"We'll plug our ears because we don't want to hear what you have to say" -- the New O
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 29 September 2012 18:42
Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of
‘disgusting’ website

*"We'll plug our ears because we don't want to hear what you have to say"
-- the New Openness of the Canadian Political Class*
Twice in one week, Canadian officials behaved like bratty children. The
Harper government ostentatiously directed our diplomats to walk out of he
UN General Assembly prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahme\adenijad's
speech earlier this week. What is the point of having a place to meet the
leaders -- like them or not -- of the world but then refuse to listen? This
childish behaviour reminds one of the bratty kid who plugs his ears and
chants and makes noise when another child is speaking.

Then, on Wednesday the Conservatives, under Opposition pressure, pulled two
of their witnesses, a Montreal husband and wife team who run an immigration
reform website. The *Canadian Press* (September 26, 2012) reported: "The
Conservative government pulled two of its own witnesses from an immigration
committee at the eleventh-hour Wednesday, calling material on the group’s
website disgusting and un-Canadian. Although the witnesses — Madi and Julien
Lussier of the Canadian Immigration Forum — were not publicly listed by the
committee, they had been scheduled to appear at its first meeting of the
current parliamentary session. NDP and Liberal MPs immediately balked at
their presence as soon as they arrived at the committee, pointing to
elements on the group’s website that they called shocking. Several MPs on
the committee are immigrants.

Sections of the site include one on so-called “Chinafication” and
“Arabization.” There is also a video interview with Canadian white
supremacist Paul Fromm and several from a conference of the “racialist”
group American Renaissance.

The site is called the Canadian Immigration Report <http://www.cireport.ca/>,
with the subtitle: “The impact of immigration and racial diversity on
Canada and Canadians. A survey on the site asks how long immigration to the
West should be halted.'If you want to protect and preserve Canada, stop
immigration for at least 50 years,' Madi Lussier wrote in a comment posted
last month <http://www.cireport.ca/2012/08>.":

The main problem seems to be that MPs didn't like what they thought were
the couple's views. That should be irrelevant. MPs MUST hear what Canadians
are thinking, not just the immensely selfish and greedy and self-interested
immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, social workers, ESL teachers,
business leaders seeking cheap labour and high unemployment to keep wages
down, and a few who dream of replacing the European founding/settler people
of this country with others

The Canadian Press account continued: " NDP MP Jinny Simms said she was
appalled by what she saw on the website.... About 15 minutes later, the
Lussiers were told by a committee aide that they would not be appearing
that afternoon. Madi Lussier, who is undergoing cancer treatment, ripped
off a wig she was wearing and waved it at the committee. She yelled
“Shame!” as they walked out the door.

The Lussiers conceded their views might not be in the mainstream, but said
the committee members behaved like cowards for not at least hearing them
out. They argued their website features a range of views on immigration.
'Is Canada going to look the way it does now in 150-200 years? Will the
values of gender equality still exist? We don’t know,' Julien Lussier said
outside the committee. 'Will the value of respecting homosexuals,
environmentalism and democracy exist when the majority won’t be of European

And, then, he final insult of this disgraceful episode. The Lussiers were
disowned by the MP who invited them and we, the European founding/settler
people of this great Dominion are lectured on what it means to be Canadian
by a newcomer from Taiwan: "

Conservative MP Chungsen Leung’s office had put forward the names of the
Lussiers as witnesses. He said that a constituent had told him that the
Lussiers were lawyers and he was unaware of what was on their website. 'The
views stated on this website are disgusting and anti-Canadian. I am
outraged by them,' Leung said. 'I have asked the Clerk that these witnesses
be pulled. If they do appear, I intend to tell them the views on the
website are abhorrent and un-Canadian.'”

Mr. Leung's party leader, the Prime Minister, is a huge fan of
Israel:"Israel's values are our values," he says. In the face of large
numbers of illegal immigrants from East Africa, the Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these illegals threaten to dilute the
Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Fair enough. Then, why should it be
reprehensible, "un-Canadian" in the words of Chungsen Leung, to not want
to see the replacement of the European founding/settler people of this

The *Regina Leader Post* (September 28, 2012) reported:; "In an interview
with *Postmedia News*, Julien Lussier admitted he and his wife's opinions
on immigration are 'quite avant-garde,' but that dismissing them so
abruptly was unfair.

'Immigration is public policy. If we can't talk about our public policy, we
have no right criticizing a country like China for shutting down free
speech,' he said.

