitious program of acquisition, espionage and political influence in Canada and around the world.
The RCMP’s own more narrow investigation into Mr. McAdam’s discoveries — separate from “Sidewinder” — had begun in 1992. They probed incidents of corruption but limited themselves to locally engaged staff — not Canadians.
A seven-year investigation ensued. Seven RCMP investigators came and went. “As soon as one (Mountie) would (find something damning), they’d pull him off the case,” Mr. McAdam says. (That pattern continued.)
“I believe both probes (by the Sidewinder team and by the RCMP) had considerable political interference to shut them down,” says Mr. McAdam, “and it seemed to be coming from the highest levels.”
David Kilgour, then Liberal MP for Edmonton-Strathcona and secretary of state for Latin America and Africa, wrote persistent letters sympathetic to McAdam’s concerns. Mr. Kilgour sent his first letter directly to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien asking for a public inquiry — which Mr. McAdam had requested. Instead, the government ordered an RCMP probe.
Among the RCMP officers sent to Hong Kong was a 26-year veteran, Cpl. Robert Read, who, in 1996, spent months reviewing and corroborating many of Mr. McAdam’s findings. RCMP Supt. Jean Dubé pulled Read off the file in 1997 and later fired Read.
“They fired him to stop the investigation,” says Mr. McAdam.
In 2003, an RCMP external committee confirmed Cpl. Read’s findings. It found the RCMP “consistently demonstrated a reluctance to investigate” and ordered the force to rehire him. The RCMP refused. Cpl. Read sued.
Prime Minister Chretien ordered that all copies of the Sidewinder report be destroyed, supposedly to avoid alienating China and endangering trade and other relations with China. More likely, Chretien was concerned about the money the Liberal Party’s major donors (developers, speculators, banks, media corps) made from the influx of Chinese into Canada. Chretien feared that these people would not stand to have their cash cow interfered with.
One copy of the Sidewinder report survived.
According to Postmedia reporter Don Butler, documents released in 2001 (under access to information rules) state that the RCMP believed the spy agency shelved the report because it was uneasy with its message that Beijing’s spies were working with Chinese criminal gangs in Canada.
According to an updated Globe and Mail report of April 6, 2018, which focused on the testimony of Canadian agent Michel Juneau, the original Sidewinder team culled some of its information from a Mainland Chinese intelligence officer who defected in 1997.
The man, who was a member of the United Front Work Department, one of China’s five espionage arms, went public with allegations that he had been ordered to go to Hong Kong to engineer a pact between Beijing and criminal gangs known as triads.
Mr. Juneau also pointed out that at the RCMP’s request, the original Sidewinder team produced a binder, brimming with what is known in the intelligence business as facting. It provided documented evidence, culled from secret CSIS reports, other government departments and agencies and foreign intelligence agencies, that supported every single line in the original report, he said.
Mr. Juneau noted that other Western intelligence organizations and a bipartisan U.S. congressional committee have since produced reports that echoed many of Sidewinder’s conclusions. “We were ahead of our time and that’s what probably killed our report.”
According to UBC Professor David Ley, between 200,000 and 300,000 Chinese entered Canada through the Business Immigrant program. Many of them and their families still live in Canada. It is extremely probable that many continue their criminal activities.
Biden Regime Chartering Boats For Illegals in South America | VDARE Video Bulletin & More Silicon Valley Political http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/?p=2464; VDAR
Biden Regime Chartering Boats For Illegals in South America | VDARE Video Bulletin
In case you were too distracted by the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago to notice, Biden and company are making it ever easier for illegals to get to the United States. Many illegal aliens from all over the world fly into Panama or cross into Panama from Colombia on their journey to the U.S. The trek apparently consists of very dangerous jungle terrain. Now, thanks to Open Borders Biden, those illegals can take a boat around most of the gap. It makes the journey a lot less dangerous and therefore easier. And the easier they make it, the more aliens will arrive [Biden’s Deputies Open Route Around Panama Jungles for Migrants, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, August 6, 2022].
At the same time, they are ending the ”Migrant Protection Protocols” started by Trump. This is the remain-in-Mexico program where asylum applicants have to wait in Mexico for their cases to be heard. To put it lightly, there is not one single thing that the Biden Administration is doing to boost immigration enforcement, not one.
“Biden appears to have released Mexico from an agreement to use 30k nat’l guard soldiers for blockade duty, a sea change in bilateral immigration management that has drawn no US media coverage.” @BillFOXLA @nytimes @washingtonpost https://t.co/iHkUAFTlpS
Swedish Prime Minister (1946-69) Tage Erlander in 1967 declared in response to the racial riots in the slums of Los Angeles that “we Swedes live in such an infinitely happier situation. The population in our country is homogeneous, not only in terms of race, but also in many other aspects ”.
In 1975 the country introduced multiculturalism with Social Democratic Prime Minister Olof Palme rejecting assimilation in favor of policies that encouraged minorities to maintain separate identities. It was part of the famous “freedom” of the Swedes, free to do and undo everything, from the family to the nation.https://c09e4318fe1dcc6997518fc438949904.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Now, like a drunkard in the morning, Sweden wakes up to the sad reality, but doesn’t know how to get rid of the hangover. Ghettos, crime, segregation and ethnic-religious conflicts are now the hallmarks of the “quiet laboratory of the world”. The inevitable happened. The system is collapsing and reality can no longer be ignored. Large areas of the country are more similar to the Middle East and North Africa than to Sweden.
And the main ruling party and the largest political party, the Social Democrats, also made a breakthrough in just a year. As champions of open borders, international solidarity, multiculturalism and free immigration, the Social Democrats are now the party of restrictive immigration.
Sweden is only the portal to Europe’s future.
In an interview with the newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish Minister for Immigration Anders Ygeman announces that Sweden has a big problem: too many areas where most of the inhabitants come from outside the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden , Iceland, Finland and Norway). “I think it’s bad to have areas where the majority have a non-Nordic origin,” Ygeman said.
Ygeman suggested a “50 percent” limit when pressed by reporters if he believed Sweden should have a similar target to that of Denmark, where the Social Democrats have set a ceiling of 30 percent of the population of non-Western origin by 2030.https://c09e4318fe1dcc6997518fc438949904.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Denmark had announced that it will try to limit the number of “non-Western” residents in neighborhoods with a high migration density. The Minister of the Interior, Kaare Dybvad Bek, indicates the share of 30 percent, because too many non-Western foreigners in an area “increase the risk of the birth of parallel religious and cultural societies”. According to Statistics Denmark, 11 percent of Denmark’s 5.8 million inhabitants are of foreign origin, of which 58 percent come from a country considered “non-Western”. 30 suburbs mostly inhabited by Muslim foreigners. Neighborhoods like Mjolnerparken, nicknamed “little Damascus”.
