A Kinist Perspective on Canada, Part II: The Great ‘White’ North? Since When?

There are as many ways of being Canadian as there are of being French or British, and many more than there are of being American or Irish.

~ Lister Sinclair, The Canadian Idiom

In part I of this analysis, we examined the soft tyranny made manifest in Canadian society from its inception – a necessity to thoroughly comprehend that country’s utter capitulation towards multiculturalism. In part II, we will be concentrating on the distinctively Canadian blend of that heinous doctrine – namely, that whites voluntarily paying for their own extinction is the most compassionate means known to show the non-white world how much Canada adores them. The fact that this state of affairs has prevailed so long as to become the received status quo, and hence any deviation from the norm could be construed as the dreaded ‘mere anarchy’, plays well into the hands of our homegrown globalists as well.

This particular rock began barreling towards the precipice in earnest, as in so much of the western world, in the 1960s.

**********

Try as she might, Canada could not resist the ever-expanding encroachment of American influence forever, and by the second half of the twentieth century a solid pattern had emerged: Canada always followed American political trends, only five to ten years after the fact. Thus it was that, in 1968, following the abrupt termination of JFK’s humanist and hedonistic Camelot five years previously, we got our very own Kennedy figure in the Liberal Party’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Stylistically, Trudeau was the antithesis of the fuddy-duddy demeanour that all previous prime ministers seemed to relish. He was a groovy cat, this one. He grew his receding hair long, wore buckskins in public, and displayed red roses in his expensive pinstriped suits – such ostentation! He pirouetted behind the Queen, swore in the House of Commons, and earned the gratitude of leftist libertarians everywhere with his infamous statement ‘The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation’. He would divorce his wife Margaret, a bundle of nerves who was notorious for her adulteries with various Rolling Stones, while in office, offering further proofs of his sophistication. In his youth, he was also a wastrel and dilettante who flitted back and forth between fascism and Marxism before committing himself as a socialist very much enamoured with Canada’s socialist Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation – but that factoid isn’t so Byronically romantic so it escapes the attention span of most Canadians.

In short, Trudeau was the man of the hour, groomed to lead once-white and once-Christian Canada down into the ash-heap of history – a heap that, as kinists everywhere recognize to their horror, is a morass of quicksand with seemingly no bottom. Official multicultural policies would begin in earnest under his watch, leading to thoroughly hideous results. ‘Quietly’ hideous, as compared with the mayhem perpetrated on whites to the south perhaps, but no less hideous for its low-key character.

But just as Marx only codified existing Judeo-Masonic Enlightenment strategic thoughts into The Communist Manifesto and proudly took the credit for his ‘new’ conception of revolutionary ardour, so too did Trudeau only follow the natural progression of egalitarianism that was already prevalent within Canada from its earliest inception. This was and is a progression every bit as ‘inevitable’ as one of Tolstoy’s invincible ‘waves of history’ – a literary motif that happens to jibe very well with the Hobbesian mindset of Canada. Hence, some analysis of northern diversity of the past becomes necessary.

**********

Every ethnic group has their own common shortcomings, and for the English volk one shortcoming that has proven especially tragic is their predilection towards obsequiousness to all ‘unfortunates’ except for those among their own people. Or, in the words of the sagacious Harry Paget Flashman, the typical Englishman was a ‘Holy Joe abolitionist who used to beat his breast about his black brother while drawing his dividend from the mill that was killing his white sister.’¹ Bad as this trait proved to be in all the corners of the Empire, it was far, far worse in Canada, where the founding creed of governmental paternalism held sway. Hence, any ethnicity that could abide the unforgiving climate was welcomed into a safe, secure, stifling snoozefest of an environment, but as most of them adhered to anti-Christian humanist principles at heart, this environment struck them as positively benevolent.

The first major influx of non-white ‘refugees’ took place during the Loyalist exodus. According to the official account, thousands of enslaved blacks living in the thirteen colonies, upon receiving word that any such slave who found his way into British territory and took up arms for the Crown would be granted freedom, fled north to New Brunswick, Quebec, and especially Nova Scotia, fulfilling their part of the agreement and becoming among the hardiest and most loyal of Canadian citizens. A more likely account, given black behaviour after the Civil War, is that blacks in the northern colonies, facing a jarring onrush of manumission frenzy (particularly Massachusetts’s dunder-headed 1783 decision to immediately free all her black slaves), found themselves cruelly set adrift and took to wandering – settling primarily in Nova Scotia because it was, quite literally, the end of the line, being a peninsula connected to New Brunswick via a narrow isthmus. As for their vaunted ‘hardiness’, before a year had passed half of them had fallen under the sway of an African Marcus Garvey prototype and charlatan named Thomas Peters, who persuaded them to sail with him to Sierra Leone in an attempt to set up a free black African state a la Liberia.² Hence, they could be considered Canada’s first snowbirds.