As for his views on immigration, he said he believes 'poaching"' the best
and the brightest from developing countries is unfair to those emerging
nations and Canada should not accept any refugees.

Launched three years ago, the website features original content as well as
links to both mainstream and alternative media articles. Included are
original interviews with white supremacist Paul Fromm and American writer
Tito Perdue, the latter of whom is quoted saying 'the civilizations that
black people alone have created ... generally turn out to be a kind of hell
on earth.'" This was the sixth time they had been scheduled to appear.

It's almost boring to have to repeat but I am not and CFIRC is not "white
supremacist." That is a discussion stopping smear, a term of abuse. White
supremacists insist on imposing "White" standards on the world -- like,
say, imposing our values on the role of women by force of arms in
Afghanistan. We have no such imperialist goals. We are White
Preservationists who wish to preserve our people's position in the land we
build, no more, no less.

Here the actual audio proccedings of the committee as they decide not to
hear the Lussiers.

Paul Fromm


Multicultural Madness: The Fall of British Vancouver and the Rise of ‘Pacific’ Canada
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 29 September 2012 08:59
*Multicultural Madness: The Fall of British Vancouver and the Rise of
‘Pacific’ Canada*
Posted on September 19, 2012

*Multicultural Madness*
*By Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, UNB*


*Ever since Canada was officially designated a multicultural nation during
the prime ministership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the 1970s the age-old
British character of this nation has been under relentless assaults.
Multiculturalism promulgates the equality of all races, religions and
cultures; accordingly, it demands a Canada in which no particular ethnic
group has a privileged position in the nation’s history and culture. Will
Kymlicka, the most prominent scholar and salesperson of Canadian
multiculturalism, sums up succinctly what it all entails: ‘Adopting
multiculturalism is a way for Canadians to say that never again will we
view Canada as a “white”’ country … as a “British” country (and hence
compel non-British immigrants to relinquish or hide their ethnic
identity).’ Non-British immigrants can retain and affirm their ethnic
identity; they have a ‘distinctive group identity’, which must be protected
‘from the impact’ of the ‘dominant’ white culture.*

*Of course, multiculturalism is always presented to the public through
rose-tinted glasses as a pluralistic philosophy dedicated to the prevention
of discriminatory acts and xenophobic feelings. Immigrants should have the
opportunity to celebrate their heritages and religious beliefs as well as
being encouraged to see themselves as members of a wider liberal-democratic
culture. But multiculturalism contains a negation within its very essence.
It protects the group rights of non-Western peoples while simultaneously
denying the host (Western) nation any group rights of its own. The host
culture is seen as a neutral site characterized by its provision of
individual rights, which apply to everyone, and of group rights, which
apply only to non-whites. The Anglo-French founders are mandated to be
ethnically neutral and historically disinterested; representatives of
certain deracinated values that belong to ‘humanity.’ While multicultural
ideologues implicitly recognize that minorities have deep attachment to
their ethnic backgrounds, and, in this vein, recognize that humans do have
a natural love of their own heritage and ethnicity; they call upon whites
to practice historical amnesia and pretend they were not the creators of
Canada’s institutions, parliamentary traditions, and common law. The
historical fact that Canada was built as a nation state around a founding
ethnic core must be discarded and hidden from students.

*Children were once taught that Canada was a unique nation founded by two
peoples, the French and the English; later they were taught that the
‘Aboriginals’ were founders as well; now they are learning to include
Asians and new immigrants in the founding narrative. Newcomers are coming
mostly from Asia; therefore Canadians should redefine their ‘roots of
citizenship’ to reflect this new reality. In a 2002 publication, A
Newcomer’s Introduction to Canada, released by Citizenship and Immigration
Canada ‘for new immigrants,’ it was announced that ‘Canada is a land of
many cultures and many peoples’. Other than the Aboriginal people, everyone
is an immigrant to Canada: ‘We have all come from somewhere else.’ The lack
of unity or a national culture in Canada is presented as a positive trait:
‘Through Canada’s history, millions of immigrants have helped to build this
country.’ The heritage of the English and French amounts to no more than a
set of procedural laws and institutional templates ­ a market economy,
equality under the law, democratic representation ­ which belong to
everyone. Minorities stand for authentic traditions celebrated for their
colour and vibrancy.

