Tag Archives: systemic racism

White Canadians Income, Education Proves “Systemic Racism” A Falsehood

Posted on by

White Canadians Income, Education Proves “Systemic Racism” A Falsehood

“Student test scores data are generally contrary to the notion that public schools are systemically racist against visible minorities,” the study notes.


“An analysis of educational attainment and economic outcomes shows limited evidence of broad systemic racism in Canadian society, despite what anti-racism activists and the mandate letters from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to his cabinet might insist.”

It is in no way an abstraction to state that our Liberal government’s proclamation of “systemic racism” in Canadian society qualifies as a calculated misnomer. Straight from the horse’s mouth at Statistics Canada arrives an initial piece of evidence:

“Median wage of economic immigrant principal applicants surpasses that of the Canadian population one year after admission.”

“In 2019, applicants of economic categories in 2018 had a median wage of $43,600, 12.4% higher than the Canadian median wage in the same year ($38,800).” 

We begin to speculate on motivation for what amounts to a false assessment from government bodies on the topic of “social equity” in Canadian society. Additional data adds to the theory that “the pot has called the kettle black.”  In fact, it may be fair to say that if systemic racism is endemic in Canada it’s actually being directed at citizens of Anglo-European heritage.

“Data On Education And Wages Don’t Show Systemic Racism In Canada: Study”

“If you take various minority groups, some of them earn more than the white population, some of them earn less. And that’s roughly what you would expect to see if Canada was a society that did not favour the white population.”

What’s up with this, Jagmeet Singh? In June, 2020 the New Democratic Party leader was quoted as saying “I think if you refuse to acknowledge that systemic racism exists, you certainly do not have an open mind to address this issue.”

Yet, if Mr. Singh drilled down on issues relating to immigrant-racialized community education and income, he would discover that Anglophones do not sit atop a “white privilege” totem pole. Why bash these communities regardless?

“If all of our institutions and the way our institutions are set up, set up on this notion that we discriminate against minorities, you would expect to see white people with the highest weekly average earnings.”

“The paper points to weekly earnings of Canadian-born men and women in 2016. White Canadians are at the middle of the pack, earning $1,530 for men and $1,120 for women.”

Well, what do you know? Turns out that whitey is, generally speaking, “your average Joe.” Naturally, that won’t do for the current prime minister of Canada.

In 2020, PM Justin Trudeau stated that “his administration will tackle ‘systemic racism,’ and break down the ‘systemic barriers’ that exclude people of colour from full participation in Canadian life.”

Sounds to CAP as if these folks are doing just as well, if not better, than white Canadians.

Why the vilification? This question has haunted Cultural Action Party [est. 2016] since the day an under-qualified politician darkened the door of the PMO in Ottawa.

Trudeau, Singh, and a host of other politicians have indulged in this practice, including omni-present Liberal MP Ahmed Hussen, a politician who has held more Cabinet files than properly-fitting outfits hanging in Chrystia Freeland’s closet:

“Hate and discrimination have no place in Canada. This is why the Government of Canada will continue to support and advance policies and programs to tackle systemic racism, secure equitable access to justice and healthcare, increase access to education and job training, and promote human rights informed by the lived experiences of peoples and communities.”

Speaking of education, we contrast half-Somalian citizen MP Hussen’s statement with a quote from a recent article published by the National Post:

“40 Canadian university professors have recommended to the House of Commons that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies in federally funded research be abolished.”

“The head of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which oversees the racial-quota-bound Canada Research Chairs Program, told the committee that he has no plans to stop identity-based hiring, even though its quota for non-white researchers has been surpassed.” 

Bingo. We come to the what should be understood as a pivotal element of the social equity debate in Canada. For effect, we repeat: “has been surpassed.”

After which CAP offer up a fundamental of our thinking. If the racial quota element has been achieved, and the program continues, what message can be extracted? Furthermore, what’s to stop this structure from being replicated in every educational institution across the country?

In this we see the shifting of socio-political tides that we believe constitute the very essence of Liberal-NDP-Trudeau-Singh politics in Canada.