The official story goes on to say that those that remained weathered the storms of unfettered systemic racism from the king’s local representatives (I thought Canada was an egalitarian utopia?) and somehow magically managed to found a few settlements, Birchtown perhaps being the most prominent due to its being registered a national historic site. Having thus fulfilled their crucially important role as harbingers of Canadian tokenism, the black Loyalists largely disappeared from the scene, having been only recently resurrected in a Canadian rip-off of Roots entitled The Book of Negroes, a novel depicting one black woman’s journey from Manhattan to Birchtown to Sierra Leone that won every conceivable Commonwealth literary award and was recently adapted into a CBC miniseries that was watched with rapture in every upper-income bracket in Toronto and Vancouver and nowhere else.

Such an experience, of course, was a warm-up for Canada’s most infamous exercise in diversity – as the hub of the Underground Railroad. This grand venture served as a classic example of having one’s cake and eating it too, allowing pietistic northern Tories to scoff and jeer at the vulgarity of fundamental rights to property while at the same time providing them with a cheap saturation of unskilled labour ideal to put to work in Canada’s nascent industrial base for a few farthings a month. This particular myth is one that is integral to Canadian publik skool indoctrination – the young adult novel Underground to Canada has long been required reading in the lower grades, and I recollect having it inflicted upon myself in the fifth grade. It is our home-grown To Kill a Mockingbird. The mindset this book has managed to inculcate in our youngsters can best be summarized in the following description from an online class project, sounding like nothing so much as a recitation from a Komsomol cadet, in a good mood because his instructor doled out sour candies that morning in commemoration of Stalin’s birthday:

The Underground Railroad is a very important piece of Canada’s identity. It caused diversity within Canada, as well as populating it. It also caused our social perception to change, for the better, as it started the decrease of racism among caucasian and African American citizens through the start of the first industrial schools in Canada. . . . It changed our social perception on diversity forever. Racism began decreasing and soon enough, Canada became an extremely diverse country, with many different races all living together in peace. This is an extremely large portion of Canada’s identity as a whole. We are known for our diversity as a country, and we are proud of it. And we couldn’t have done it without the big push that got us going; the Underground Railroad. Overall, the Underground Railroad caused many beneficial events to occur that defined Canada and created our identity.³

Ah yes – that all-but-mystical Canadian ‘identity’: one that finds it acceptable to replace defining racial characteristics and godly commissions for His created peoples with quirks (toques, doughnuts, hockey, ‘eh?’) and a criminally naive view on life and calls the resulting cote of lemmings a ‘nation’. Little wonder that Canada Day is widely viewed as a day of celebration for immigrants rather than for the native-born.

Given this insufferable bravado, it is exceedingly ironic (Canadian history is full of ironies, it seems) that during the Civil War there was a considerable amount of Confederate sympathy in British North America. The primary reason for this stance was the exceedingly deep loathing Canadians had for Yankeedom and everything it stood for – anyone else who loathed it became an automatic ally, never mind if that ally stood for a way of life alien to Canadian ideals. Support was further bolstered by persistent rumours that Lincoln was planning on a northern invasion as part of American manifest destiny, by solidarity with the mother country’s reliance on Southern cotton for its predominant textile industry, and by raids into New Brunswick at war’s end by Irish Fenian Yanks determined to intimidate Britain into giving Ireland home rule.⁴ This sentiment, though obviously comparatively rare today, never died off entirely, to the point that today the Confederate battle flag is still a popular piece of ornamentation in rural Canada, and in Alberta in particular.

The history of blacks in Canada drops off rather precipitously after this point in time, yet the Dominion’s professional grievance industry highlights every single trivial ort they can lay hands on to belay this condition. Lessee: there’s John Ware, an ex-slave who moved to Alberta to take up a cowboy life and whom historians have laughably all but coronated the founder of western Canadian ranching. There was the No. 2 Construction Battalion, a WWI all-black engineering battalion who no doubt won the entire war on its own merits, and never mind the scores of rural white yeomanry who were fed into the meat grinder by incompetent British generals at Vimy Ridge. There was the Sir George Williams riot of 1968, in which a mob of black students at a college of Concordia University in Montreal wreaked havoc on campus in protest of a professor who failed black students regularly as a result of his ‘racism’ – which turned into the most violent university demonstration in Canadian history. The grievance industry doesn’t mention this postscript for some reason. And there was Howard McCurdy, who ran for the federal leadership of the New Democratic Party in 1989, finishing fifth and thus coming soooo close to being the first black head of a Canadian political party ever!!! That’s about it for notable examples.