*Our esteemed liberal elites are also hard at work ‘exposing’ the
colonizing activities of the first settlers, their use of a ‘white
supremacist’ ideology as a nation-building tool, their imposition of the
Chinese Head Tax, their anti-Asia immigration laws, and their continued
existence as the ‘historically dominant majority’. They fashion themselves
as liberators uncovering the suppressed histories of minorities and
correcting ‘the mythology that whites built Canada’.

*The savviest user of the media in the advancement of Asian interests
against Canada’s British heritage is Henry Yu. A history professor at the
University of British Columbia, Yu accuses Canada of being ‘systematically
racist’ and in need of reparations through massive immigration from the
non-Western world. He is the recent recipient of two huge grants, a $1.17
million project entitled ‘Chinese Canadian Stories: Uncommon Histories from
a Common Past,’ which will seek a major ‘reinterpretation of Canadian
history through the lens of Chinese Canadians,’ as well as $950,000 from
the Federal government to document the ‘ignored histories’ of one of the
‘founding peoples’ of Canada.

*In an Op Ed piece in The Vancouver Sun (February 2, 2010), ‘Vancouver’s
Own Not-So Quiet Revolution’, Yu claimed that the English language ‘stunts
diversity’. Calling it a ‘colonial’ language, he demanded that Asian
languages, long ‘silenced’ by ‘white supremacists’, be given the same
official status. He even equated the presence of a high number of whites in
leadership positions with ‘the legacy of a long history of apartheid and
white supremacy’. Elsewhere he added that the old bilingual Canada ‘no
longer makes sense’. Canada has ceased to be a Western-Atlantic nation.
Between 2001 and 2006, the top four places of births for immigrants were in
Asia; the five largest Canadian cities are heavily populated by Chinese
‘migrants’. ‘In Vancouver, Canada’s third largest city, the visible
minority is white.’ This ‘new Pacific Canada’, he observed, marks a return
to a Canada originally Pacific. The ‘dominance of white supremacy in
immigration policy’ between the 1920s and 1960s disrupted this founding
Pacific orientation.

*Yu relies on two meagre facts to support these claims: Asians built
portions of the transcontinental railroad in the late 19th century, and the
Chinese proportion of the population in British Columbia in 1901 was 10 per
cent. The truth is that Chinese immigrants have played a microscopic role
in Canada’s history. In 1901, 96 per cent of the Canadian population was
European in origin; there were only 17,043 Chinese immigrants (born outside
Canada) relative to a population of 5.3 million. Vancouver, with the
highest Chinese proportion throughout Canada’s history, was virtually a
white European city from its beginnings in the 1870s to the 1980s. In the
1950s, when the city had been fully developed into a metropolis, the
British accounted for about 75 per cent of the population, and other
Europeans accounted for about 18 per cent, whereas the Asian proportion
(Chinese and Japanese) accounted for only 3 or 4 per cent. Patricia
Roy’s* *Vancouver,
An Illustrated History (1980), exhibits a city that was overwhelmingly
British in its architectural landscape, notwithstanding its Chinatown and
Little Tokyo. The sports, the education, the legal system ­ every
institution was British. The Founding Fathers, the Mayors, the magistrates,
the school trustees, the chief constables, the physicians, the presidents
of the Board of Trade were all British descendents.*

*The famed British sociologist Anthony Giddens calls Canada
‘quintessentially an immigrant society’. This is totally untrue. The
British and the French were settlers, not immigrants. They did not move
from one country to another; they were the creators of a new country ex
nihilo, out of a wilderness. The Aboriginals were here first, but they
didn’t create Canada. Canada’s aboriginal population, living in tribal
groups, reacted to, rather than participated in, the creation of a new
civilization in a massive continental landmass barely occupied. Indeed the
nation-state called Canada is British. The French certainly created the
colony of New France, but the Canadian nation-state with its economic
infrastructure across the country, and the majority of settlers and
homestead farmers, were British. All Canadians, regardless of ethnic
origin, are the beneficiaries of a British civilization.

*‘The city has changed irrevocably in the last 20 years’, Yu says. It has.
The total number of Chinese in Vancouver in 1951 was still a meagre 8,729,
in a population of roughly 345,000; in 1971, it had increased to 30,640.
During the 80s the entire Third World was invited to come to Canada.
Consequently, by the mid-90s, the Chinese population in Vancouver suddenly
shot up to 300,000, out of a total population of 1.8 million. The
population with British ethnic origins was reduced to 35.9 per cent by
2006, whereas the Asian population climbed to 42 per cent. ‘In Vancouver’,
Yu says euphorically, ‘you can’t go to a neighbourhood now where Chinese
aren’t living in significant numbers. It’s incredible.’