Swedish Green Party spokesperson Märta Stenevi is shocked by the proposal of her old government mate Ygeman: “I think it’s incredible that a Social Democrat minister suggests that we should conduct an ethnic-based policy.” It wasn’t just any Viktor Orbán, right? “Swedish immigrant integration policy has failed, leading to parallel societies and gang violence,”
Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said in May after dozens of police were injured and cities were thrown into chaos over Islamic riots. “Segregation has been allowed to go so far that we have parallel companies in Sweden.”
In Sweden there are hundreds of suburbs and neighborhoods where Swedes are a minority. Alby, in Stockholm, is known as the “little Baghdad” (title contended with Sodertalje) for the percentage of Iraqis. There are suburbs where only one in ten inhabitants is Swedish. Or Rinkeby, the district with the highest immigration rate in Stockholm, known as “little Mogadishu” (Somalis are the majority). In Rinkeby 95 percent of the people come from abroad. It is a kaleidoscope of 60 ethnic groups and 40 languages: Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Turkey, Bosnia …
To read the international press, these looked like golden Ikea ghettos: public libraries, green gardens with playgrounds, clean streets, good schools and public transport. Areas where the word “multicultural” meant “exchange”, “workshops of coexistence” and “global villages”. The Swedish police have a list of 60 “vulnerable areas”, which translated means abandoned by the state.
Uppdrag Granskning, a television investigative journalism program, has just visited the Tjärna Ängar district in the town of Borlänge, also known as the “little Mogadiscio “, where more than half of the residents come from Somalia. Attacks and violence against journalists, SVT Nyheter reported. Ukrainian women at the Galaxen refugee center in Olofström have just been told not to dress to “provoke men from other cultures “, reports the daily Nyheter Idag.
From Abba to Allah – and one day we will read about cities in Sweden known as “little Sweden”.
Nancy Pelosi, The Chinese Dilemma and its Solution
If you have been following the news at all for the last couple of weeks – a practice I would advise against, as “the news” consists almost entirely of brain-rotting disinformation peddled by the corrupt corporations and even more corrupt government bureaucracies that control all but a fraction of a percentage of the main media organs – you are likely aware that the travel itinerary of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker in the lower house of the congress of the American republic has generated a bit of a brouhaha. Included in that itinerary was a trip to the Republic of China on the island of Formosa. When the People’s Republic of China on the Asian mainland learned about this they raised a stink about it and began issuing all sorts of warnings, threats and ultimatums, telling the American republic that they would be “playing with fire” if the trip were not cancelled, and even talking about shooting her plane down. By doing so they accomplished something that few others have been able to do, especially in the last decade or so. They brought the Democrats and the Republicans in the American republic together and united them on an issue. Both took the position that the Chinese government must not be allowed to bully American officials and tell them where they can and cannot go. I had rather expected her to pull a Captain Airhead or a Joe Whatshisname and come down with a sudden case of the bat flu but on the evening of Tuesday 2 September she arrived in Taipei.
While I have nothing but loathing for Communism and Communists, I admit that I can see the point of the brutal Chinese despots on this matter. I don’t care for the fact that for most of the year Nancy Pelosi is across the 49th Parallel from the Dominion of Canada and would prefer her to be much further away on the other side of the world. There is little I can do about that, alas, but it makes it easier to understand what must have been going through Xi Jingping’s head when he learned that soon there would be nothing but a 110 mile strait separating him from this creature. I assume that apart from the whole “nobody tells us what to do” attitude of the Americans, the reason for the bipartisan consensus of indignation towards the People’s Republic’s threats was that Democrats and Republicans alike did not want her trip and thus their time free of her to be cut short.
Since China and not Pelosi is my subject here, the only thing I will say about the person who looks and acts like she is auditioning for the role of a female or transgender Skeletor in a cheesy woke remake of the Masters of the Universe in which the protagonist He-Man would likely be dressed in his twin-sister She-Ra’s outfit and calling himself She-Man and who managed through trading that many see as just a tad suspicious to amass a fortune of about $120 million dollars in her career of almost forty years as a politician is to note that back in May she was excommunicated by the Church of Rome’s Archbishop in San Francisco over her using her elected position to support a special privilege for her own sex, the gruesome and unconscionable special privilege of having the legal right to murder unborn children. I mention this only because the Archbishop in question, Salvatore Cordileone, deserves commendation for his courage, rare in this day and age, by contrast with the clownishness of the current Pretender to St. Peter’s throne in Rome who ignored the excommunication and administered the Sacrament to her anyway, if it can still be called a Sacrament coming from the hand of a man better suited to be a contortionist than a prelate judging from the performance he recently put on here in Canada, in which he bent over backwards to stick his head, pointy mitre and all, up his own rear end, by issuing a groveling “apology” for his Church’s past humanitarian and missionary educational outreach endeavours.
This whole controversy has undoubtedly been confusing to those who are only slightly familiar – or not at all – with the situation in East Asia. This is not like some bizarre scenario where Mexico objects to the point of threatening military action to an official from France visiting the United States. It is not even like Russia objecting to Western politicians visiting the Ukraine at some point prior to the current war, although this is a little closer. The island of Formosa, although it has been claimed politically, in whole or in part, by various empires over the last millennium, has ethnically and culturally long been part of China. Ceded to the Japanese Empire late in the nineteenth century, after Japan’s defeat in World War II it returned to Chinese governance, specifically that of the Republic of China then based on the mainland. At the same time, however, the Chinese Civil War, which had been officially on hold for World War II, restarted and in 1949 the Chinese Communists led by Mao Tse-Tung had driven the Nationalist government led by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek out of the mainland. The Nationalists, and the Republic of China which they governed, retreated to Formosa which has been governed by the Republic ever since. The Communists have remained in control of mainland China, governing their People’s Republic from Beijing. Now, obviously there has been a de facto political separation of Formosa from mainland China ever since 1949. However, unlike the situation with the Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed and she declared her independence from Russia in 1991, the independence has not been formally recognized by both sides. Indeed, it has not been recognized by either. The People’s Republic of China claims Formosa to belong to China and itself to be the sole legitimate government of all of China. The Republic of China agrees with the People’s Republic of China that the island and the mainland are one country. She, however, although this rhetoric has been toned down in recent decades, has insisted since 1949 that she, rather than the Communists in Beijing, is the legitimate government of all of China.