It is not equality, but surpassment, that motivate the political powers that be in  Justin Trudeau’s “no core identity” Canada.

The White Inferiority Complex

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, September 18, 2020

The White Inferiority Complex

For decades, hurling the epithet “racist” was the liberal’s go-to method of acknowledging anyone who disagreed with him from a standpoint somewhere to his right. In this same period this method served its purpose of discouraging disagreement with progressive liberalism well. Those who belonged to the mainstream of whatever was considered to be conservatism at the time, which was generally what had been considered liberalism a decade or so earlier, were, for some reason that has never really been explained, particularly sensitive to this accusation, and every time the liberal used this dreaded word they would rush to be the first to throw whoever was on the receiving end of the accusation under the bus. 
Eventually, however, this word lost most of its bite. It had simply been used too often and against too many people. When everyone is a racist, nobody is a racist, and people stop caring when you call somebody a racist. While it made something of a comeback this year, when used with the modifier “systemic”, for a few years now it has been largely replaced in liberal usage with “white supremacist.”

By trading the worn out “racist” for the fresh “white supremacist”, liberals exchanged an insult that had lost most of its meaning through overuse for one that was more powerful than the original had ever been, but in doing so they made themselves look absurd. For one thing white supremacist has a much narrower range of meaning than racist, with connotations of ideology, zeal, commitment, and activism that the word racist does not. There are very few actual white supremacists left and when liberals try to use this expression in the way they used to use racist they invite ridicule upon themselves. 

There is another aspect to the absurdity of the charge of white supremacism being flung around like so much monkey excrement. It is quite evident to anybody with open eyes that if any sort of bad racial thought presently infests the minds of the white people of Western Civilization it is not a sense of superiority over others, much less a feeling of supremacy over others, but rather a sort of inferiority complex. 
What other explanation can there be for the fact that even though the United States, after its Supreme Court abolished all de jure discrimination against blacks, established de jure discrimination against whites in 1964, and Canada, the United Kingdom, and all other Western countries decided to follow this foolish American precedent, and for over a generation anti-white discrimination has been the only established racism in Western Civilization, nevertheless white people have been willing to affirm the proposition that Western countries are “white supremacist” and that they therefore enjoy “privilege” on the basis of their skin colour? 
How else do we explain all the white people who are enthusiastic supporters of Black Lives Matter? BLM, despite the organization’s innocuous if also truistic and banal name, is not about a positive agenda of promoting the security and well-being of black people. Abortion rates have been disproportionately high among black people for decades, but BLM couldn’t care less about all the black lives lost to abortion. They are, in fact, allied to the pro-abortion, feminist cause. Nor does BLM care about all the black lives taken by black perpetrators of violent crime. Blacks are overrepresented among both the perpetrators and the victims of violent crime in general, which has been the case for as long as statistics have been kept about this sort of thing and shows no sign of ceasing to be the case any time soon, and this overrepresentation is even larger for homicide. The inevitable and natural corollary of this is that blacks are also overrepresented among crime suspects, arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. The black lives lost to black crime are not black lives that matter to BLM. BLM cares only about blaming the overrepresentation of blacks among suspects, arrests, etc., on the racism of white police. For this is what BLM is truly about – spreading hatred of police officers, Western Civilization in general but with a focus on the United States, and especially of white people. 

It makes about as much sense, therefore, for white people to support BLM as it would for black people to go around wearing white robes with pointy hoods. Yet this year, in which BLM has, ahem, removed its mask and revealed its true colours like never before, it would have been difficult not to notice the prominent participation of whites in the record-breaking wave of race riots and the “Year Zero” Cultural Maoist assault on historical monuments and statues. That is even without taking into account the lionizers of BLM and its cause among white newspaper and television commentators, white university professors, white clergymen, white corporate executives, white celebrities, and white politicians. 

There is a name for this sort of inferiority complex. It is called liberalism. While there are many different liberalisms with many different meanings, the one that I have in mind here is that of the liberal whom Robert Frost defined as “a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” Although I must say that when the poet penned that worthy diagnosis it probably never occurred to him that the disease would progress to the point where those infected actively take up arms against their own side. 
This, however, is the stage of the condition in which we find ourselves today and it may very well prove to be the terminal stage. 

Today, whether they seriously believe it to be true or not, a sizeable portion of whites are willing to affirm that racism is a moral offence for which light-skinned people of European ancestry bear a unique guilt, that they are guilty of it even if they are not conscious of having thought a racist thought, said a racist word, or committed a racist act, that this unconscious racism supposedly built into the very fabric of society is worse than the overt racial hatred that is often directed against whites by blacks and others with an anti-white axe to grind, and that it is their moral duty, therefore, to express contrition or shame whenever any non-white person chooses to take offence at something they have said or done or merely the fact that they are living and breathing, and to ignore or excuse explicit expressions of racial animus directed against them, even when these are violent in tone. 
Western liberalism has clearly undergone a mutation from when its humanitarian and universalist ideals merely generated a blindness to the legitimate particular interests of Western nations and peoples. It now actively opposes those interests. 

Think about the implications of the ubiquitous calls to end “systemic racism.” Many, perhaps most, white people have been jumping on board this bandwagon. Perhaps they do not understand that “systemic racism” is a technical term, from neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory, and that it designates this idea of an embedded racism which all white people and only white people are guilty of whether they are conscious of racist thought and actions or not. Perhaps they think it means institutional policies and practices that explicitly discriminate on racial grounds. If the latter is what they think, however, then they are mistaken if they think that racism of this sort, other than the kind that is directed against them, exists in Western countries today. This crusade against “systemic racism” in the Critical Race Theory sense of the term can only have the result, if successful, of making the explicit discrimination against white people that has been institutionalized in all Western countries since the ‘60’s and ‘70s of the last century, worse. 

There is a far worse manifestation of this mutant strain of the liberalism virus. Taken together, a number of liberal policies that have been in place in most if not all Western countries for over four decades, constitute an existential threat to white people. One of these policies is the use of large scale immigration from non-Western countries to offset the declining fertility that has been produced by, among other factors, the anti-natalism of social liberalism’s pro-contraception, pro-abortion, views. The result of this policy having been in place for decades has been the massive demographic transformation of Western societies to the point where in several countries that in living memory were almost entirely white, whites are on the verge of dropping to minority status. When you add to this the introduction in the same time frame of the aforementioned anti-white institutional discrimination, and the vilification of whites in the news media, popular education, and the revisionist educational curriculum, what you end up with is a recipe for a sort of self-inflicted genocide. Indeed, for decades now, Critical Race Theorists such as the late Noel Ignatiev have couched their anti-white ideas in explicitly genocidal language such as “the abolition of the white race”. When called out over this they have defended their rhetoric by saying that the “white race” they are talking about is a social construct, but their arguments have a rather hollow ring to them when we consider that these people would be the first to cry genocide if the same language were used about any other race and that the activist movement that has been built upon the foundation of their theory has translated such rhetoric into even cruder terms and actions that are not so easily explained away. These same people insist that “it is okay to be white” is a dangerous and offensive racist slogan. 

Yet despite all of this, liberalism has been largely successful at convincing a large segment of the white population to regard anyone who dares to speak out against this suicidal combination of policies as being a bigger and more real threat than that combination itself. Indeed, there are several liberal organizations in North America that do nothing else except identify those who speak out against white liberalism’s racial suicide pact and wage a campaign of character assassination against them. 

Liberalism is usually wrong about everything and it is certainly wrong about this. The West does not have a “white supremacist” problem in this day and age. What it is suffering from is rather that many, perhaps most, white people have become infected with a sick-minded racial inferiority complex in which they regard their skin colour as a badge of racial guilt which can only be atoned for through racial suicide. You will be waiting a long time, however, for liberals to acknowledge this. That would mean admitting that liberalism is the problem. Liberals would sooner demonize all those who share their own skin colour than admit that liberalism could be wrong. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:15 AM Labels: abortion, antiracism, Black Lives Matter, contraception, Critical Theory, feminism, immigration, liberalism, Noel Ignatiev, racism, systemic racism, Year Zero