*Before this invasion, Vancouver was a jovial city, with a strong sense of
community and family life. YouTube videos show Vancouverites enjoying life
in the city’s parks in the 1940s or 1960s; harmoniously, with occasional
pictures of (happy) Asian children ­ those days are gone. ‘Vancouver is
clearly an Asia Pacific city now’, says pollster Angus Reid, Canada’s most
prominent public opinion surveyor. The landscape has undergone a massive
transformation unprecedented in the history of cities. However, the legacy
of the past is still visible, creating a bi-polar atmosphere, with a purely
market-driven Asian side, dictated by external forces and controlled by
(foreign) Chinese millionaires, and a European side standing for tradition,
Britishness, and Vancouver as it was. The controversy over the ‘monster
houses’ associated with Chinese real estate activities in the 1990s ­ a
phrase prohibited in polite talk ­ accurately represents the huge, uniform
and soulless houses that replaced the old European-style homes.

*Yu describes present-day Vancouver as ‘a global city that is one stop
within the Pacific world, with two-thirds of male Canadians of Hong Kong
origin between the ages of 25 and 40 living and working outside Canada.’
For these Pacific trotters, Canada is a place in which alien businessmen
have equal rights to make use of its better educational opportunities,
exploit advanced medical treatment, and avoid the pollution they create
back home. Coming from a background in which corruption is endemic with
officials operating like Mafia dons, regularly embezzling funds and sending
the money to family members abroad, these migrants covet Canada’s fresher
pastures. A 2011 survey showed that more than half of China’s millionaires
are either considering emigrating or have already completed their
immigration applications, of which 37 per cent of the respondents wanted to
emigrate to Canada.

*Our immigrants generally come from cultures which, by our standards, are
not merely illiberal but vulgarly racist. The works of Frank Dikötter on
Chinese racism are worth considering. In The Discourse of Race in Modern
China (1992), he reveals how traditional Chinese notions about inferior
‘barbarians’ intermingled with Nazi forms of ‘scientific’ racism to form a
distinctively Chinese racial consciousness in the 20th century. In
Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in
China (1998), Dikötter references government publications calling for
eugenics as a vital tool in the enhancement of the ‘biological fitness’ of
the nation, and heralding the twenty-first century as an era to be
dominated by ‘biological competition’ between the ‘white race’ and the
‘yellow race’. M. Dujon Johnson’s Race and Racism in the Chinas: Chinese
Racial Attitudes towards Africans and African-Americans (2007), focuses on
a series of incidents during the 1980s and 1990s, including one in which
thousands of Chinese students set about destroying the dormitories of
African students in Nanjing, Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin, shouting ‘Kill
the black devils!’ Johnson writes, ‘[my experience] demonstrated how life
in Chinese society is racially segregated and in many aspects similar to a
system of racial apartheid.’ Recently, NBC News reported (May 16, 2012)
that ‘racial discrimination is a harsh reality within China’s ESL (English
as a second language) industry’, where having a white face is a
near-absolute requirement.

*Ethnic minorities in China are treated as second-class citizens. Tibetans
are routinely described as lazy, ignorant, and dirty. Han migration to
Tibet is destroying their heritage; Han companies dominate the main
industries, and the Chinese get the best jobs. The province of Xinjiang,
nominally an autonomous region, is likewise being flooded with Han
migrants. In 1949, Han Chinese amounted to only 5 per cent of Xinjiang’s
population; today they are up to 41 per cent. Urumqi, the capital city,
consists of 75 per cent Han Chinese, of the 2.5 million inhabitants. The
average Chinese views the natives from Xinjiang as backward and as
ungrateful for not appreciating the modern infrastructure bestowed upon
them by the Han. In the summer of 2009, this region saw violent riots by
2,000 to 3,000 thousand Uighur workers and Xinjiang separatists, in which
approximately 150 Han Chinese were killed. The Communist reprisals were
swift; the policy of Sinicization was intensified; in May 2010 Beijing
announced a new development strategy to pour $1.5 billion into the region,
encourage the migration of more Han Chinese businessmen, together with a
‘love the great motherland, build a beautiful homeland’ patriotic education
campaign that aimed to indoctrinate the Uighurs that ‘ethnic minorities are
inseparable from the Han’.