If Canada has historically lacked ample opportunity to patronize a sizable black population, she has certainly made up for the defect in her dealings with her ‘indigenous’ aboriginal population. While America adopted a conciliatory and romanticized attitude towards her Indians only after the brunt of the frontier wars had been relegated to history, Canada largely adopted such a policy towards them from day one. No firebrand Andrew Jackson types up here to wreak havoc upon British serenity – if paternalism could mould a white Loyalist into a devoted chamber-pot, why could not the same be done to the red man? Isaac Brock, supreme commander of British forces in the War of 1812, utilized the Iroquois confederacy as a key component of his defences, and his characterization of them could be seen as representative of Canada as a whole:

Brock views the Indians as a means to an end. His attitude towards them changes with the context. They are ‘a much injured people’ (a slap at American Indian policy), but they are also a ‘fickle race’ (when some insist on remaining neutral). To Brock, as to most white men, Indians are Indians. . . . He makes little distinction between the tribes; Sioux and Shawnee, Wyandot and Kickapoo are all the same to him – savages, difficult to deal with, inconstant, but damned useful to have on your side.⁵

Sure, Brock obviously wouldn’t want his daughter marrying an Indian, and anthropology wasn’t his strong suit, but this hardly constitutes the policy of a Chivington, the claims of Canada’s later Indian grievance industry to the contrary. Such prim benevolence would form the basis of Canada’s Indian policy, with only the slightest hint of distaste that the Cree, Ojibwa, Huron, etc. could not express themselves as eloquently as Natty Bumppo.

Lacking any so-called ‘Trail of Tears’ or ‘Little Big Horn’ to lament over, the Canadian Indian grievance industry instead turned to residential schools as their primary proof of genocide – cultural rather than physical, in this case. Designed as boarding schools meant to prepare Indian children for absorption into British or French society, depending on which region of the country they were resident in, a later generation of Marxists would depict these schools as little better than the popular conception of Auschwitz, with former students even going so far as to label themselves ‘survivors’:

The term residential schools refers to an extensive school system set up by the Canadian government and administered by churches that had the nominal objective of educating Aboriginal children but also the more damaging and equally explicit objectives of indoctrinating them into Euro-Canadian and Christian ways of living and assimilating them into mainstream Canadian society. The residential school system operated from the 1880s into the closing decades of the 20th century. The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Aboriginal heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Aboriginal students with an inferior education, often only up to grade five, that focused on training students for manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing.⁶

Many observations can be made here. First, the grievance industry obviously does not receive federal funding to pine away about the indoctrination white children receive in Diverso-Canadian and pantheist ways of living – and that in every aspect of their lives, not merely during a few hours’ worth of schooling. Second, this statement comes from the arts faculty of the University of British Columbia – another institution that forcibly separates children from their families for extended periods of time and forbids them to acknowledge their Euro-Christian heritage and culture and replaces their own language with sociological jargon and politically correct talking points. Irony, thy name is Canada. Third, while abuses did occur in certain schools – as they have in schools away from the prying eyes of parental supervision since time immemorial – these were not caused by a desire to usurp authority over a disadvantaged race of conquered aborigines, as seems to be implied here. Rather, given that most of these schools were Catholic or Anglican denominational, blame can be imparted to the egregious theology and practices of both of these sects, as far more white children than non-white can attest. Last, it seems rather disingenuous to complain about the ‘inferior’ education Indian children received after beginning the list of objections with a gripe about ‘the Euro-Canadian and Christian’ emphasis of said education – the last time I checked, any classical education worthy of the name relied on the Scriptures primarily and the great works of Western Civilization secondarily. And doubtless teaching these children how to scrounge for berries, to hunt and dress buffalo that were no longer there, and to make misshapen clay bowls with ugly pagan patterns on the exterior would have been far less racist than teaching them some pragmatic, but ‘Euro’, agricultural, trade, and home economics skills as well.

We also cannot overlook the mixtures that resulted from the intermingling of Indian women and primarily French men – known as the Métis, the French equivalent of the Spanish ‘mestizo’. Appropriate, that, given that this group became Canada’s very own Mexicans, right down to the notoriously ill humour displayed by biracial peoples throughout the ages. The Métis proved to be considerably more aggressive than either their white or Indian counterparts and were responsible for the second of only two major rebellions in Canadian history – the uprising of Métis Louis Riel and his band of followers in 1869-70 and again in 1885. (The first rebellion, the Mackenzie-Papineau uprising, is discussed in part I.) As a leader in the newly-created province of Manitoba, consisting largely at the time of Catholic Métis, Riel resisted Ottawa’s attempts to eradicate the school’s Catholic education system and to direct the new nation’s Indian policy – largely through the auspices of the efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The second of these uprisings proved to be the more violent, though it never reached the level found in the Indian wars of the American frontier. After a series of skirmishes in what is now Saskatchewan – Duck Lake, which lasted all of half an hour, Cut Knife, and the final standoff at Batoche being the most prominent – the Métis were subjugated by the Canadian militia and Riel was captured and hanged. For many years now, western and Quebec provincial-rights cuckservatives have held up Riel as the primary example of one man’s principled stand against the tyranny of Ottawa. Myself, I feel that white western Canadians have plenty of our own grievances against Ottawa without having to shackle ourselves to an insane half-breed megalomaniac with a severe messianic complex. Riel fancied himself the second coming of Christ and attempted to form a grand North American Indian coalition that would eventually drive all white Protestants into the sea – with himself as this unholy confederacy’s Emperor, naturally.⁷

Also in keeping with the Métis role as the Mexicans of Canada, in recent years Ottawa has granted them the same aboriginal status as full-blooded Indians and the Inuit of the far north. What this boils down to is that anyone who can prove he has a redskin in the woodpile somewhere in his lineage is entitled to most of the goodies to which fullbloods are entitled under Canada’s generous Indian policy – year-round hunting rights, subsidized education, health care above and beyond what most peons receive in the public system – everything except the income tax-free exemption of fullbloods. Never fear, though. After a few court rulings in their favour, they’ll be receiving that as well.

The other primary ‘minority’ present in Canada from its inception was the Jews. Their numbers in Canada were never overwhelming, as they preferred to migrate to the warmer climate and richer pickings in the U.S.,⁸ yet there were sufficient opportunities for middlemen and usurers for a hardy few to make a very good living. As can be expected, they tended to concentrate first in Montreal, then in Toronto and Hamilton, and later in Winnipeg, as that city served as the central railway hub between central and western Canada, as well as between western Canada and the Midwestern U.S., and was quite the booming villa at the turn of the twentieth century. Prominent among Canada’s major Jewish families have been the Harts, Montreal merchants who were the first Jewish familial dynasty in British North America, tracing their time in Canada from patriarch Aaron Hart’s arrival in Quebec as part of the British forces fighting the Seven Years’ War. His son Ezekiel would serve as one of the first Jewish members of any legislature in the British Empire, and his descendant Cecil Hart would serve as a coach of the Montreal Canadiens in the 1920s and 30s, lending his name to the Hart Trophy, the NHL’s award for its most valuable player. There were the Reichmanns, former tile merchants from Morocco who headed to Toronto in the 1950s to found and run Olympia & York, which grew and grew like a malignant cancer until it became the largest property-holding company in the world. The company would go spectacularly bankrupt in the early 1990s – it served as the Lehman Brothers of its time and place – and the Reichmanns would go back to peddling flooring and paying pennies on the dollar on their remaining debt while retaining company ownership. Did I mention they are also strictly Orthodox? There were the Aspers, owners of the western Canadian media empire CanWest and lifelong shills for the Liberal Party, albeit as part of that party’s small but influential neoconservative wing. They are among the most ardent Zionists in Canada today. Those same western cucks who champion Louis Riel also tend to cheer the Aspers for setting up an ‘alternative’ to central Canadian dominance of the country’s print and television mediums.⁹ Most prominent of all has been the Bronfmans – former bootleggers in Saskatchewan during Prohibition who would become billionaires via their Seagram’s company, at one time the world’s largest distillery of vodka until (you guessed it) their bankruptcy and restructuring in 2000. Then-family head Edgar Bronfman would take the proceeds from this sale and purchase Universal Studios, while continuing to hold down his day job as president of the World Jewish Congress. His son Edgar Jr. (whose first wife, incidentally, was black) would spend many years as CEO of Warner’s music division. I guess it’s safe to say that the Bronfmans got theirs.

The driving force behind the country’s Jewish grievance industry, the Canadian Jewish Congress, has been hard-pressed to find incidents sufficient to brand Canada a ‘hotbed of anti-semitism’, but they have a few nuggets to glom onto. Principal among these was Canada’s ‘shameful’ turning away of all but a handful of the hundreds of thousands of European Jewish refugees clamouring to enter Canada prior to the outbreak of WWII. It matters little that the Great Depression hit Canada far, far harder than it did the U.S., and that for Canada to have taken in any kind of a strange mob, but especially one overtly hostile to Christianity and the existing social fabric, would have been calamitous. Particularly calamitous inasmuch as the U.S. was pursuing a similar policy at the time. And for all its trendsetting egalitarianism, the yeomanry of Canada was not so far gone at the time as to entirely dismiss the threat influxes of cheap unskilled labour would have against the native stock – witness the backlash visited upon Interior Minister Clifford Sifton over his proposal to stock the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan with Eastern European farmers rather than British. A later generation of Canadians would proudly boast about how the Dominion stood for humanitarianism above all else, and in their neurotic mania with finding historical proofs that such wasn’t the case with their ancestors, Jews with genocidal agendas of their own would stand in complete accord. They also latch onto the fact that Ezekiel Hart was originally denied his seat in the legislative assembly of Lower Canada because the oath of office required his swearing to act on the good faith of a Christian. Therefore, they hearken not the promised curse from God towards the reprobate in Leviticus 26:17: ‘And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.’ But really, did we ever expect them to?

Thus we have seen how Canada’s British roots prepared her to be a thoroughly cucked nation from her inception. What happened after British prestige began to abate post-WWII, though? Well, as it turns out, Canada’s devotion to Glorious Blighty was about as deep as a prairie mud puddle during a drought – particularly since it began to dawn on Canuck progressives that Britain was an island made up of reactionary old white guys anyway. (That, too, wouldn’t last much longer, thanks to the insane immigration policies put in place by those exact same ‘reactionary’ old white guys.) Instead, given the new world’s infatuation with internationalism, Canada turned towards that as a crutch instead and ensured the very few institutions and British cultural traditions worth preserving were jettisoned like so many empty Molson beer cans. Imagine if, upon the death of Isaac, Esau turned his undying and eternal fidelity towards the Philistines. That’s Canada.

Something amazing also transpired at this time: Canada actually began on occasion to take the lead in breaking down the old barriers! Often, her prime ministers of the ‘Con’servative party were the most zealous in these endeavours. Witness the example of John Diefenbaker, ‘Con’servative PM during the late 1950s:

At their 1961 meeting the Commonwealth prime ministers were deeply split on the issue of South Africa’s continuance in the Commonwealth. The white prime ministers, with the exception of Diefenbaker, advocated that membership of South Africa as a republic be approved without discussion; the African and Asian prime ministers, especially the representatives of Ghana and Nigeria, were determined to expel South Africa unless its apartheid racial segregation policies were changed. When the Canadian Prime Minister realized that the Commonwealth might thus be split among racial lines, [Oh, horrors! – CM] he proposed a compromise: South Africa would not be expelled, but the conference’s final communique would declare that racial equality was part of the Commonwealth – a position that South Africa clearly could not endorse without drastically altering its domestic policies. This suggestion was approved, over objections from Great Britain and New Zealand, [the last ties to England fair, severed for good – CM] and Eric Louw, the South African External Affairs Minister, withdrew his country’s Commonwealth application. “Mr. Diefenbaker’s role was of decisive importance,” remarked the London Observer. “Not only did he provide a bridge between the old white dominions and the new non-white members; he also demonstrated the importance of someone giving a lead.”¹⁰

Since Canada proved to be one of the most eager participants in the Boer War – albeit with the caveat that when Britain declared war against the Boers, the dominions had no choice as to whether to participate or not – Diefenbaker’s chutzpah must have seemed especially galling to the Afrikaners. Why South Africa was keen on joining the Commonwealth anyway with atrocities like Bloemfontein not even a century old is beyond my ken. But I digress.

Such examples of getting in front of the parade remained comparatively rare, however. Having joined the United Nations at its inception, Canada usually has been content to let that august body take the lead in determining her foreign, as well as a goodly portion of her domestic, policy. Canada has long supported and been in the forefront of participating in every meddlesome UN ‘peacekeeping’ mission known to man, under the mistaken impression that standing guard outside polling stations during Congolese elections and standing by in a blue beret quietly sobbing while Greeks and Cypriots shoot the living hell out of each other for 50+ years provides concrete assistance towards the betterment of mankind. The Canadian Parliament routinely tries to ratify every single intrusive UN convention to come along – sometimes successfully, as with the anti-patriarchal United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and sometimes unsuccessfully, as with the eco-friendly and econo-hostile Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified in 2002 but overturned by the Harper government in 2011. Lester Pearson, Liberal PM in the 1960s, was long active in UN work – winning a Nobel Peace Prize¹¹ in 1956 for overseeing negotiations that ended the Suez crisis. Since that time numerous Canadian prime ministers, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien especially, have been on the short list as candidates to become UN Secretary General – Canadians being among the few whites that can give insipid Secretaries General like U Thant, Kofi Annan, and Ban Ki-Moon a run for their money in blandness, apparently. Current PM Justin Trudeau has carried on this tradition with fervour, having signed the renewable energy replacement protocol for Kyoto, the Paris climate treaty in April, and lobbying hard for Canada to be seated on the rotating chair for the UN Security Council at the next session. Sure, it’s a largely ceremonial position whose bid costs mucho non-refundable dinero, but muh prestige and all that.

**********

All of which brings us back to the ignoble reign of Pierre Trudeau – a true revolutionary. Not for him was the gradual implementation of a new Canadian mosaic – too Fabian for his tastes. Mao was hip in the 60’s, and it was high time for Canada to take her own Great Leap Forward, with Ti-Pet¹² leading the charge. From a sleepy backwater outpost of the Empire, Canada would embrace her new role as Herbert Marcuse’s New Left Sub-Arctic Social Experiment with relish. Whiffs of this new direction could be detected during the tenure of Trudeau’s predecessor Pearson, responsible for the implementation of national socialized medical care and who, perhaps even more tellingly, oversaw the eradication of the Saint George’s Cross from the Canadian flag in favour of the art deco maple leaf abomination we are burdened with today.¹³ Likewise, in Quebec, the province’s long history of agrarianism, family fertility, and church maintenance of local parishioners gave way in a shockingly short space of time to cosmopolitanism, hedonism, and welfare statism via the ten years of the Quiet Revolution.

Trudeau, however, opened the floodgates wide open. As mentioned earlier, his trademark phrase ‘the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation’ would guide much of his agenda. He legalized abortion ‘with conditions’. He decriminalized homosexual acts. He liberalized divorce laws. He prohibited those of ‘unsound mind’ from owning firearms – that condition presumably applying to those who despised his stances on abortion, homosexuality, and divorce. Two diktats of Trudeau’s, however, would be associated with him above all the others: his policy of ‘official bilingualism’, codifying French and English as Canada’s official languages, and his eradication of all considerations of race in immigration quotas, putting in place instead a ‘points’ system to measure immigrant desirability.

The results of official bilingualism went far, far beyond mandating French instruction manuals for all appliances sold in English Canada that were immediately thrown into the trash upon purchase, or the charming spectacle of federal politicians selling the birthright of the yeomanry down the river in both French and English simultaneously during House of Commons speechifying. Rather, it changed the Canadian dynamic from that of a dominant British people ruling a subjugated French people by right of the law of conquest to that of two ‘distinct but equal’ peoples ruling the dominion simultaneously. In short, it sanctioned Canada as an official ‘bicultural’ state – the first step down the road to official multiculturalism. Historically, of course, these societies have always functioned superbly together. Just look at the amalgamations of Western Rome and Eastern Byzantium, Austria and Hungary, Saxon-Norman England with Celtic Scotland, Brit with Boer – or, for that matter, industrialized Radical Republican North with agrarian Jeffersonian Democrat South. Canada’s Anglo-Franco house divided has proven no different, as the resilience of Quebec’s separatist Parti Québécois over the course of a generation has shown. (Incidentally, the party was formed in 1968, the year of Trudeau’s election.) Rather than to let the French go their own way and wish them godspeed, Anglo Canada has preferred to flatter and bribe them to remain an integral part of the soviet union, offering Quebec the lion’s share of lucrative governmental contracts – Brian Mulroney’s awarding a CF-18 maintenance contract to Quebec-based Bombardier rather than to a Winnipeg company that offered a cheaper bid directly led to the formation of the western-based but still thoroughly cuckservative Reform Party of Canada – giving them a grossly disproportionate number of seats in the dysfunctional Canadian Senate (though to be fair, population-rich Ontario also enjoys the same privilege), and following an unwritten rule that, with very, very few exceptions, all prime ministers of Canada must hail from Quebec. Since Trudeau’s time, the only exceptions to this rule have been the exceedingly short tenures of Joe Clark, John Turner, and Kim Campbell, and the lengthier tenure of Stephen Harper (who represented a Calgary riding in the House of Commons, though he too was born in Quebec).

And, hey – since the two nations/deux nations architecture has worked so well, why can’t we make it three nations/trois nations? Yes, Canada’s Indians have long yearned to get in on this ‘founding fathers’ bit, and both Anglo and Franco Canada have welcomed them into the fold with nary a peep of protest. Of course, it is no longer tolerable to refer to them as ‘Indians’, or ‘Native-Canadians’, or even ‘aboriginals’ – no, the proper terminology now is to call them ‘First Nations‘ people, and if you guessed the hierarchical ramifications of that name goes completely over the head of egalitarian white Canada, give yourself a cookie. This name has received legal status in Canada, meaning that any future discussions over constitutional issues (a perpetual Canadian bane since the document was dumped on our shores for good in 1982) will require their presence at the table as a full participant. Of course, Canadian Indians have remained remarkably reticent about their new-found aristocracy. They have merely engaged in such minor flexing of muscle as laying claim to the entirety of the province of British Columbia, citing their ironclad ‘oral traditions’ as the contract that makes this clear. This claim has all but been ceded to them by default since the Supreme Court has refused to clarify what ‘aboriginal title’ means, declaring that the onus of Parliament.¹⁴ Parliament, of course, refuses to touch such a ‘hot potato’ and has instead let the issue languish. Better to accept defeat graciously rather than to be in any manner ‘controversial’. Welcome to Canada. (Incidentally, this same legislative apathy to a summons from the Supreme Court to ‘do something’ is also why Canada is also the only country in the Western world to have no restrictions on abortion, the Court having struck down the existing laws as unconstitutional in 1988 and Parliament shrugging its shoulders and saying ‘Meh, whatevs.’) This suicidal frame of mind is also prominently on display within the United Church of Canada. This ‘church’ is the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, an amalgamation of various ‘liberal’ Presbyterian churches with the entirety of Canada’s Methodist and Congregationalist denominations (and if that isn’t a Calvinist/Arminian marriage made in hell, I don’t know what is.) Seeking to do the ‘right’ thing, the church offered a formal apology for the deprivations Indians received through the residential schools operating under its banner. Being willfully ignorant of legal realities, as well as everything else pertaining to the temporal and the spiritual, they little realized that such an apology also construes an admission of liability, and they were ‘shocked’ and ‘saddened’ by the noble-hearted First Nations’ natural response to litigate them into near-bankruptcy. In true titmouse form, the remains of this ‘church’ have lauded these as the first steps towards reconciliation. Slouch on towards Bethlehem, Christian warriors!

Of Trudeau’s many, many cancerous legacies, though, his overhauling of Canada’s immigration system has to rank among the most malignant, by far. In the past, for all her forced liberalism and ‘fairer-than-thou’ condescension, Canada did recognize that it might not be in her best interest to flood the country with functionally illiterate bad-tempered aliens willing to endure a few cold temperatures because Nigerian social services sucked. All of this changed with Trudeau’s overhaul of Canada’s Immigration Act in the late 1970s, however. Gone was any lingering pretension that a homogeneous racial population was at all desirable. Instead, considerations of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. were prohibited from being considered in any and every immigration case. In its place was put a ‘points system’ of ranked skill sets in which Canada was interested, with potential immigrants meeting the bare minimum of said sets being granted a path to a citizenship that was almost never turned down. Oh, and I almost forgot – as a ‘humanitarian’ gesture, these future citizens were also permitted to bring an unlimited number of family members with them, no matter how distantly related they might be, nor how little of these vaunted ‘skills’ they themselves possessed. Wouldn’t want to be accused of culturally dispossessing an entire village with an unpronounceable name in the Ganges delta, after all. Of course, the ‘skill sets’ in demand became considerably more vague as the years progressed and this, combined with a concomitant determination on Canada’s part to take in every real or wannabe refugee who fled their homeland as soon as a few mobs appeared on the streets with banners, ensured that the dregs of the world knew full well who that world’s biggest patsy was.

And, of course, if the old miniseries ‘V’ taught me anything, it’s that once the invaders are in place the entire infrastructure must be tailored to meet their needs. Thus the logical final step was initiated: a move towards full-fledged multiculturalism. Trudeau hedged his bets on this score as well: even before the revisions to the Immigration Act, he had announced in 1971 that Canada was officially pursuing a policy of multiculturalism – informally (but effectively) for years until the Progressive ‘Con’servative government of Brian Mulroney codified it into law in 1988. The soothing, gentle, ‘free to be you and me’ language of the multiculti bill has proven to be very much a velvet glove encasing an iron fist. Former PM Jean Chretien would even hint at this metaphor when he declared in a 2000 speech:

Canada has become a post-national, multicultural society. It contains the glove within its borders, and Canadians have learned that their two international languages and their diversity are a comparative advantage and a source of continuing creativity and innovation. Canadians are, by virtue of history and necessity, open to the world.

Woe betide the dissenter who fails to celebrate such diversity! They will be prosecuted (persecuted?) to the fullest extent of the law. The most infamous example of this is, of course, Ernst Zündel, deported to Germany to face trial for the nebulous crime of ‘Holocaust denial’ when the Supreme Court of Canada failed to find just cause to outright ban the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die?, distributed in Canada by Zündel’s publishing house. His eventual sentencing to five years in a German prison would bring a gleeful response from the Canadian Jewish Congress. In the wake of this international brouhaha, Canada proceeded to pass a series of anti-hate laws deliberately murky in their wording, yet leaving little doubt that their intent is to make Holocaust revisionism, or any other non-politically correct critiques of perceived ‘minorities’, to be felonies. Witness the example of Jim Keegstra, fired from his rural Alberta teaching job, barred from the profession for life, and fined an exorbitant $5000 for daring to question official Holocaust statistics in his classroom. Witness Malcolm Ross,¹⁵ another teacher who faced an identical situation to Keegstra’s in New Brunswick. Keegstra and Ross both, incidentally, were devout Christians. Witness even the example of David Ahenakew, former head of the Assembly of First Nations, who was stripped of his Order of Canada after referring to WWII as a Jewish conflict and its perpetrators as a ‘disease’. Curiously enough, Ahenakew was the only one of these three who had his hate conviction overturned by a higher court. Perhaps membership in the highest of Canada’s three founding peoples has many privileges? The attorney for all four of these men, as well as for scores of similar dissidents towards the Canadian way, was Doug Christie, one of the precious few modern individuals courageous enough to consistently stand against the Maple Leaf Multiculti Monolith. (He was also active in western Canadian secessionist movements all his life, being the founder and head of the Western Canada Concept, which elected a member to the provincial legislature of Alberta in 1982.) I can think of no finer tribute to his character than this hysterically petulant obituary on him, which was later re-posted on Huffington Post Canada.

That’s about all she wrote in regards to meaningful resistance to Canadian cultural Marxism, though. Forget the country’s ‘rite’ wing pundit class – their ideas of profundity are to parrot whatever the issue du jour among American neocons happens to be, in a fashion that suggests they merely scanned the headlines of the newest Weekly Standard and tried (and failed) to add an extra dollop of zeal to proclaim their own independence of thought. For the rest, picture just about any pluralistic insanity and the chances are excellent you’ll find it up here. Generations of schoolkids (myself included) indoctrinated into the only two events of Canadian history that mattered: the white slaughter of the indigenous Beothuk of Newfoundland and the white internment of Japanese-Canadians in a camp outside of Lethbridge, Alberta, during WWII? Check. A Trinidadian-born female Minister of Multiculturalism who claimed that the residents of Prince George, British Columbia routinely burned crosses on their front lawn? Check. Hockey broadcasts in Punjabi? Check. The first Muslim mayor of a major North American city (Calgary, in the heart of Canada’s ‘redneck’ country, yet!) who also happens to be a sodomite and lives at home with his parents still? Check. A serious movement to neuter Canada’s already banal national anthem by rewriting it with gender-neutral lyrics? Check. Is there no end to the wormhole?

Which brings us to our current despot, Justin Trudeau – son of the illustrious Pierre and, hence, a member of the Dominion of Canada’s first-ever ruling dynasty. Praying with fervour we don’t have any Jeb or George P. Bushes lingering behind his wife’s petticoats. JT is the embodiment of the Canadian Journey, and in keeping with the nation’s political trends, he is our very own Obama, admittedly of lighter hue. A tattooed martinet who has held such earthy occupations as high school drama instructor and snowboard instructor, he is admirably qualified to instruct white Canadians as to how things are gonna go down. It’s not bad enough that, within his first year in office, he has already pledged to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees, nor that he has passed Canada’s first comprehensive assisted suicide bill, nor that he wants to play George Soros by wasting millions on a futile bid for a UN Security Council seat. No, above all else, he is playing the old game of waffling while the demonic Supreme Court strikes down yet another law…this time regarding bestiality. In a 9-1 decision, the court ruled that sexual acts with animals that do not involve ‘penetration’ are non-exploitive and hence legal. Doubtless, the ‘penetration’ caveat was added so that Greenpeace wouldn’t complain and Canada could keep intact her perfect record of not offending any global organization ever. In time-honoured parliamentary tradition, you can safely assume that Trudeau will refuse to touch this ‘hot potato’ issue as well. Perhaps that has something to do with the proclivities of the soon-to-be-powerful Syrian voting bloc….

**********

A proper summation of just what it means to be a Canadian can perhaps be gleaned from a Canadian book I recently finished reading – Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, by Barrie Zwicker. An interesting read in many ways, particularly since one wouldn’t expect to find anything questioning establishment wisdom regarding 9/11 north of the border. This book does so, making a convincing case for it being an ‘inside job’, including several curious details not generally circulated among the 9/11 truth community. Tactically, it does an excellent job.

Strategically, though – in the sense of studying the motivation behind the attack – it falls short. Way short. It assigns the primary blame for the attacks on George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a handful of other rich white Republican ‘racists’ who concocted the entire scheme primarily to make a lot of money and to deprive ‘the poor’ of their due. If Bernie Sanders was a truther, this is the book he would write.

Why this shockingly limited scope? It turns out the primary reason is that Zwicker is your prototypical Canadian – ultra-leftist, a social justice warrior, and a self-described ‘Christian atheist’. In his overemphasis on money he also brands himself a materialist in the Marxist sense, though he would no doubt be horrified to be classed as such. His New Age-y summary of the problems facing American society and the means to ‘fix’ those ills are particularly telling in their laughable sincerity:

By any sober analysis America has become rightwing and nationalist. . . . Contrary to incessant rhetoric about democracy, the U.S power structure is considerably hierarchical. Money power comprises the main rungs of the hierarchy. According to the New York Times the Republicans were confident of raising at least $170 million for George W. Bush’s election campaign, redefining what the Times called “standards” for fund-raising. . . . That the U.S establishment is opposed to liberalism – no matter how you define liberalism – can hardly be debated. . . . [and not classical liberalism, according to Zwicker’s thesis – CM]

Anti-communism, anti-Marxism, anti-socialism are visceral. The core opposition to the regime is from the strong conscious left. A fundamentalist faith in capitalism, specifically the systematized form of greed known as monopoly capitalism. Corporations are at the centre of the power structure.¹⁶

So much for reasoned, well-thought-out analysis of the problem. And the solution?

In America there’s a community of peace and environmental and justice activists, that includes theists, atheists, artists, workers, intellectuals, and plain folk, old and young. This community is unidentified, unrecognized and therefore disenfranchised by the mainstream media. It may number 30 million, equal to the population of Canada. [Hey!!! – CM] It appears to be the responsibility imposed by history on this community to recognize its own existence, importance, and power and to exercise that power non-violently before it’s too late, to save their country and the world from full-fledged fascism.

Many Americans have told me they’re aware of the possibility of the suspension of the U.S. Constitution (there would be a startling, deceptive pretext of course) and other goose steps toward a fuhrership. Should those steps be taken, it could be too late to prevent awful and perhaps permanent catastrophe.

The Fourth Reich and its outposts, including the ones within each of us, is perhaps humanity’s last major challenge. Understanding and sufficiently dismantling it would probably lead to a period of chaos. [Except in Canada. When you’re smugly complaisant, it’s easy to talk about the loosing of mere anarchy somewhere else. – CM] But from that could emerge another world, still imperfect, but one less in imminent danger of Armageddon. In it we might finally face a reasonable future.¹⁷

I am not sure if Canada still appoints a parliamentary chaplain. If so, perhaps Zwicker ought to consider sending the government his resume.

 

Tweet