Therefore, when the People’s Republic of China says that she does not want Nancy Pelosi going to Formosa, her objection is to the American politician going to what she regards neither as another country nor a territory in conventional secession whose independence she refuses to recognize, but to part of the country over which she claims to be the sole legitimate government. Leaving aside for the moment the question of the truth or falsity of her claim to legitimacy, her objection to Pelosi’s visit would be simply hot air if she was the only party that regarded Formosa as part of China. The matter is complicated greatly by the fact that the government of the Republic of China on Formosa agrees with her and so does the third party to this dispute.
That third party is the United States. The United States has, ever since she decided in the Nixon administration to take advantage of the split in the Communist world between Moscow and Beijing by opening up diplomatic and trade relations to Red China, taken a “One China” policy in which she agrees with Beijing and Taipei where they agree – that there is only one China and Formosa is part of it – while remaining ambiguous on the rather stickier point on which they disagree. Due to her taking this position and opening up relations with Red China, the United States dishonourably withdrew her previous recognition of the Republic of China, but she tried to make it up to the latter by promising to supply them with enough arms to deter the Communists from attacking. Thus, her “One China” policy contradicts both that of the People’s Republic and that of the Republic of China in that her commitment is, above all else, to preserving the status quo.
This is understandable, perhaps, in that the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for creating that status quo in the first place.
The Communist takeover of mainland China began with the overthrow of the Chinese monarchy and the establishment of the Republic of China in 1911. This led to several years of turmoil as attempts were made to fill the power vacuum left by the abolition of the legitimate government. The second president of the Republic attempted unsuccessfully to seize the monarchical power for himself, then the country was torn apart as military factions headed by warlords took control of the various regions of the large empire. Then Sun Yat-Sen, the leader of the 1911 Revolution who had been briefly the first president of the Republic, formed the Kuomintang, the Chinese Nationalist Party, which fought against the warlords to re-unite the country. These efforts ultimately succeeded in 1926, by which time the Kuomintang was headed by Sun Yat-Sen’s successor, Chiang Kai-Shek. The success war short-lived however. Sun Yat-Sen had made a foolish and naïve decision to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party, backed by the Bolsheviks in Russia. As was the case with Kerensky in Russia in 1917, this provided the Communists with an opening they were able to exploit to seize power for themselves. As a consequence his successor was soon embroiled in a Civil War against Mao’s Communists.
The Chinese Civil War began about a little over a decade before the Second World War started and had that latter conflict not broken out it might have ended differently. World War II forced the Nationalists and the Communists in China to put their conflict on hold, for the most part, to fight against their common enemy in the Japanese Empire. This, however, placed China in alliance with the other countries fighting against Japan and the Axis. More specifically it placed her in alliance with the Soviet Union and the United States. Due to this alliance, when the hostilities in the Chinese Civil War resumed after World War II, the balance had already shifted to the Communists.
That an alliance with the Soviet Union, the sponsors of Mao’s Communists, would tip the scales in the Chinese internal conflict to the latter, hardly needs explanation. That an alliance with the United States would have the same effect will sound strange to those used to looking at the United States and the Soviet Union through the interpretive lens of the Cold War in which they are portrayed not just as hostile powers in an ordinary conflict but as polar opposites representing capitalism and communism. It is nevertheless the case. World War II began in the second of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms as American president. FDR was so horrible that only a few years after his death the Americans passed the twenty-second amendment to their constitution limiting a president to two terms. Had they not revolted against their legitimate Sovereign in the eighteenth century, they would have had no need to create the office of president and would never have had to impose a term limit on it to prevent another rotten politician from clinging to elected power as long as FDR did. One of the things that made FDR so bad was his attitude towards Communism in general, and Stalin in particular. Later, in the Cold War era, liberals talked and acted pro-Soviet for a number of reasons. Sometimes they were actually Soviet agents. Most often it was simply a case of their liberalism being that of the squishy sentimentality that Robert Frost so appropriately captured when he defined a liberal as “a man too open-minded to take his own side in a quarrel”, the quarrel at the time being with the Soviets. FDR, however, was the kind of liberal who saw the Communists as fellow progressives, sharing the same ideals and working towards the same ends as American liberals, who were just a little misguided about the means. The first year of his first term as president, he sent the first American ambassador to Stalin’s Soviet Union, right at the time the Holodomor – the artificially induced famine that killed millions in the Ukraine – was going on. He recalled that ambassador when he sent back truthful reports of just how awful the USSR was, and in his place sent Joseph E. Davies, who arrived just in time for the Great Purge, i.e., the show trials through which Stalin eliminated his rivals, and sent back to FDR just what he wanted to hear, glowing reports about how wonderful Stalin and Communism and the USSR were, complete with an account of the Great Purge that depicted the victims as guilty and justice as having been served. FDR would later personally request that the Warner Brothers turn Davies’ pro-Stalin memoir Mission to Moscow into a pro-Stalin propaganda film, with which request, much to the discredit of the company that gave us Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, Sylvester and Tweety, they complied. Had this been all, FDR would merely have gone down as the biggest moron in history. Unfortunately, however, his attitude towards Communism and Stalin also manifested itself in his World War II policies, and in his meetings with Churchill and Stalin from the first at Tehran (1943) to the last at Yalta (1945), convinced that he had some kind of power of persuasion over Stalin – see Robert Nisbet’s Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship (1988) – he made concession after concession to the Soviet dictator that ensured that after the war about a third of the world would end up under Communist tyranny. Unfortunately Churchill, who understood Communism much better than FDR, had been scraping to the American president since even before Pearl Harbour – see Robert Shogan’s Hard Bargain: How FDR Twisted Churchill’s Arm, Evaded the Law, and Changed the Role of the American Presidency (1995), an account of how FDR swindled Churchill with the destroyers in 1940 – and so was in no position to do anything about it.
While Eastern Europe – including Poland, to protect which from the Nazis who had agreed with the Soviets to divide her between themselves, was the original reason for the war in the first place – is the most discussed of Soviet territorial gains due to World War II, the USSR also took over several regions in Asia that had been controlled by Japan. This included a number of regions to the north of China that had, for much of the past millennium, been part of the Chinese Empire and which were of strategic importance to the Soviets in their designs to help Mao’s Communists take over China. Mongolia, which had declared its independence from China when the last dynasty was overthrown, had been taken over by Soviet-allied Communists in the early 1920s, and while the Soviets had refrained from recognizing Mongolian independence in this early period, at the end of World War II during which they had repelled the Japanese invasion of Mongolia and used Mongolia as a base from which to launch their own attack on Japan, which FDR had “persuaded” Stalin to do at Yalta, they convinced China to recognize the independence of the Mongolian People’s Republic. This was part of a treaty the Soviets signed with China in August 1945, the terms of which Nationalist China abided with – recognizing Mongolian independence following a plebiscite in October that had obviously been rigged by the Communists – but which the Soviets were covertly violating before the ink was even dry on it. Bordering Mongolia was Manchuria, the region that had been home to the last ruling dynasty of China. This had been taken over by the Japanese Empire in 1932 and on the day the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Soviets, armed with weapons provided by the United States, invaded and took it from Japan. When the Soviets withdrew from Manchuria the following year, nominally turning it over to the Republic of China, it was actually Mao’s army that took control of the region and turned it into a base to attack the Nationalists.
By this time FDR was dead and the remainder of his fourth term as president was being filled by Harry S. Truman. That Truman was little better than FDR when it came to Communism, he would later demonstrate in his refusal to let General MacArthur win the Korean War. At the time in question, however, the last half of the 1940s, the problem was not so much the American president but the Communists and Communist sympathizers who had become entrenched in the American Department of State with the previous president’s blessing. Also problematic was another American World War II general with a decidedly different attitude towards Communism than that of the Pacific commander. General George C. Marshall, whom FDR had made Chief of Staff of the US Army, was sent to China as a special envoy late in 1945 tasked with trying to resolve the Chinese Civil War. The only solution that he was capable of thinking of was that the Nationalists needed to accept the Communists who were actively waging revolutionary war against them into a coalition government. This was an obvious recipe for total Communist takeover. Marshall threatened to withhold American financial assistance to China if the Nationalists refused to cooperate. As it happened, the Communists were not interested in such a coalition either but, when Marshall’s mission ended in failure, he returned to the United States blaming the failure on Chiang Kai-Shek. When, soon after, he was appointed Secretary of State by Truman, he used the position to fight against American assistance to the Chinese Nationalists. Indeed, through the entire period that he served as special envoy to China and American Secretary of State and even earlier during World War II, Marshall worked to prepare public opinion to accept a Communist takeover of China by whitewashing Mao and his forces, claiming that they were merely “agrarian reformers” rather than Soviet style Bolsheviks. Marshall died in 1959, one year into the “Great Leap Forward”, the Maoist version of a Stalinist five-year plan that generated a famine that killed more people in China than the Holodomor had done in the Ukraine. It would have been interesting, had he lived to the end of the “Great Leap Forward”, to see whether he would have finally admitted just how much of a fool he had been about Mao in the 1940s. He was hardly the only one, however. His deputy and successor as Secretary of State, Dean Acheson was just as bad or worse, writing a thousand page White Paper at the time Mao was driving the Nationalists off the mainland, justifying the Truman administration’s policies towards the Republic of China and arguing that had they done anything differently it would not have prevented the Communist takeover, a laughable obscenity considering that what they had done was insist that the Republic of China clasp the viper of revolutionary Communism to its breast. Aiding and abetting Marshall and Acheson in this, were the dolts working for the Institute of Pacific Relations, an international think tank funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, that published the academically acclaimed journals Pacific Affairs and Far Eastern Survey that had become heavily infested with Communists and Communist sympathizers, a great many of whom also served in the State Department and other bureaucratic and diplomatic offices in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. This was the basis of the charges of Communist infiltration made against the State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. Although the newsmedia and academic institutions made his name synonymous with witch-hunting over this, William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell Jr made a convincing case as early as 1954 in McCarthy and his Enemies that there were witches indeed to be found in the State Department, cackling around their cauldron as if they were acting out the first scene of the fourth Act of Macbeth. The mid-1990s public release of the files of the Venona Project, along with the opening of the Soviet archives after the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the Cold War, established the point beyond a reasonable doubt, although the progressive nitwits in the media and academe, including or especially all those who accepted without question the unsubstantiated claims of Hilary Clinton that her failure to win a third term in the White House in 2016 was due to interference by the current Russian government, are unlikely to acknowledge this any time soon. For the whole sordid tale of the IPR, which shared board members, staff, and a building with Amerasia the journal caught with almost 2000 classified documents stolen from the OSS and other American and British military intelligence agencies after it had rather stupidly published one in 1945, and the FDR-Truman policies that helped the Communists take over so much of Asia, see John T. Flynn While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It (1951).
It is easier to understand how the American leadership of the 1930s and 1940s could have been so naive at best and collaborative at worst towards Communism if we grasp that in a sense FDR was right about the relationship between American liberalism and Communism. The two are cousins of a sort. Both are the children of the Modern Age, and the philosophical spirit of that Age which spirit can be summed up in the idea that human beings need to abandon tradition, time-proven established institutions, religion and the like and pursue maximum freedom and equality through reason and science, movement towards which goal is what is meant by the word “progress” in its political-philosophical sense. American liberalism is the direct descendent of the earliest manifestation of this spirit in the sixteenth-seventeenth century English movement that began as Calvinist Puritanism and secularized into Whiggery. Communism is descended, through Karl Marx as interpreted by V. I. Lenin, from the Jacobin movement responsible for the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror (the revolutionary movement with which Marx aligned himself and for which he wrote began as a faction of the Jacobins). Jacobinism, like American liberalism, was descended from Puritanism-Whiggery, but through the intermediary of continental philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau. So FDR was right that American liberalism and Communism have the same goal – a society in which freedom and equality are both maximized – but with different ideas about the means to achieve it. Where he was wrong was in thinking that this was a worthy goal. It is not. Progress is not desirable but evil. The end of the Modern Age is based upon a contradiction. Freedom and equality, in their purest forms, are utterly incompatible with each other. Freedom is compatible with justice but not with equality. Freedom and justice were considered to be goods in the pre-Modern tradition, that is to say, desirable ends that were what they were as part of the transcendent order. Freedom and equality are considered to be values in the Modern Age. Equality is a perversion of justice. It is to justice what a $3 bill is to real currency. When idealists make equality their goal rather than justice – and when modifiers such as “social”, “racial”, “sexual” are added to the word “justice” it is actually equality that is meant – they think they are working towards a better society, but are actually making it worse. Gresham’s Law states that bad money drives out good. Similarly, equality, the counterfeit of justice, drives out justice – and freedom along with it. The ancients understood this – it is the point, or one of the points at least, of the myth of Procrustes, the giant with the “one size fits all” policy regarding beds, whom Theseus encountered on his way to Athens. Just as Modern thought errs in thinking that freedom and equality are compatible, so it errs in thinking of pre-Modern thought and tradition as something to be dismissed and discarded except in that it can be interpreted, ala the Whig Interpretation of History, as leading to the Modern Age and its goals. See Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s writings, especially Liberty or Equality (1952) and The Menace of the Herd (1943) for a fuller explanation of the incompatibility of equality and freedom. For an illustration look to the French Revolution and all the Communist Revolutions that took their inspiration from the French. While the Jacobins who founded the first French Republic, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, etc. all saw themselves as “liberators” and claimed “liberty” or “freedom” as an ideal as much as the Americans do – the motto of the French Revolution, remember, was “liberty, equality, fraternity” – the French Republic and all the People’s Republics were terror states, life within which could hardly be described as freedom. That the American Revolution did not immediately produce a similar state is due to a number of reasons, the foremost being that while the leaders of the Revolution were liberals with the same contradictory program of freedom and equality as the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, the Revolution they led was a secession movement rather than the seizing of a central state and furthermore, a secession movement on the part of a coalition of political entities which, once secession was achieved, initially established a much weaker central government than what it eventually grew into because they wished to preserve their own powers in the new federation, and thus the liberals were not able at first to impose their agenda like a Procrustean bed on all Americans from the top down, which meant that much of the freedom of the pre-Revolution tradition was able to survive.
While nobody in their right mind wants to see the inhabitants of Formosa fall under the totalitarian rule of Beijing – the recent example of what happened to the inhabitants of Hong Kong when it was transferred to the People’s Republic should suffice to convince anyone not yet persuaded that life under Red Chinese rule is not desirable – it is a mistake to look to the United States to preserve their freedom. It is not just that American liberalism is cousin to Communism and that the United States failed to prevent the Communist takeover of mainland China and arguably abetted it. It is America’s self-contradictory policy with regards to China. By agreeing with both Beijing and Taipei that there is only “One China” including both the mainland and Formosa, they take a position that keeps them from supporting Formosan independence qua independence and requires them to support one of the governments as the sole legitimate government of all of China. They cannot support the government in Taipei as the legitimate government of all of China and retain their relations and trade with the Peoples’ Republic. Therefore, they logically have to support the People’s Republic as the legitimate government. So far their commitment to keep Formosa from falling into Communist hands has prevented them from doing so in an unambiguous manner. This does not seem to be a sustainable position in the long run however. The current incident that is the occasion of this essay demonstrates that among other things.
I will conclude by saying that in my view neither the Republic of China in Formosa nor the People’s Republic of China on the mainland is legitimate. My views lean towards Jacobitism rather than Jacobinism, albeit Dr. Johnson’s brand of Jacobitism in which loyalty is to the current reigning house, and accordingly I regard no republic as legitimate. I therefore take a legitimist position with regards to China. The legitimate heir of one of the ancient dynasties – I will leave it to the Chinese to determine which one – should be found, and restored to his throne over all of China, and both the Republic and the People’s Republic ought to be dissolved into the restored Chinese monarchy. That is the proper resolution to the situation. Since the Americans are not likely to get on board with it any time this side of the Second Coming, when they will have to repent of their republicanism and democracy and bow the knee to the King of Kings if they don’t want to share the fate of the first Whig, the devil, the Chinese will just have to do it themselves. — Gerry T. Neal
Paul Fromm Sits Down with the Daily Rake, Part 1 – the Overview: My Early Years in Politics
Share Share
I recently had an interview with none other than Monika Schaefer. She’s the wonderful woman who made a video fact-checking the lampshadocaust in 2016, only to have her life turned upside down by the usual suspects. Video of our interview is below.
At the bottom of the article I wrote on our interview, the first in the series, I mentioned that I had an interview set up with Paul Fromm, and in fact I finished this interview two days ago. Unfortunately, we had serious technical issues right from the very beginning. This caused us to delay the interview by forty minutes, and eventually we settled on simply having me call Paul and record the conversation with him. The video is below.
As for Paul Fromm himself, he’s been fighting for Our People for half a century now, starting out in the anti-communist days, and moving on to what we see today. One thing I did mention to him, and which he agreed with in our interview, is that it sure does seem like the communists of the day, like William “Moses” Kunstler, seem to be pushing the exact same anti-White pervert garbage as the capitalists of today.
But just as I’m doing with Monika Schaefer, I’m going to write one or more additional articles on my interview with Paul Fromm. So I won’t get too in depth as to our interview right now.
In fact, I’m not going to get too in depth as to Paul Fromm’s history either, but it certainly is interesting. Fromm has been the international director of the Council of Conservative Citizens. He founded the Edmund Burke Society with Don Andrews and Leigh Smith when he was just a teenager. He’s founded CAFE, a free speech organization, in the 80’s,
And for those who want to do the whole “SerIoUS GuYS wOrK WiThIN thE CuckSeRVAtIvE/RepUbLiCAn PaRTy” bit, he, like many of these guys, has had the ear of some Conservative politicians since back in the late 60’s. Although now he agreed with me that the Conservative Party of Canada is a thoroughly useless and in fact actively harmful institution.
He’s been involved in multiple high profile legal cases, had serious violent confrontations, all started by antifa/commies of course, been the leader of the Ontario Social Credit Party, fought against koshervatives like Jason Kenney, and is of course denied entry to the United States of America. And I guess at one point he crossed paths with Evalion.
Paul Fromm with Evalion. Remember her?
I told him when I began interviewing him that I would need to wrap it up as soon as possible. I had planned something like just ten minutes, and then we could reschedule a new meeting when the technical hiccups were ironed out. Of course we ended up talking for forty minutes, and I didn’t even get to ask him about some entire topics of interest, like his defamation trial, his connection to Ernst Zundel, and many other topics.
That will have to wait for a later date. For now I’ll end here, and simply thank Paul for coming onto the Daily Rake, tolerating the technical problems we had, and accepting my stilted, scatterbrained interview “technique.” I’ll have the video up shortly, and an in depth piece will be released on this interview after tomorrow’s event — THE 2022 GEORGE ORWELL FREE SPEECH AWARDS TO MONIKA AND ALFRED SCHAEFER IN VANCOUVER
Catch My Daily Radio Programme “The Fighting Side of Me”
My daily programme The Fighting Side of Me contains news and views and commentary for OUR people; that is, the European founding/settler people of Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Rhodesia and those in the European heartland.
The big news from Canada is that Pope Francis is finishing up what he calls a “pilgrimage of repentance,” and what I call the white-man crawl, and I’m not talking about swimming. The Pope has put on one of the sorriest spectacles of voluntary public humiliation the world has ever seen.
It all has to do with the alleged horrors perpetrated against Canadian Indians by the Catholic church. As we see from this article from last Thursday called “Pope Francis Issues Apology,”
“More than 150,000 native children in Canada were forced to attend state-funded Christian schools from the 19th century until the 1970s . . . . The aim was to Christianize and assimilate them into mainstream society, which previous Canadian governments considered superior.”
Forced to attend schools? Well, so were white children. It’s called compulsory education. A lot of Indian Children went to boarding schools because there were no schools in the wilds.
And yes, they were taught Christianity and yes, the Canadian government thought Western Civilization was better than illiteracy and shamanism. The government was right.
However, as Scientific American kindly explains, “Canada’s Residential Schools Were a Horror. Founded to carry out the genocide of Indigenous people, they created conditions that killed thousands of children.”
It’s hard to find images of what went on in those schools, but I found these: 10:43 – 12:02. Yep, looks like a serious Catholic education, but that’s what white Catholic children got, too.
If they taught girls how to sew, I guess it was out of pure spite.
But today, we are supposed to believe that after soccer practice and “Silent Night,” the nuns and priests were beating, buggering, raping, and even murdering these children.
What got the hysteria going was a report from over a year ago. The New York Times put it on the front page: “‘Horrible History’: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada.”
Two hundred fifteen bodies were supposed to have been found in the Kamloops residential school in British Columbia.
The strong implications was that nuns and priests killed these children –through violence or neglect – and dumped them in a secret mass grave.
Canada covered itself in sackcloth and ashes. Government flags went to half-mast for seven months – longer than ever in Canadian history.
Canada declared a new holiday in honor of the 215 children: National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
A mob tore down a statue of Queen Victoria in Winnipeg.
Another mob tore down the statue of the current queen, Elizabeth II.
Catholic haters burned dozens of churches and vandalized many more. [[0:08 – 0:13]] The one you just saw burning was more than a century old and looked like this on the inside.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said burning churches was “unacceptable and wrong,” but also that it was “understandable.”
As I noted in January in this video – and I don’t want to cover too much old ground – the whole thing was a fraud.
A bright young anti-racist college instructor named Sarah Beaulieu said she used ground-penetrating radar to find these children.
Except she didn’t. Not one body has been found. What her radar may have found were tree roots or other soil disturbances, but no one has exhumed a single bone. At first, there was talk about digging up the children for DNA identification so bodies could be returned to grieving relatives, but now the plan is to leave the alleged graves undisturbed – a much wiser move. And now there’s a new horror. Some of the buried children were as young as three! Three-year-olds didn’t go to boarding schools – but who cares about that?
Only a few newspapers – the New York Post for one – saw through the hoax. “’Biggest fake news story in Canada’: Kamloops mass grave debunked by academics.”
But most media swallow any story about bad, white people, and Indians know a good thing when they see one. With the dazzling example of Kamloops before them, Indians suddenly found 160 alleged graves on Penelakut Island, in British Columbia, 182 in Cranbrook,– also in BC – and a whopping 751 in Marieval, Saskatchewan.
All these findings are dubious, but Mr. Trudeau, pictured here, has been busy apologizing.
He must have got lonely, because he decided the Pope should apologize, too, which he did in Rome, to a delegation of Indian chiefs. But Mr. Trudeau decided that wasn’t enough and insisted the Pope come to Canada to apologize all over again.
Pope Francis is 85 years old. He had serious intestinal surgery last year, he has bad sciatica, torn knee ligaments, and is in a wheelchair, but you can do the white-man crawl from any position, so he has just hobbled through a week of what must have been pure hell.
With Justin Trudeau and countless Indian chiefs keeping an eye on him, he, in his words, “begged forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against indigenous peoples.” He said it was awful that “many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed Indigenous peoples.” He was “deeply sorry” for the “deplorable evil” and “disastrous error” of “cultural destruction and forced assimilation.” He kissed the hands of Indian chiefs in an appeal for forgiveness.
Was it enough? Of course not! It’s never enough. As CNN reported, “The Pope went to Canada to apologize. For some indigenous school survivors, he triggered more pain.”
These schools don’t have graduates, you see. They have only survivors. There’s a 24-hours-a-day crisis line for “survivors” “experiencing pain or distress,” even though all but a handful of the schools closed 45 years ago!
CNN happily found an 80-year-old “survivor” “experiencing distress.” He said any apology is useless. He blames the Catholics for his alcoholism and terrible marriage. Some chiefs refused even to show up to have their hands kissed, saying there was no chance the pope would grovel enough.
The harshest cut was from Justin Trudeau. “The Pope’s apology to Indigenous people doesn’t go far enough, Canada says.”
It’s not enough to apologize for physical, verbal, psychological and spiritual abuse. The pope has to apologize explicitly for rape. Also, he didn’t talk about the evil of the church as an institution, only about the evil of individual Christians. Mr. Trudeau seems to have forgotten that Catholic orders operated only 66 of the 139 residential schools and that the church has already spent $50 million on restitution and promises $30 million more.
Needless to say, we have heard nothing from Indians who liked the schools. You have to dig, but you can find: “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools.”
It quotes a Canadian Indian named Tomson Highway, a pianist and playwright that Macleans magazine calls “one of the 100 most important people in Canadian history.”
He was in a school from ages six to 15 and says, “All we hear is the negative stuff, nobody’s interested in the positive, the joy in that school. Nine of the happiest years of my life I spent it at that school.”
Cece Hodgson-McCauley was the first woman to become a chief in Canada’s Northwest Territories.
She called her years at the school the best of her life. “My family says the same thing, my sister swears by it. We were treated wonderfully.”
The chief, who died in 2018 at age 95, said people lie about how bad things were to get money. She said older Indians who graduated are afraid to talk about what the schools were really like.
Now, of course, everything an unhappy Indian says is the “lived experience” of a person of color and must never be doubted. Back to this article.
One “survivor” says when she got to school, she was issued clothes with a number on them, and everyone thereafter called her by number, not her name. Really? I have read a lot about these schools, and I never heard that. I think a lot of these stories are false, but no one dares challenge them.
And guess what: Americans might get their own papal roadshow.
I bet you didn’t realize we had boarding schools for Indians, too.
I’m sure it will be no trouble to find people who claim they were beaten and buggered.
Or even better – that their parents were beaten and buggered.
And we have already taken the first step. “US to Investigate Government-run Native American Boarding Schools.
That was inspired by Kamloops, of course. And here’s Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, who will run the investigation, and who is an American Indian. She says, “We must uncover the truth about the loss of human life and the lasting consequences of these schools.”
Brace yourselves.
But what I find most grotesque is that the pope seems to have swallowed every tall tale, every insult against people long dead who can’t defend themselves.
I don’t doubt there was some tough discipline, even some cruelty, but I suspect the vast majority of teachers did their very best for those children.
And by apologizing for “spiritual abuse,” isn’t the pope repudiating the whole missionary effort? Doesn’t he believe Catholics saved the souls of many converts? No. As this article from 2018 notes, if you ask “Do Atheists Go to Heaven? Pope Francis Says Yes.”
So I guess all that Catholicism was spiritual abuse.
So far as I can tell, Pope Francis is not just a miserable white man; he’s a miserable Catholic, who doesn’t even believe in the church’s mission. It must be grievous for Catholics to have such a head of their church – the Vicar of Christ himself.
Like nations that don’t defend themselves, institutions that don’t defend themselves die. Pope Francis is old and frail. The church will be under new management soon.
If it’s not better management, the church will go over a cliff.
For Canada’s 155th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time” The Demolition of a Nation, One Step At A Time (revised) By Tim Murray,Immigration Watch Canada Writer
On July 1, 2022, Canada observed 155 years of Confederation. But as this bulletin points out, is there a nation still to celebrate? Please note the following two prophetic statements on the consequences of mass immigration to Canada and Australia . One is by former Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the other by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey: “…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 1st, 1947 “It is rare for a nation… to turn in a completely new direction. It is unusual for a democracy take such a turn. People are therefore entitled to inquire whether the distinctive character of their nation—and some of its greatest achievements—will remain if people from very different cultures are encouraged to come and, as far as possible, to maintain their own cultures. “ Geoffrey Blainey (“All for Australia”, 1984 p. 154) The following is a link to a site which documents the demolition of thousands of City of Vancouver heritage houses in the last 20 years. Ironically, the people who performed many, if not most, of the actual demolitions, were Punjabi Sikhs : https://www.facebook.com/VancouverVanishes We are providing photos of Vancouver Heritage Houses which were demolished as a result of mass immigration. 65428331_2989718811068837_3748217100225740800_
Demolitions, if viewed in slow motion, are revealed to be a sequential process. They begin with the destruction of the ground floor, and work their way up, until the entire building “suddenly” collapses. Viewed in hindsight, it may appear that the collapse of Canada’s identity was almost instantaneous. But in fact, it did not happen overnight. Our cultural, ethnic and environmental edifice was brought down incrementally, by a series of policies and laws that spanned some forty years. Let’s start at the beginning, in 1962, at the “ground floor” of implosion, and then follow the chain of disintegration up to 2006 and our present predicament, with Canada teetering on the edge of complete re- colonization and assimilation. (1) 1962 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families would be admitted to Canada from everywhere in the world. However, while the Tories said that all comers were welcome, it was successive Liberal governments which set up the machinery to get them.
(2) 1965 In response to a global mood to support the movement for colonial independence and repudiate the history that made the Holocaust possible, Canada signed the “United Nations International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. This post-war shift in attitude served to discredit principles that were used to legitimize exclusions in existing immigration policy. The signing of this UN Convention, a seemingly innocuous action, came to have a profound impact on subsequent immigration policy-making. (3) 1966 The Pearson government’s White Paper on Immigration Policy advocated a universal admissions policy. The country was to be cut from its cultural moorings, as European immigrants would no longer be given preference. This change in immigration selection criteria constituted a crucial change in direction for the country. It was a confluence of two beliefs. One, that Canada should cast its immigration net widely to capture “the best and the brightest”, and two, that Canada was morally obligated to embrace immigrants from across the world without reference to their ethnic, racial, religious or cultural origins. No longer would the nation’s cultural cohesion be a consideration in deciding who gets in and how many. (4) 1967 The “point system” was introduced. As T. Triadafilopolous of the University of Toronto put it, “Through the points system, Canada would select immigrants according to a set of universal criteria, including educational credentials, language competency in English and/or French, and labour market potential. Applicants’ ethnic and racial backgrounds were no longer to be considered in determining their eligibility for admission to Canada. The result of this change …was precisely what (Prime Minister Mackenzie) King tried to avoid: the diversification of immigration and consequent transformation of Canada’s demographic structure. Whereas immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ source regions …comprised only a small fraction of Canada’s total immigration intake from 1946 to 1966, by 1977 they made up over 50% of annual flows. Changes in immigration policy shattered the foundations of ‘white Canada’ and created the conditions for Canada’s development into one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. (from “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights and the Origins of the Point System”)
(5) 1967 The Immigration Department was ordered to no longer list immigrants by ethnic origin but rather by “country of last residence”. This allowed the government to conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada from traditional source countries like the UK. (6) 1971 Multiculturalism is declared official state policy. Henceforth, Canada was no longer to be perceived as consisting of our two founding cultures, English and French, but as a mosaic of equivalent ethnic fragments. Canada was to become the helpless victim of a social engineering project whose sweeping scope was yet to be comprehended. (7) 1974 Biologist Jack R. Vallentyne of the Fisheries and Marine Service called for a national population policy. His call was ignored. Vallentyne, a former professor at Cornell University, was made leader of the Eutrophication (pollution) Section of the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. It was in that capacity that Vallentyne became alarmed at the extent to which overpopulation and over-development was promoting eutrophication of our water resources. (8) 1976 The Science Council of Canada released its report number 25, “Population, Technology and Resources” which concluded that perpetual population growth would stress Canada’s limited non-renewable resources. It advocated (A) restricting immigration and (B) stabilizing Canada’s population. Another forgotten report.
(9) 1976 Voluminous anecdotal evidence had come to challenge the claim that European interest in emigrating to Canada had diminished, as prospective skilled and educated immigrants from Britain and the Continent with immediate family were being turned away in droves. Immigration officials in 1976 conceded that as many as 60% of British applicants were being rejected while unskilled third world immigrants with poor language skills were welcomed with open arms. The vision of the 1966 White Paper was being fulfilled. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased from 34% in 1966 to 47% by 1973. (10) 1976 Canada’s first separatist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected. By this action, Quebec Francophone voters indicated that they were not prepared, as English Canadians were apparently were, to see their unique culture dismembered by a multicultural globalist agenda. Quebecers were not willing to go down with the English Canadian ship. (11) 1980 English Canada got its second wake-up call when Quebec held its first referendum on separation. After it was defeated, English Canada went back to sleep, and the global “out-reach” to non-traditional sources of immigration continued with Official Multiculturalism still in place. (12) 1980-1983 In response to a recession, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau cut immigration levels from 143,000 to 89,000. It was the only time in recent decades that a federal administration reduced immigration quotas in deference to tougher economic times and the need to defend jobless Canadians. Thereafter, immigration policy would be the prisoner of political imperatives, most specifically ethnic vote-seeking. (13) 1982 The “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—forming part of the Constitution Act—was signed into law. It relegated Parliament to a secondary role—and through it diminished the ability of a majority of the population to influence the direction of the country. It allowed the courts to strike down provincial and federal statutes to satisfy individual rights. Consequently, as writer Frank Hilliard observed, it achieved Pierre Trudeau’s goal of altering our British Parliamentary system and replacing it with a model that divided society into ethnic communities, each with its own cultural norms. It is noteworthy that the Charter’s Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a ‘multicultural context’.
(14) 1986 Employment Equity Act—allowed a staggering number of recently-arrived immigrants to leap-frog over resident Canadians to secure jobs in the federal public sector. The Act became a template for similar legislation in other provinces which also affected the private sector. (15) 1986-89 The Health and Welfare department of the federal government completed a report “Charting Canada’s Future” which concluded that Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada’s age structure. Moreover, increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have, in the long-term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 would have little long-term impact on Canada’s overall age structure. That message continues to be ignored to this day. (16) 1988 The Multiculturalism Act—institutionalized the policy of multiculturalism begun by Pierre Trudeau. (17) 1988 Breaking with Trudeau’s belief that Canadians should not apologize to ethnic lobbies for alleged past injustices, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized and compensated the Japanese-Canadian community for the federal government’s internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The apology began an era of grovelling which can be seen for what it was, not a sincere desire for redress, but a naked grasp for the ethnic vote.
(18) 1991 The Intelligence Advisory Committee, with input from Environment Canada, the Defence Department and External Affairs produced a confidential document for the Privy Council entitled “The Environment: Marriage Between Earth and Mankind”. The report stated that “Although Canada’s population is not large in world terms, its concentration in various areas has already put stress upon regional environments in many ways.” It added that “Canada can expect to have increasing numbers of environmental refugees requesting immigration to Canada, while regional movements of the population at home, as from idle fishing areas, will add further to population stresses within the country.” The document was apparently buried. (19) 1991 The Economic Council of Canada, in a research report (“The Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration”), concluded that immigration has been of no significant benefit to the economy. Once again, it was a message that is still forgotten. (20) 1991 Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney launched the policy of mass immigration, which greatly increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. Like the Liberals’ White Paper policy of 1966, which was engineered by Tom Kent to defeat “Tory Toronto” by recruiting immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ sources, the McDougall policy was designed as a political stratagem to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberals by earning their gratitude. Mass immigration then must be seen as primarily a political weapon to defeat rival political parties rather than a policy that confers a legitimate economic or demographic benefit to Canada. (21) 1994 July 6 Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, with Policy 1.1.4, declares that its mandate requires that its programming should “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”. “In fact”, the CBC continued, “by the reasons of the ethnic diversity of the audience, the Corporation has long practiced a policy of cultural pluralism in its programming, and intends to continue to reflect the multicultural richness and multiracial characteristics of Canadian society in keeping with the Corporation’s obligation to ‘contribute to shared national consciousness and identity’. Schedule planners and programs staff are expected to demonstrate continuing awareness of and sensitivity to this aspect of CBC/Radio-Canada role.” In so doing, the CBC in effect became the voice of immigrant ethno-cultural lobbies and power blocs, while the views of the full cross-section of mainstream Canadian society were largely excluded.
(22) 1995 A second referendum on separation was held in Quebec. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 0.8%. Many would argue that the 1995 referendum was hijacked by the federal government, which poured in a ton of money in publicity largely exceeding the amount authorized by the referendum laws. The Gomery commission subsequently found many key Liberal figures guilty of fraud. In addition, for good measure, the federal government fast-tracked the citizenship process for all new immigrants in Quebec in the months leading up to the referendum . This action was timely, as it allowed these immigrants to vote and tip the scales to victory for the “No” side. (23) Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately blamed the loss on the ethnic vote, which had grown with mass immigration. Failing to see that their own society was being undermined by the very same forces that were undermining Quebec, English Canadians rejoiced. However, the result clearly illustrated that since 1980, an increasing proportion of the Francophone population were opposed to the multicultural makeover of their society. (24) 1997 The $2.4 million federally-commissioned Fraser Basin Ecosystem Study, led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC, was released. It stated that BC’s Fraser Basin was overpopulated by a factor of three. Healey later urged all levels of government to develop a Population Plan for the country. The study was ignored by the government that funded it.
(24) 2001 The Population Institute of Canada made a presentation to the House of Commons Committee on Immigration which recommended that the government develop a Population Plan for Canada, as called for by Dr. Michael Healey. The presentation fell on deaf ears. (25) 2005 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, released a report that challenged the provincial government’s plans to accommodate an additional 4.4 to 6 million people for Ontario over the next 25 years. In introducing this annual report, Miller issued strong cautions. “One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario’s population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. ” He added that the area did not have the water resources to support the population increase, nor the ability to handle sewage created by the increase. Miller was vilified for his comments. (26) 2006 Following Mulroney’s precedent of apologizing and compensating Japanese-Canadians for the wartime actions of Mackenzie King’s government, Prime Minister Harper compensated Chinese-Canadians for federal laws that were enacted before the First World War to protect Canadian jobs from the importation of cheap Chinese labour. The compensation came with a profuse apology.
(27) 2006 The C.D. Howe Institute reported that immigration levels would have to be raised to impossibly stratospheric levels to have any effect in slowing the rate of Canada’s aging population. (28) 2013 Canada’s most famous environmentalist, Dr. David Suzuki, said that Canada was overpopulated and that immigration levels should be reduced. Like Gordon Miller, Suzuki was vilified by everyone except the general public, who evidenced their approval in the comments section of newspapers across the country which carried the story. (29) 2013 Reacting to growing ethnic enclaves and the threat of the emergence of a parallel Islamic society, the Parti Quebecois government introduced a Charter that would re-establish the secular nature of Quebec society, a hard won achievement of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Recognizing that support for the Charter would represent a clear repudiation of the multicultural agenda, the political class and the English media denounced the proposal. (30) 2014 The fact that the Charter enjoyed the support of a majority of Quebecers—and apparently a majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada– the media and the political establishment attempted to discredit the Parti Quebecois government by raising the prospect of another referendum on sovereignty. This was (and is) a ploy to shift the focus away from the Charter. (31) 2015 Two months following his electoral victory, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, essentially confirmed that the mission of cultural and ethnic fragmentation conceived five decades before had been accomplished. In fact, it had gone beyond that. Canada was no longer even a multicultural state—or a nation—but something the world had never seen before. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, Trudeau proudly observed, “There are (just) shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” A state, in other words, that has been cast adrift, cut from its cultural, ethnic and moral moorings.
(32) In reviewing these policies , pronouncements and laws, it is apparent that the promotion of official multiculturalism and quota hiring (“employment equity”) were conceived to work in tandem with mass immigration, so that immigrants would be made to feel fully integrated and at home with their new country. (33) This great “multicultural experiment” then, was essentially an immigration project which changed the ethnic profile of the nation and grew the population by 25%. It was an experiment conducted by a political class on ordinary Canadians without the consent of ordinary Canadians. The project had no electoral mandate. The result is that most Canadians feel like lab rats living in an environment they no longer recognize. They bear witness to the demolition of a nation.