*Multiculturalism calls upon Canadians to ‘never again view Canada as a
white [or] a British country’. This command has been thoroughly implemented
in Vancouver. No one is allowed to call the city British. Anti-racist
campaigns, regularly directed at whites, are enforced in the schools and
workplaces. While the founders have been dispossessed, the Chinese migrants
have been encouraged to celebrate their ethnic identity. How about some
answers to these run of the mill questions: How can one argue that Han
Chinese migration into Canada is a wonderful act of diversity when most of
the ‘migrants’ come from places where diversity is suppressed and Han
supremacist ideas are officially sanctioned? Why are ‘Anglo’ people the
only ones disallowed from retaining their ethnic identity and ancestry? Why
is the dismemberment of Anglo heritage, history, and ancestry in Canada
viewed as progressive and its affirmation as xenophobic? Can we interpret
Han migration into Vancouver, in combination with multiculturalism and the
continuous campaigns against white racism, as a form of Sinicization? Why
are whites the only people on the planet expected to accept diversity and
massive immigration? Why is everyone assuming that pride, loyalty, and
affection for Canada’s European heritage are incompatible with the
liberal-democratic values Europeans developed?*

*Indeed why is it that, not just within Canada, but across the world, the
greatest intellectual movement in history, the European Enlightenment, that
extraordinary flash of moral vision which rescued billions from ignorance,
hunger, disease, slavery, anarchy and despair, creating the very opulence
and freedom its critics bask in, has become the latter’s target? Perhaps in
their hearts, like all colonialists, they are terrified of democracy, the
voice of the people.*


*Ricardo Duchesne is Professor of Sociology at the University of New
Brunswick, and author of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (2011). *


*[Immigration Watch Canada:
Don't Confuse Us With the Facts: Canada Walks out of UN General Assembly BEFORE Presi
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 27 September 2012 07:40
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:




Members of the U.S. delegation leave the room before Iran's President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 67th session of the United Nations
General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2012. (AP
/ Mary Altaffer)

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the high level meeting
on rule of law in the United Nations General Assembly at U.N.
headquarters Monday, Sept. 24, 2012. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)


* CTVNews.ca ( http://s.ca/ ) Staff
Published Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2012 11:16AM EDT

Canada’s delegation walked out of the United Nations General
Assembly Wednesday before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began
his speech to the world body.

Canadian diplomats also walked out of the Iranian leader’s speech to
the General Assembly last year.
Rick Roth, press secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird,
said Wednesday that Canadians “will not sit silently in our chairs
and listen to Iran’s hateful, anti-Western, anti-Semitic views.
“If anything, today's address only reinforces our decision earlier
this month to suspend diplomatic relations with Iran.”
Tensions between the two countries are high after Canada decided to
close the embassy in Iran and expel Iranian diplomats from Ottawa
earlier this month.
Also Wednesday, the Islamic Republic News Agency published a statement
from Iran’s Foreign Ministry encouraging Iranians to stay away from
Canada. The statement attacked Canada for “Islamophobia,”
“Iranophobia,” and having a “double-standard” toward human
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided not to speak at the General
Assembly’s fall session opening. Instead, Baird will give a speech
next week.
Ahmadinejad’s speech followed days of diplomatic meetings and
interviews in New York for the Iranian leader ahead of his address to
the world body.
Wednesday’s speech was likely to be his last to the General
Assembly, as he is in the midst of his final year in office.
Ahmadinejad is known for ugly denunciations of Israel and the United
States, and once again he chose to denounce what he called a
“continued threat by the uncivilized Zionists to resort to military
action against our great nation.”
He also blamed a “world Zionist conspiracy” that prevents the
media from reporting “the truth.”
But he then spent much time promoting a new world order, as envisioned
by him.
Ahmadinejad said his nation, “Has a global vision and welcomes any
effort intended to provide and promote peace, stability and
tranquility, which can be only realized through harmony, co-operation
and joint management of the world.”
He blamed materialism, selfishness and imperialism for the world’s
suffering, and called for a “an order that is founded upon trust and
kindness and brings thoughts, hearts and hands closer to each
He added: “Rulers must love people.”
But he also took shots at western nations, who he blamed for “the
present oppressive international order.”
He said the world’s “current abysmal situation” and sad history
are “due mainly to the wrong management of the world and the
self-proclaimed centres of power who have entrusted themselves to the
With files from The Canadian Press

Read more:

And why not listen to what the Iranian leader ACTUALLY said?


Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp307.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgbesgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Page 157 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog