Browsing through my digital archives the past month to organize a new computer system, I happened across an Immigration Paper submitted from 1999.
Some 21 years after the 1999 Canadian Parliamentary ‘Dialogue’ on future directions for Canadian Immigration Policy, its helpful, and telling, to look back on the original concerns discussed, and ignored, by the political elites in Ottawa.
Two ‘Dialogues’ later (1999 & 2015), the issues and predictions remain as correct as ever…..
The original submission:
It has come to my attention that the federal government is currently holding public consultations until March 1999 on ‘future directions for Canadian immigration policy’ with reference to the recent white paper ‘Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century’. In this regard, I want to ensure that, at minimum, the following paper will be included and addressed during the on-going public consultations of the federally appointed Advisory Group on Immigration. I also want to receive further information on how to participate in these consultations, including the intended scope of the proceedings and their time frame.
A Real Threat to National Unity:
Canadian Immigration Policy
Causes and Consequences of the Present Agenda,
and the Need for Real Change
Submission to the 1999
Canadian Immigration Legislative Review
March 15, 1999
Table of Contents:
Public Attitudes Towards Immigration: Leaving Canadians to Fend for Themselves….
The Historical Implications for Canada’s Immigration Policy
3. Why Race Matters For Canadian Immigration Policy
Population, Poverty and Political Expansion: The Future
The Consequences of Reckless Social Policy So Far
Immigration Policy: Solutions In The Interests of Canada
Politics, Propaganda and Canadian Sovereignty: The Impact of Immigration Policy
Most people would agree that every ethnic and national group has the right to self-preservation and self-determination. However, having lost the sense of group identity and the right to self-interest, whites have lost the psychological requirements for long-term group survival, and self-determination. The most obvious example of this is the unwillingness of whites to speak out against massive, non-white immigration. Everyone knows that Canada will be transformed by waves of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans, and in ways that most Canadians do not care for. Yet whites fear to speak against this transformation for fear of being called ‘racists’. But whose interests are promoted by a multi-racial immigration policy? What are the causes of Canada’s foolish immigration policy and what will the consequences be if Canadians continue to ignore its effects? With ethnic minorities dominating the immigration agenda, and pushing for greater immigration, Canadians are being displaced by the irresponsibility of their own government. The real issues behind immigration and its consequences are rarely discussed, yet the consequences of this policy are demonstrably harmful to Canada. Those forcing this agenda on Canada remain secretive and unresponsive to the Canadian majority: their highly questionable motives be examined in the light of Canadian interests, and the people responsible for these policies held directly accountable. Current Canadian immigration policy does not discriminate between countries and citizen ethnicity when selecting immigrants, a policy which is bad for Canada. Here’s why.
Many of Canada’s best jobs are going to immigrants who have been trained and supported in place of our own citizens. The government says it wants industry to produce high-paying high-productivity jobs for Canada. Why then, does the government turn around and open the door to immigrants to fill those same jobs?! Canadians are entitled first and foremost to every benefit Canada has to offer. Canadians could have had those jobs if immigration had been restricted. Those who argue that we need immigrants to fill the demand for skilled workers have side-stepped the real issue, namely, the failure of the Canadian educational system to produce the workers needed for the economy, and the failure of Canadian business to invest in the people of Canada.
Bringing in skilled immigrants puts downward pressure on wages and increases skilled unemployment, thereby forcing our own citizens to compete with immigrants who have no claim to Canada’s wealth. Not only do immigrants displace Canadians in the workplace, they displace Canadians in their own universities. Canada is training foreigners to displace her own people in the workplace. Qualified citizens are turned away from programs in the name of affirmative action (be it for ethnic or linguistic minorities), to make room for immigrants. But past generations of Canadians built these institutions for their children, not for others to come in and take. Think about this. It is a matter of putting our own people, Canadians, first. Canada has always been a country of northern European heritage. This is reality, not racism. Every other country puts its own people first, its time we started acting like a nation! Indeed most Canadians feel this way, it is politicians who are selling out this country.
Immigrants contribute nothing to the economy that can’t be done by Canadians, if people believe in their country. It is argued that immigrants create jobs that other Canadians can’t or won’t do. Do you think without immigration we would lack gas stations, restaurants, and video stores? Immigration can not be justified on the grounds that it brings services that would otherwise not exist. Canadians can do anything needed by our economy; we always have. Who is it that disparages Canadian ingenuity? Suggestions that Canadians won’t do these jobs reveals a disturbingly common pattern among many pro-immigration critics: unabashed disdain for the Canadian public.
Economists argue that population growth provides lower wages, labour mobility, short-term educational savings through importation of skills, and economies of scale. But economists also admit the negative factors from growth are significant, including “adverse effects on the balance of payments, diseconomies of scale in cities that have passed their optimum size, diversion of resources to social infrastructure, pressure towards capital widening at the expense of capital deepening, and diminished autonomy and waste of human resources in the neglect of local training. …. no professional economist has concluded that the positive effects are strong enough to produce an increase in per capita GDP.”
(‘Ideology and Immigration’, K. Betts) A growing population requires increasing capital expenditure on social infrastructure, transferring capital investment away from new business and delaying productivity growth. For a country dependent on the export of natural resources, population growth reduces the surplus of available resources for export, thereby reducing exports.
The uncosted factors of population growth also adversely affect material well-being and quality of life; their effects are visible in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver. “Growth can reduce access to uncrowded parks and beaches and to low density housing. It can reduce the spacing between neighbours that minimizes friction over stereos, dogs and incinerators. It can increase traffic volumes, lengthen the frustrations of getting to work or to the shops, and make a family trip to the cinema a major expedition. It can eliminate safe places for children to play outdoors and increase the need to supervise them for a longer period of their lives. …Current policy is to accommodate growth not by building new cities but by intensifying the use of existing cities. Populations are to be consolidated and low density living yield to high.”(K. Betts) Few people would voluntarily choose to create such living conditions; it is foolish to create them through a deliberate act of government policy.
The consequences of a multiracial society must be seriously considered: “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinion and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country…. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of governments, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state.” (John Stuart Mill) We are now seeing this fragmentation. Thanks to the shallowness of government thinking, Canadians are led to believe that social programs, subsidized education, multiculturalism, and exaggerated flag waving are all being Canadian benefits you TAKE from Canada, not what made Canada a prosperous and united country. If multicultural immigration continues, it will be all we have in common.
The government has neglected the very health of Canadians when deciding immigration policy. Tuberculosis outbreaks in Toronto and Vancouver schools? Meningitis, hepatitis and AIDS cases becoming a serious health risk to Canadians? One may wonder what is going on, but the disturbing issue is why the major cause of these outbreaks is completely censored by government and media alike. Lowered restrictions and poor enforcement on immigrants suffering from a variety of infectious diseases and health problems have exposed the Canadian public to serious risk and higher health costs. The health of the Canadian public is being completely ignored to facilitate third world immigrants. Issues of health and the spread of disease are rarely linked to immigration, but they are very real.
Immigration authorities admit that over 60,000 immigrants from Asia admitted to Canada tested positive for tuberculosis in 1997. Approximately 75% of Chinese people carry hepatitis B (South China Morning Post, January 15, 1998), and 40% of immigrants from Asia test positive for parasitic infections! The government has ignored the very health of Canadians when deciding immigration policy. With over 80% of the new immigrants in 1991 coming from Asia, Hong Kong, Africa, Mexico and Central America (Statistics Canada), Employment and Immigration Canada currently requires all immigration applicants to have a complete medical examination prior to entry. However, since 1981 routine screening for intestinal parasites has not been part of the required medical examination for new immigrants and refugees. In the past decade, it has been demonstrated that the frequency of infection with intestinal parasites in these populations range from 29% to as high as 61% in certain subgroups. Studies on the effectiveness of screening programs for intestinal parasites in Southeast Asian refugees found that 58% tested positive, while helminths and the pathogenic protozoa were found in 29.3% of refugee claimants in Montreal after screening of a single stool specimen. Country of origin was the most important predictor of infection. The Canadian government knows these facts.
This high prevalence within certain well-defined immigrant populations of asymptomatic parasitic infections that may be transmitted within households, day-care centres, specialized institutions or schools poses an egregious risk to the Canadian public. The potential for reinfection or new infection, the long asymptomatic survival times of parasitic infections, and the potential increase in health service costs due to importation of parasitic infections makes screening of high-risk individuals essential. Ignoring the effects unscreened immigrants are having on the spread of disease and rising health care costs is grossly irresponsible to the Canadian public. Where is the accountability from Lucienne Robillard and Allan Rock, as Ministers of Immigration and Health respectively? This is a shocking example of irresponsible citizenship in Canada.
While poverty in major Canadian cities continues to rise, no one dares acknowledge the connection with immigration. The Canadian taxpayer has the burden of schools where 50% of the students do not speak English. Taxpayer costs for ESL training total over $270 million annually. Why has the government not insisted that all immigrants to Canada demonstrate full competence
in English, and thereby place the responsibility for assimilation on immigrants and not the public? Immigration policy must serve the needs of Canadians, not immigrants. Formerly immigrants were expected to assimilate into our culture, but now that they are so numerous and different from past immigrant streams, Canadians in many areas are being forced to accommodate foreign cultures. Shouldn’t immigrants, who benefit enormously by being allowed to partake in the wealth of Canada (for otherwise they could choose not to come) be expected to bear the full cost of assimilation? It is not coincidental that demands for multiculturalism appeared with immigration from non-European countries to an extent not seen during eastern European migration. Greater diversity will result in greater conflict, and a weaker nation.
We have allowed those who despise Canadian history and culture to set the terms of debate. Teachers hesitate to defend the conquering of North America, the victory on the Plains of Abraham, and the settling of Canada by the British. But Canada was not an accident. We avoid conceding the gratitude and admiration we owe the builders of Canada. Questioning the legacy of white Anglo-Saxon culture is taken as evidence of enlightened conscience and high moral virtue; it is actually hypocritical and self-inflating. It ignores the difficult road to freedom and prosperity that Europe and later Canada took, and pretends that while the achievements of the past are just the successes of today, the sins of the past reside exclusively with the dead. It ignores the present connection between culture and poverty and in the name of ‘love’ would thereby doom much of the third world to poverty in the name of ‘respecting’ cultural differences.
In school it is not British history and Canadian cultural values that are taught and promoted, it’s the wonders of India and Africa, along with many serious distortions about the differences between our cultures and history. Schools announce that the word ‘Christmas’ can no longer be used, because ‘It might offend Moslems or Hindus.’ This is nothing short of scandalous: asking Canadians to concede priority over their own cultural and religious traditions demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for the heritage that made Canada a great nation.
The principle of multiculturalism is a lie: only by avoiding objective standards of value can it be claimed that all cultures are equal. South America is no less well endowed with natural resources than Canada and the United States; yet their citizens are denied basic freedoms, and live in abject poverty. Multiculturalism did not make Canada a great country. Yet students are taught that all cultures are equal. Well, not if Canada is to continue. “It’s not our place to say what language to speak, or what flag to wave; it isn’t for us to say what holidays should be officially recognized”. This is tantamount to a denial of Canadian sovereignty: if it is not for Canadians to decide, there can be no Canada. Canada is more than a land mass. Ironically, the government is very quick to imply that the Christian, English speaking culture of Canada must not be given its rightful recognition as the basis of Canadian society. Yet this is the unavoidable consequence of multiculturalism and unrestrictive immigration. Had immigration from non-European countries never occurred, there would be no demands for Canadians to radically compromise their way of life. Multiculturalism is not benign: it precludes the preservation of Canadian society and culture as currently known.
Immigrant groups have been largely responsible for the push for pay equity, which is not equality before the law, but demands for special considerations because of an erroneous perception that endemic racism is unique to all white, western societies. From the thinly veiled derision many immigrant rights’ groups express for Canadian society, often during government sponsored multicultural events, the only reason many continue to stay is clear: economic opportunity.
Racism exists across the world: the more multicultural the society, the greater the ethnic conflict. Canada fought two world wars against racism and totalitarianism; today war and ethnic conflict are rampant across the third world. We owe no apologize for our prosperity, and no apology for refusing to compromise our culture.
Consider Robert J. Barro, professor of economics at Harvard University:
“Although it may be an unpleasant commentary on human nature, a central driving force in defining a state is the desire to have a reasonably homogeneous population within its borders. It is clear from observing the places where secessionist movements tend to occur, such as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union or Spain and Canada, that ethnic identity is a central driving force problems are easier to pinpoint than triumphs….If diversity is great — measured say by the inequality of potential earnings — then there is a strong incentive for people to spend their energies in efforts to redistribute income rather than to produce goods. In particular, a greater dispersion of constituent characteristics leads to the creation of interest groups that spend their time lobbying the central government to redistribute resources in their favour.” These are characteristic words typifying the multicultural and special interests clamouring for power and recognition with the wealth of ordinary Canadians. The recent Toronto mayoral election was largely a contest between the middle class suburbs, wanting lower taxes and less government interference, and the downtown immigrant population voting for redistributive policies to enhance their economic and social power. Further examples include the difficulties encountered with Quebec Nationalists and their demands for special status for Francophones, in the form of official bilingualism and minority language promotion. Chartered Accountant Jim Allan estimates the costs of official bilingualism at over $25 billion annually. Why is the government ignoring the harsher facts of human nature? For short term economic and political gain.
We are being told to forget our heritage because many immigrants do not share our values. It’s time to speak honestly: this is our nation, this is our land. The vast majority of people all over the world, are opposed to the transformation of their societies–ethnically, culturally or racially, by massive immigration. All nations have the right to preserve and defend their cultures, and to exclude others to whatever extent deemed necessary. All immigrant-sending countries actively defend their borders. Japan is a very successful country: it deliberately has no significant immigration; India has had an official ‘Brown India’ policy for over 75 years. China, Indonesian and all African countries have similar policies. It is sometimes actually suggested that all our borders be abolished, that after all immigrants make the economy grow by creating greater demand for consumer products. But are third world nations looking for immigrants? In fact, highly skilled immigrants actually deplete their home countries of its most valuable resource, an educated middle class. The only reason for focusing on economic issues it to deny our nationhood and imply that Canada is nothing more than a marketplace.
For over 400 years Canadians of northern European descent–the ethnic core of this country, have given this country its identity, language and culture. We will fast become a minority in our own country if government policy continues. This is national suicide. We have the right and obligation to pass on our culture, our land–our heritage–intact to our descendants. The peoples of Asia have the biggest continent in the world. Shall we allow them to overpopulate their own countries and then colonize ours? Why can’t Canadians have this country exclusively? The Hispanics have South America, Central America, and Mexico which they do not share with anyone. The answer is that there is no reason why Canadians should not occupy and control their own country, except that others want to take it from them. That is not acceptable. Who has suggested that Asians commit cultural suicide and allow in 30 million Europeans? Would this not provide for greater ‘cultural diversity’? No one would argue that China allow in 30 million Indians, or vice versa. That is because we recognize that the Chinese are a people, with a right to China. When another government questions this, it is considered an act of war. Canadians are also a people, with a right to protect the ethnic identity of Canada. We are under no obligation to the peoples of the world to allow them to migrate here en masse and recreate Canadian society in their image. The right of self-determination includes the right of Canadians to determine their own future. Those who argue that Canada has no right to stop immigration are inconsistent and hypocritical: while promoting the rights of people around the world to determine their future, they would deny that same right to Canadians.
The majority of people all over the world oppose the racial transformation of their societies, and with good reason. G. Elmer of Indiana University explains why: “As seen in country after country, ethnic group members regularly identify with their own and view other groups at best with relative indifference and at worst with murderous hostility. The similarities of patterns found in nations widely separated in time, space and cultural level suggest that they are related to basic aspects of human nature and group processes.” Canada and other western nations must face the implications multiracial immigration has for national unity and security. As Jared Taylor points out, immigration has serious and compromising consequences only because the West is prosperous: “It is because of their ability to build agreeable societies that whites face a problem no other races face: They must exclude others or be swamped. …it is only whites who will be swept away if they do nothing. Only white nations must guard against the relentless, transforming influx of aliens who are not only different from us but who increasingly, despise us and everything we stand for.”
In 1998, Canada will again increase its immigration quota to over 250,000, most of whom will come from Africa, Asia and India. What is the Canadian public told to do? To prepare to accommodate massive cultural and political changes, and larger demands on our social programs to support immigrants who had nothing to do with the building of Canada. We are being colonized by an act of government policy. Canada is being radically and deliberately changed for no compelling reason, and our leaders are too cowardly to address the issue! It is time to consider the pros and cons of the issue without one side shouting “racist” at the every opportunity to intimidate opponents into silence.
To suggest that Canada is not meant for the descendants of the Europeans who built this country is a squandering of our heritage and responsibility for the future. The European settlers who built this country sacrificed an enormous amount to the future. Disease, poverty, and cold made life extremely difficult. Settlers were attacked by Indians and often died of malnutrition.
Yet these people developed the schools, hospitals, public institutions and industrial workforce that have made Canada a prosperous society. Why has this been forgotten? The settlers did not intend that foreign peoples, from Asia and Africa, should inherit the wealth and prosperity they built and invested with their lives. The settlers did not intend that foreign peoples, from Asia and Africa, should inherit the wealth and prosperity they built and invested with their lives. In contrast with earlier immigrants, today’s immigration is from poorer to richer countries, and from underdeveloped to established societies.
Canadians have consistently said they do not want the ethnic composition of the country changed, yet unprecedented numbers of non-traditional immigrants are being deliberately chosen for settlement in Canada. Eighty-five percent of Canadians have said they do not want immigration to change the ethnic makeup of Canada in any way. Just 25 years ago the ethnic composition of Canada was 95% European. Why then have immigration offices in Europe been closed, despite a continued interest from citizens in Europe to immigrate to Canada? Why then have immigration offices across Europe been closed, despite a continued interest from citizens in Europe to immigrate to Canada? During the last decade some 30,000 people emigrated each year from Britain to Australia. During this period the Canadian Embassy in London received over 2000 applications a month from British citizens, most of which were summarily rejected. Without prearranged employment in Canada, British and most other European citizens are summarily rejected by immigration authorities. Meanwhile thousands of third-world immigrants arrive in Canada without employment, most of whom then look to charities and welfare for support. The Canadian government is deliberately rejecting immigration from Europe to appease minority demands. Such an immigration policy will not unify the country, but Balkanise it. When the Canadian government consistently goes against the wishes of its citizens, it is time to question the legitimacy of the government.
Canada does not need more immigrants. Arguments that the Canadian population is declining are based on irresponsible and politically motivated distortions of demographic trends, as University of Toronto demographer David Foot explains: “….confusion results from the frequent misunderstanding of the two key demographic terms: fertility rate and birth rate. The fertility rate is the average number of children born to women over their life times. The birth rate is the total number of births divided by the population. It’s important to grasp the distinction. For example, many people know that Canada’s fertility rate, which for most of the last decade has been 1.7 babies per woman, is below the 2.1 babies per woman needed to replace the population. Knowing that the fertility rate is less than replacement, many people assume the Canadian population is in danger of precipitous decline. That’s why low fertility is often offered as a rationale for maintaining high immigration levels. But despite below replacement fertility, the Canadian population would be increasing even without any immigration because Canada has one of the highest birth rates among industrialized countries”. Even with the current birth rate, he adds, “our population …. would continue to grow until 2026 and then decline almost imperceptibly until it stabilized at 18 million eight centuries in the future. As for the prospect of Canada arriving at a stable population in the distant future, that is not cause for alarm. Many European countries already have stable populations, and Europe remains prosperous. An absence of population growth results in increased productivity, less unemployment, and reduced pressure on both urban and rural environments”. Stabilizing population patterns are a natural result of the high standard of living and health the Canadian population enjoys. Pursuing immigration only serves to distort the demographic distribution in Canada and disrupt social harmony.
Why then does the government pursue high levels of immigration to accelerate population growth? Canada’s high standard of living is based on the high per capita income Canadians generate from an industrial workforce combined with investment in capital intensive technology. This results in higher productivity per capita and a high standard of living. This wealth will not be enhanced by population growth. Canada’s GDP is comparable to China’s GDP: the problem for China is their population of 1.2 billion people. Responsible population growth is being compromised by the Canadian government’s drive to increase Canada’s population.
Particularly disturbing are the comments of Kingsley Davis on population control. Specifically, he pointed out in 1967 that if governments choose to reduce population growth without giving the appearance of specifically doing so, the most effective means to achieve it would be to: “Squeeze consumers through taxation and inflation; make housing very scarce by limiting construction; force wives and mothers to work outside the home to offset the inadequacy of male wages….; encourage migration to the city by paying low wages in the country and providing few rural jobs; increase congestion in cities by starving the transit system; increase personal insecurity by encouraging conditions that produce unemployment”. The implication between such a prediction and the current situation is obvious–has the government limited population growth in Canada to better ‘justify’ or make room for further immigration? Why then has the Canadian Government deliberately implemented a large scale multi-racial immigration program despite the continuous objections of Canadians for over 20 years? One major reason is the traitorous betrayal of Canada by the Liberal Party, which has deliberately pushed for ethnic immigration to as a tool for political power. This strategy had always worked in Quebec, why not try Balkanising Canada along other lines? Even in 1975 the Liberal Party was expressing hopes that the growing recruitment of ethnic blocks in over 25 ridings would give the edge over political rivals. Why else would the Liberal government in 1976 lower the qualifying time for Canadian citizenship from 5 to 3 years, but to ensure that recent immigrants would be able to vote in the next election? Such a sellout for ‘democracy’ almost makes one-party dictatorship look preferable. Unfortunately, the reason for the current immigration problem is largely because one party dictatorship was already reality.
If population concerns are not a justifiable reasons for pursuing high levels of immigration, why does the government pursue it in a manner opposed a overwhelming majority of Canadians?
A larger population endows the government with greater power. The federal government’s excessive expansion into every area of Canadian society makes evident their intention to gain control over a large portion of the Canadian economy whether the country is 30 million or 50 million: a larger population will automatically place greater power under one organization. In particular, the government’s thirty year adventure in official bilingualism and irresponsible social spending has resulted in an excessive debt and an inability to pay social security costs. Immigration is viewed as a way to increase taxpayers and thereby rectify this situation, despite the compromising implications it has for Canadian society. In the short term it has actually resulted in higher social costs in welfare payments and increasing poverty. Although widely ignored, the Harris government’s crackdown on welfare fraud is a direct consequence of the crippling cost refugee ‘claimants’ and family reunification policies are having on government expenditures. Canada is growing without immigration: there is no excuse to appease the dubious value of size as the key measure of a country’s worth.
The Canadian government has purposefully changed immigration policy due to pressure by immigrant groups demanding more immigration from their home countries. What is the reason for this pressure? Because immigrants want to live with others of the same racial makeup as themselves. This is human nature, and readily observed in practice. Yet Canadians are being told to endorse a position that would be called racist if applied by the majority. One example among many: A recent article from ‘Queen’s Alumni’ reports that like many other black immigrants, it is a difficult choice to live in Canada because of the few black people, but most still welcome the new opportunity. For many immigrants from racial minorities, the desire to recreate the racial conditions of their home countries is taken for granted, and even applauded. Why aren’t Canadians entitled to the same consideration in their own country?
That recent immigrants push for more immigration from their own cultural and ethnic background is hardly surprising, in that it constitutes an attempt to recreate the cultural and ethnic conditions of their home country. What is unconscionable is to ask Canadians to support and celebrate these compromising changes in the interests of someone else’s diversity. Accepting these demands without regard to the right of Canadians to preserye the nature of their own country will easily lead to the takeover (replacement) of one people by a mass of others, and within a very short time. Canadians have every right to oppose a multicultural agenda that benefits those with the least claim to Canada and discriminates against native born Canadians en masse. The rise in demands for multiculturalism is a direct result of immigration. Canadians have a right to insist that the social and cultural nature of Canada not be changed and that Canada’s tradition core culture not be challenged by competing interests from immigrants demanding a multicultural agenda. This is not racist or selfish–but simply a matter of choice and self-preservation. Multicultural demands demonstrate that racially diverse immigrants, after making the choice to come to Canada, do not expect to assimilate into Canada, but rather expect to be accommodated on their terms. Many immigrants seem blithely unaware that the land they want to make their own could possibly belong to others already. Why would any nation allow foreigners to settle on its territory if the consequence meant sacrificing control over the nature of the country? Only politicians too weak, too divided, or too cowardly to defend Canada’s interests would ever allow this to happen.
The Government knew full well that multi-racial immigration would compromise Canadian sovereignty and, all unnecessarily, force its citizens to accommodate foreign cultures and deal with ethnic conflict as a regular part of society. The renowned American Sociologist Kingsley Davis warned of these problems in the 1970’s: “As a result of the displacement and mixing of races there are more racial problems in the world today than at any time in the past. In nearly all immigrant sending countries, in the Americas, South East Asia and Southern Africa, race is one of the most important bases of political division”. Why would any responsible government voluntarily import people which will directly impose upon its citizens heightening racial tensions and conflict? Affirmative action, employment equity, racial tensions between police and minorities, crime, “anti-racists” who take offense at free speech when it fails to portray minorities as they alone see fit, minority activism demanding equal or better representation of their ethnic group in government, in advertising, in the media, in religious observances, in employment, in professional organizations; billions of dollars spent ‘studying’ racial problems or appeasing the activism of minority groups; demands for positive portrayals of ethnic minorities in Canadian society (particularly positions of power): what possible improvement in the lives of Canadians can be gained by imposing such problems on society? None of these problems need exist at all if government policy considered race when selecting immigrants to Canada. Canada is a free and sovereign country. Canadians are free to discriminate in the selection of immigrants in any manner they please to ensure that they contribute to the development of Canadian society in whatever way Canadians choose.
Ethnic groups around the world promote themselves as distinct groups, and deliberately protect their way of life and ethnic identity. Some of the most protracted conflicts have resulted from the settlement of ethnic minorities within the territory of another ethnic group. The potential for ethnic-based separatist movements always exists, often culminating in military engagement to prevent formerly sovereign portions of the nation from disintegrating. Those who are sympathetic to these movements ignore both the prudence in preventing such situations from developing in the first place, and the precedent nations have to defend their sovereignty. Why should nations be expected to dispense sovereignty to ethnic minorities whose settlement within the country occurred on conditional terms? In addition, those who sympathize with separatists movements by minorities but condemn them otherwise are inconsistent. While endorsing the importance of ethnicity as a factor in defining peoples and political organizations, the same right is denied nations comprising one (or many) ethnic groups from defending their country from hostile expropriation. Once again racial and ethnic advancement are justified for minorities, but the basic right of self-interest is denied the majority. Such an attitude underlies prejudices of it own. As such it would be foolish for any nation to expose their citizens to such risks by allowing multiracial immigration. History supports such a conclusion.
II: The Historical Implications of Canada’s Immigration Policy
The Roman Empire declined from a world power to a vassal state in less than 100 years. A major cause of this precipitous decline cannot be denied: ethnic conflicts exacerbated by massive immigration of barbarian tribes into Roman territory eventually destroyed the Empire. This occurred from a combination of neglect and intentional government policy. Edward Gibbon’s caveat remains true: “The most experienced statesmen of Modern Europe has never been summoned to consider the propriety or the danger of admitting or rejecting an innumerable multitude of barbarians, who are driven by despair and hunger to solicit a settlement on the territories of a civilized nation”. But in 378, after continuing years of Germanic encroachment, the Roman Emperor Valens allowed German tribes to settle within Roman territory. In 382 Theodosius I further allowed completely autonomous German tribes to settle en masse in Roman territory. Why? a) Excessive taxation and the subsequent dispossession of poor and middle-class farmers from rural to urban centres created a spiralling effect of unemployment, higher taxes and government encroachment on basic freedoms to maintain order. The resulting large, inefficient farms employed thousands of slave labourers. The Roman government hoped German tribes could provide cheap labour and thereby offset declining tax revenues. The failure to raise the needed labour from Roman citizenry prompted a short-term solution which prevented Romans from responding to their own predicament. b) By settling German tribes along the frontiers of the Empire, it was hoped they would serve to defend the frontiers against further encroachments by other Germanic tribes on Roman lands. Why didn’t the Romans mobilize the required troops to defend their own Empire? It was not due to a shortage of potential soldiers. Instead, corruption, a bankrupt government and despondent citizenry failed to mobilize an adequately sized army, despite having done so just a century before. Enforced conscription failed because Romans were allowed to pay fines in lieu of military service, or sponsor defections to obtain labourers for large scale farming operations. Here again Rome choose an expedient solution which compromised Roman security interests. The mass recruitment of German soldiers and labourers did not delay the Empire’s decline, it accelerated it.
German settlement weakened Roman control over the Empire. With German Generals in key areas of the Roman military command, Germanic divisions of the army became increasing disloyal and insubordinate. Rome was forced to guard against German demands while grappling with political machinations between Germanic tribes, German Generals within the Roman military, and the Eastern Roman Emperor – a situation that would have never developed had German settlement been prevented. In 409 Germanic divisions of the Roman army deliberately failed to prevent the invasion of Germanic tribes into Spain. Germanic divisions positioned in Spain, as elsewhere, eventually abandoned Rome altogether to support German independence.
For the most part, the initial Germanic settlers had no intention of destroying Rome or its institutions, only garnering a share of Roman prosperity and security. However, only Roman sovereignty was risked by such a policy. Echo’s of today’s multicultural agenda dotted the sentiments of Roman leaders, made necessary only by the compromising situation Rome let develop. ‘We may drink of the Rhine or the Orontes, we are all one people’, said Claudian; ‘A common law made them equals, and bound them by a single name…. we live in the most diverse countries….all united in an ancestral home’, declared the Christian lyricist Prudentius; ‘The only one who has received the conquered in her arms and cherished all, the human race under one name, treating them as children, not slaves’. The more tenuous the arguments became, the more often they had to be repeated. Meanwhile the Roman world disintegrated. Then as now, alienated members of Rome’s elite sought to hold power against competing interests by “contrasting the corruption of Roman society with the allegedly superior morals, humanity, social solidarity and justice” of the Germans. Appeasement only served to demoralize Roman citizens and encourage German aggression.
As historian Michael Grant points out: “the attitude of German immigrant tribes, at first not too unfriendly to Rome, was replaced by a more and more aggressive drive towards virtual independence–culminating, under Gaiseric the Vandal in North Africa, in the attainment of a complete independence which was uncompromisingly and virulently hostile”. The reason for this is basic to human nature: “Theodosius I, by excess of clemency, treated them with gentleness and indulgence, gave them the title of allies, conferred upon them political rights and honours, generously made them gifts of lands. But they did not understand and appreciate the nobility of this treatment. They interpreted it as weakness on our part, and that inspired in them an insolent arrogance and an unheard of boastfulness” (Synesius of Cyrene). No doubt the Germans appreciated Roman benevolence when they got it, but certainly would not subjugate their self-interest for Rome. To believe so was naive, and proved costly. Human nature begrudges a debt: the Germanic tribes choose to advance their people, and destroyed the Roman world to do it. To have chosen otherwise would have been a sellout. In North Africa, Victor of Vita decried the failure of Italians to realize this: “One may coddle them with kindness, woo them with assiduous service, all they think of is their envy of Romans. Their design is obvious–all the time they are trying to besmirch the glory and honour of the Roman name.” Ultimately, Rome made the mistake of expecting others to believe in the Roman people in place of Rome. And Rome fell, in 476 becoming a vassal state under the German Commander Odoacer. The last Roman army consisted almost entirely of Danubian Germans.
The same mistakes are being repeated today. When the United States ignores the encroachment of millions of Mexicans illegally encroaching upon its territory to obtain government benefits paid for by American citizens, thereby displacing American citizens and their communities both culturally and racially, who is being cheated? If these immigrants carried weapons it would be confronted as a military invasion. Yet the consequences are exactly the same, and so are many of the motivating factors. Namely, to besmirch the glory and honour of the American name, and replace it with their own. Ultimately it is only the consequences that matter. In the meantime, American ineptitude allows these immigrants to literally steal from the American taxpayer and demand political representation, medical treatment and welfare benefits while expressly breaking the law and compromising American sovereignty. The same is happening in Canada. Listen to Chaitanya Kalevar, in 1978, from the Canadian India Times: “The multicultural Canada, which is more attractive than the English Canada, must be allowed to rise to the top by adequate constitutional provisions… Canada is a nation in transition”. For whom is a multicultural Canada more attractive? In 1982 multiculturalism became standard policy for the Canadian government. Such a transition was and is not in the interests of Canada, but immigrants seeking cultural and political ascendancy in Canada.
Whose interests are promoted by a multi-racial immigration policy? Such a statement is not racist, rather it involves an observation of race. There is a difference. Immigrants from the British Isles and Northern Europe are readily assimilable, and will change Canada very little, simply because they are closely related to the cultural and ethnic heritage of this country. Multi-racial immigration has racist overtones: towards the right of whites to self-preservation and control over their future. Unfortunately, those who condemn racism directly foster it by such hypocrisy. The West is not responsible for third world failures to control their populations and develop better living conditions for their people. It is morally unconscionable to suggest the West give away its prosperity and identity to that irresponsibility. Indeed, “If we include the freedom to breed as one of man’s inalienable freedoms, and if we accept every obligation to share excess food with those who are starving, then how can any nation, class, or religious group that responsibly controls its numbers survive in competition with any nation, class or other group that refuses to act responsibly?” (Garrett Hardin) The fact is it cannot, and Canada’s immigration policy ignores these realities of third world overpopulation. Those who explicitly or implicitly deny this issue have no moral basis for insisting the rights of some be sacrificed for the failures of others.
Only Western Europe, Australia, Canada and the U.S. impose policies allowing any immigration, despite widespread opposition from the public. Japan, for example, has expressly forbidden immigration by non-ethnic Japanese for centuries. In Canada the demand for immigration comes from ethnic minorities and politicians who believe they can gain advantage from an ethnic vote. The possibility that the European people who comprise these countries will be crowded out is not a concern for these minorities. It is however a legitimate concern for whites, who have every right to defend their autonomous existence. Every ethnic and national group has the right to self-preservation and self-determination: denying this to whites is simply placing the expansion of other racial groups beyond their own borders ahead of the rights of whites in their own countries. The most obvious example of this is the hypocrisy in criticizing whites for speaking out against massive, non-white immigration. Everyone knows that Canada will be transformed by waves of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans and in ways that most whites do not want. Yet whites fear to speak against this transformation for fear of being called “racists.”
Yet this concern is not racist, often not even racial. Does anyone seriously believe that Chinese immigration will not make Canada more like China, Indian immigration more like India? Many of those quickest to shout ‘racist’ are simply offended and outraged at the idea that others exist who oppose their agenda and values–a very dangerous sign for freedom of conscience.
The reality is that human rights and tolerance, although imperfectly practised, are Western ideals; they receive only limited support elsewhere. The ideal of individual freedom and integrity derive from Christian attitudes towards God and the man, and took political form in the rights based ethics of John Locke that ‘all persons are free and equal with the right to life, health, liberty and possessions and the products of his labour’. The difficulty with such an ethic continues to be ascertaining when one person’s rights infringe upon another. Only by a standard of morality and responsibility can such a code succeed. Whether as an individual or nation, anyone who fails to insist upon his own, or at minimum a common standard of morality for himself and others, and allows others to reap the benefits of morality without adhering to its tenets, ultimately destroys
himself and ensures the extinction of that morality. Regardless of the actions of-others, every individual must judge by his own moral code, and those who refuse to recognize such standards must be held accountable for the implications of their morality. Failure to do so is a betrayal of conscience, and as Louis Veuillot brutally wrote, has pernicious consequences for its noble sounding practitioner: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for liberty because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger I take liberty away from you because that is my principle”. This is the loophole thfough which thiefs, liars, dictators and the profligate escape detection: compromise–because I will not; be tolerant–of my demands; concede–to suit my principles; make peace –on my terms. This is the danger inherent in much of socialist philosophy, which ultimately regards individual freedom secondary to ensuring equality of outcome without equality of responsibility or benefit. This expropriation of resources constitutes legalized robbery; it fulfills wants not needs. Specifically, when the foolish choices or failure of individuals to regulate their reproductive capacity impose limitations or hardship on those who have taken such responsibility, such a dangerous hypocrisy comes only at the expense of its hypocritical practitioner. Turmoil, violence and hardship are the consequences. There is nothing extraordinary in this fact, but unfortunately every generation must relearn its lesson or face the reality of evil inherent in both human nature and the natural world.
III: Why Race Matters For Canadian Immigration Policy
Canadians (meaning white Canadians–there was no real distinction between these terms without some deliberate social manipulation by the federal government) have every right to value and protect their racial group to ensure its independent and prosperous survival. This is not and has never been, racism. It must be understood that behind the high minded and arrogant attitudes of supporters of multi-racial immigration lies a simple and undesirable reality. Consider an unfortunately very plausible situation which the Canadian government is already deliberately pursuing against the express wishes of a majority of Canadians: suppose 10 million Chinese came to Canada over the next 10 years (this number is meaningless for China, with a population of ethnic Chinese over 1.2 billion and growing). They are middle class, speak English fairly well, contribute positively to the economy, and want to be good citizens. They adopt Canadians customs as much as possible and try to be good citizens Even if they spread evenly across the country and assimilate, the real issue has still to be addressed. In 20 years, they and their children are the majority. Due to intermarriage over the next century or so, there are no pure Chinese or pure white Canadians left. (It is the natural right of people to value and protect their identity, including their racial identity which is a very significant component in anyone identity and genetic inheritance, despite efforts to ignore such a fact. There is nothing wrong with such racial attitudes. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the existence of separate racial groups is wrong, which amounts to an absurd form of nihilism). The racial identity of white Canadians has been destroyed through a foolish and irresponsible behaviour, labelled as altruism by those who intend to benefit from the change.
The issue is concisely stated by Seymour W. Itzkoff, discussing the implications of nonwhite immigration in the West: ‘The Western nations are becoming repositories of new migrant peoples fleeing the demographic cultural disaster in the third-world south. The realities are all about us. The dynamics of the last half century should have forewarned the West about the meaning of cultural decline. Surely the leadership should have addressed these dangers, at the least for their own national destiny. The United States, in this sad tale, leads the world with an astigmatism heavily laced with ideological smugness and the misty memories of earlier invulnerability. Will this once-great nation be the first of the powerful Western societies to unravel and unwarily enter the third world?’
Why hasn’t the Canadian government acted in the interests of her own people and ensured that immigration cannot displace the racial makeup of the majority culture in Canada? Asians, in particular, have been actively politically to stop efforts to limit immigration. Over 70 per cent of immigrants to Western Canada are Asian, and actively promoting their racial interests. This racial activism, encouraged by liberal policies of multiculturalism and diversity, is simply a form of racial consciousness in which minority immigrants exert political pressure to benefit their race and national interests in their home country.
European ethnic minorities (smaller in number) in Canada have largely assimilated because the ethnic (not actually racial) differences were generally small enough to not pose a significant threat to the identity of the host population. White Canadians were over 90% of the population in 1965, and homogeneity had largely been achieved despite the continuing conflict between French and English cultural groups in Quebec (which has been played out on a national stage). Immigration since 1965 has moved us away from homogeneity, and even assimilation of racial minority changes the country and destroys what people are perfectly free to value–their ethnicity and identity. There will be no (or a minority, its does not affect the argument) white Canadians. That is the ultimate result, and that is the policy the government of Canada, who claims to represent the interests on Canadians and their future, are pursuing.
Non-white nations are far more frank about the importance of the racial identity of their countries–ie: of protecting the people who comprise those countries from outward incursions. S. Itzkoff continues, “The northeast Asiatics, of predominantly Mongoloid racial ancestry, and as nations fairly homogeneous ethnically, are aware of the realities. They are quietly acting in their own interests, confident that their own homogeneously high intelligence will enable then to inherit the civilizational mantle in the twenty-first century… Their intellectuals and academicians give only lip service to the orthodox Western sociological dogmas. The leadership understands the dynamics of national survival and they are quietly acting on the basis of the facts that are in hand.”
Arguments for immigration must always be coupled with the understanding that any nation has the right to insist that the racial and cultural identity of the country not be altered or disrupted by immigration in any manner. This is a basic right of a sovereign country and a necessary act in being responsible to protecting one’s existence. When others impose the conditions and means of maintaining such an identity and independence–in the context here referenced–it is either war, or something commonly condemned by many ‘liberal’ proponents when it suits their political motives or supports their sense of personal superiority –as cultural imperialism. Ignoring the ethnic identity of those attempting to immigrate to Canada is an irresponsible abrogation of Canadians right to protect and maintain their ethnic identity as a people, including all the consequences that automatically follow from it (Control over their own territory, the right to develop the potentialities of their own people without internal conflict etc…) By preventing, Canadians from exercising such measures, the government is acting in a manner that can only be called traitorous. It is within this context that the significance and opposition to non-white immigration to Canada must be understood. Simple hatred for other people is not the real issue here. Nor does pretending that the differences between people are unimportant. To suggest that immigration (and then at that non-white immigration) is necessary because of all things it may slow our economic growth shows the desiccated and shallow view that many people are sadly proud to call a liberated position. As pointed out, the economic argument is not valid, but furthermore such immigration can only act to displace white Canadians and ultimately becomes a form of promoting the interests and advancements of others over white people. That’s not admirable, its just irresponsible and incompatible with long term survival. But of course for those who want x% growth every year, and don’t want to invest in the very people who want to maintain their rightful independent control over that territory, immigration can be a cheap alternative. The elites of the Canadian political and financial arena are expressing their lack of belief in Canadian nationalism and their indifference to the rights of white Canadians to direct their own country’s future.
Suggesting that Canadians cannot find the needed educated, sophisticated and entrepreneurial people from within their own country is a poignant example of this attitude. Is this attitude expressing a belief in the superior characteristics of Asians, or others, over whites? If so, does this not sound like the ‘racism’ which many of these same elites criticize then Canadians are simply expressing a necessary preference for their own racial and cultural group–with the will that it survive and flourish in its own right? Is that hypocritical? It is for those who suggest that opposition to non-white immigration is racist. But it doesn’t matter, because one must support the development of oneself regardless of others. Would a family member neglect giving all they can to their own children in preference to others? They would not nor should they: to coerce them into doing so out of fear or ridicule would be an egregious crime. If white Canadians are not hard-working enough, or lazy or whining, the answer is not to sell out the country to someone (anyone) who may be better, but to invest in your own people. People who suggest otherwise have no concern for the people they criticize–only contempt and therefore should not be heeded as offering solutions.
What kind of morality makes one suggest that if white Canadians aren’t doing the job of providing for their future they should give up and allow someone else to come in and take over? Why does the Canadian government have the temerity to educate foreign students in Canadian institutions–and then offer these students jobs, and a new life to escape the consequences in their home country? This is suicide. It constitutes an attempt to convince white Canadians that if some else demonstrates (or supposedly does) some moral or intellectual or other superior quality, then Canadians should give up and destroy themselves. Nothing could be more immoral or pernicious to human life than such an attitude–and it is implicitly promoted by all such arguments about immigrants being needed to make Canada a better place. Canadians fought two world wars, on a population of some 15 million, and developed a prosperous society through the last half century. Canadians can do this. And if not, or to whatever extent, they must defend their right to achieve and build for themselves. If Canadians are in such awful shape, then where are such leaders to demand the educational and moral rehabilitation of Canadians so that their children will inherit a prosperous future? Giving the future over to foreign peoples is a betrayal of the people the government is supposed to represent. It is irrelevant to out that some foreign people appear to work harder, study harder and achieve more than white Canadians. Good for them, then their home countries should become more prosperous. If not, their countries will not prosper and the consequences will be theirs to face. But to suggest that anyone who can demonstrate better competence than Canadians be given every opportunity to come and take such opportunities away from Canadians is wrong. First of all, different nations have different standards of success and what they want to achieve. If Canada’s standard of living is what the world should have, then by the reasoning of many critics it’s time Canadians expanded their populations into other areas of the world, for the improved standards of living and prosperity would mean a better world (one more like Canada). Would many people not call this colonialism? The hypocrites who support such arguments for immigration are merely support colonialism in its most backward form: by suggesting that the prosperous destroy themselves to allow others the opportunity for the same prosperity without the same risks or effort. Such a policy of national growth or renewal by immigration, especially immigration that enables people from a different ethnic or cultural group to in effect take over part of the host country, has been and is explicitly rejected by all immigrant sending countries.
Canadians are not responsible for the overpopulation of other countries, nor are they required to give up national sovereignty to accommodate that irresponsibility. The only way any group can preserve itself it the face of such overpopulation is to assert its right to protect its racial identity from immigration and intermixture forced upon them from uncontrolled expansion elsewhere. To suggest that the white identity of Canada disappear because it doesn’t live up to someone agenda for Canada is quite simply an act of war against white people. Similarly, as non-white populations around the world explode largely thanks to the improved living standards and prosperity that industrial and scientific advancements from the West have supplied, white people of Western nations have every right to protect their genetic inheritance by ensuring that such population explosions do not impact on the right of whites to live in their own countries. Allowing non-white immigration to the west simply displaces whites and reduces the opportunities for long term survival of whites as a racial group. This is unacceptable–and would be decried were it not so profitable and easy to cry racism and expect such jargon to end the issue.
Do ethnic groups– such as white people have the right to exist and protect their ethnicity? If so, the consequences follow, namely that any action that attacks or weakens that identity or protection of the group constitutes an aggressive act against the group. This is what war has always been–and words such as racism do not change that reality. Instead, avoiding the racial issues only increases the potential for unnecessary violent conflict and loss of freedom.
The tone of contempt and hatred for white people who dare to express the desire to protect their country and its opportunities for their future reveals the extent some people will go to label themselves as compliant with the current theology on racial issues. Such orthodoxy is no different than the obsequious pronouncements of support for the Catholic inquisition in 14th century Europe. Granted, those in the 14th century had to risk their lives to speak out in opposition to authority, but current political trends in Canada are strongly tending toward the same situation if Canadians do not act. The smug satisfaction of some to observe that many Canadians will soon have to learn Chinese to function in Canada is merely the result of a government who has not only neglected to defend Canadians from being displaced in their own country, but a government that has actively sought to destroy Canadian society for partisan interests—and often successfully encouraged its own citizens to support such actions at their own expense while labelling all opposition as worthy of hatred and contempt. If Canadians continue to allow Chinese and other nationalities into Canada without regard to these realities, they will indeed find themselves dispossessed of control over the society they live in. But to suggest that Canadians will have to learn or adopt foreign languages or culture en masse to compete in foreign markets is a mistake with regard to the effect of international trade. Only a small number of people will ever be required to grease the wheels of international trade and communication by speaking a foreign language. The presence of international buyers may increase business and require recognizing opportunities in foreign markets, but it will not result in the necessity for large portions of the Canadian population to learn foreign languages to survive. Only by importing large foreign populations into Canada will such conditions prevail to force Canadians to compete with other cultures for control over the direction of their country. Those who celebrate that happening are by definition traitors to Canada, and demonstrate real contempt and hatred for the wish of Canadians to preserve their country for themselves. Calling someone racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is creating serious problems that can only cause conflict. All people regard what they love and value as special, and naturally act to preserve it.
The fact is: “All nations – black, brown, yellow and white – are racist, simply because the world consists of different races and nations. All races suffer from a deep feeling of xenophobia and all are determined to preserve the homogeneity of their own people. They all reject the brotherhood of man concept. I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin; a Japanese his brown skin, and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all Those who talk
about a multi-racial society are really talking about a polyglot nation. Some people talk about a multi-racial society without knowing what the term really means, while others talk about it because they are anxious to change our society “(Arthur Calwell, Australia’s first Minister for Immigration). Canadians have every right to oppose attempts to destroy the white racial composition of Canadian society through irresponsibly immigration, for such a demographic “invasion” and the resulting cultural and political changes will result in the destruction of Canada’s national identity, culture, and way of life. But for those who believe that Canada is not a real country, or that Canada has no national culture, these issues do not matter.
Immigration has now established itself as the most serious issue in the long term survival of virtually all white nations around the world. This is a logical fact, not some form of seething racism. Political and business interests looking for more consumers and market opportunities, coupled with ideological activism by non-whites and others anxious for a cause without addressing the evil of its consequences, now threaten the basic right of white nations to their independent existence and sovereignty. Don’t believe it? The selective censorship of social and political issues in Canada by all major media sources prevents most Canadians from considering the significance of such words as those by Prime Minister Chretien, when asked whether Vancouver would become an Asian city:
“Oh, apparently Vancouver will grow very fast….And of course, there’s a lot of people from Asia who are becoming Canadian immigrants and like to locate in Vancouver. I was in a school this week and probably half of the students that I was talking to were looking oriental, but of course, good Canadian citizens. You know, the mix of population is changing in Canada quite rapidly. The French and English component is reducing very fast in relation to all the newcomers….I welcome that, it’s given a flavour to Canada that’s pretty good.” (From ‘This Week with David Brinkley’, 21/11/93)
Similar sentiments of support at the racial transformation of Vancouver from a white city to Asian were expressed in such Canadian magazines as the Reader’s Digest, Time, and Maclean’s (`The Changing Face of Canada’, who interests are respected when it is insisted that this is always a good thing?), all without comment or concern. Canadians have simply had their voice stolen from them, and tacitly being denied the right to defend themselves. It is safe to espouse sentiments of support when a Canadian city becomes less white, but racist to oppose such a deliberate transformation or suggest it is not in the interests of white Canadians. Similar pressures to support multiculturalism and non-white immigration into white countries is occurring across the West. Multiculturalism is actively promoted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. In all cases the disappearance of white people from control over their future and their country is completely ignored, or treated as if existence were racism.
U.S. President Bill Clinton told journalists in Boston the same thing, saying: “This will arguably be the third great revolution in America … to prove that we literally can live without in effect having a dominant European culture. We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society.”
Similarly, Dutch Education & Science Minister Ritzen in an interview in the Dutch magazine Vast & Zeker: “I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The immigrant ethnic groups’ population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious this process will continue, even after 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don’t regard this as a positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development”. Apparently? Or perhaps it is that all objections (democratic or otherwise) not backed by force have been silenced or ignored?
Similarly in Germany, Economist Bernd Hof in Fortune International indicates that “The Germans have decided to die out”, with reference to the large number of non-white immigrants and the low Germany birth rate. The fact is that as many better-off families in Western nations decide that having only one or two children is sufficient (often in the belief that they must helpstem world over-population pressures elsewhere), they “fail to recognize that they are in a small way vacating future space to faster growing ethnic groups both inside and outside their national boundaries. But that is, in fact, what they are doing.” (Paul Kennedy, ‘Preparing for the Twenty-First Century’)
Robert Schouten, a correspondent for the Dutch newspaper Haagsche Courant writes, “The one million inhabitants of the capital Amsterdam now include 23 percent of people of non-Dutch origin. By the year 2050 this will increase to 50 percent. Blond hair and blue eyes are on the way out.”
Listen to Ben Wattenberg in “The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong” celebrating the multiracialization of American, “Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
New Zealand’s trade minister Philip Burdon in 1993, in Newsweek as “recognising the impending Asianisation of both Australia and New Zealand. Newsweek reported that Burdon “speaks of a ‘complete change of cultural identity’. By 2000, he thinks, one in five Australasians will be of Asian descent, and within 50 years the two countries’ ‘connection with Europe will be just a historical legacy’.
Many proponents for immigration are insincere, supporting immigration not because they believe it will benefit Canada, but because they believe support for immigration portrays themselves as altruistic and morally enlightened. As such they are focused on the interests of potential immigrants, and not toward the needs of the Canadian society. But by pretending the gift of settlement is in fact theirs to offer, without cost to Canada, advocates will continue to use immigration to further private interests in sectorial economic growth, for political power, or to elevate their social status as generous humanitarians, all while being protected from the direct costs which others must bear. As long as their arguments go unchallenged, they will continue to benefit from this hypocrisy. I am only too well aware that many reading this now– if this essay is being read at all–many very well be non-white and/or extremely antagonistic to these arguments. But it does not change their validity or significance.
The moral grandstanding and egoistic gesturing in opposition to all perceived forms of racism has become so thoughtless that Gwen Dyer, military historian and Canadian columnist, has expressed smug satisfaction that while the British may object to heavy immigration into Britain, such racists will get their just reward as 10% of the British school population will soon be nonwhite–and Canadians had better get the message too. To espouse such dispossession of white people in Canada in the face of irresponsible over-population in virtually every non-white country in the world is simply to support the destruction of white people as a race for an empty gesture against racism.
Immigration and multiculturalism and its connection to the issues of racism and anti-white sentiment are very evident in the conflict over non-white immigration in Australia. Australia is a revealing example of the real politics behind multi-racial immigration that is largely censored by the Canadian government and media. Consider a few of the comments from a report on Immigration to Australia titled “The Asianisation of Australia : An Expose of the “Asian Future” Being Forced Upon Australia”
“Bill Hayden (then Labour’s Foreign Minister, and later Governor General), “It is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country… I happen to think that’s desirable”. Hayden also said that Australia “should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society… we will become not just a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and we will be all the better for it”, Furthermore “We will not just become a multi-cultural society … we will become a Eurasian society and we will be all the better for it” and that “Australia’s destiny lies in Asia and the Pacific” – Al Grassby, 1982 (Labor’s former Minister for Immigration, then Commissioner for Community Relations) using this as justification for destroying the existence of white Australia. In 1972 Don Chipp, then a Liberal Minister (later to be the leader of the Australian Democrats), told television viewers that “I would like to see a stage in the 1980s where Australia is becoming the only true multi-racial country in the world, and that is the Liberal Party’s aim” In 1995, the then Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, stated “Asia is emphatically where this county’s security and prosperity lie. It is where an increasing number of our people come from and – unambiguously and wholeheartedly – it is where we want to be …Our efforts on free trade, multiculturalism, and education and training are all part of the same strategy”.The price that Australia is expected to pay for this “trade-off’ involving economics, politics, and immigration was made quite clear by Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, when he stated that Australia could only be accepted as an equal in Asia when 70% of its people were of Asian ethnicity. Dr Mahathir said “Possibly with more Asians settling in Australia – maybe the proportion might be 70 per cent Asian, 30 per cent people of Caucasian origin – perhaps that’s when there will be no problem at all. Even foreign politicians have recognised what sort of future the Australian Establishment is dragging our country into. The observations of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore’s Prime Minister, 1959-1990) were reported in The Bulletin in 1990: “Lee Kuan Yew sees a steady and inevitable Asianisation of Australia, with our European population ending up as the “white trash of Asia”.”
As in Canada, political consensus by the major political parties in Australia has denied the public control over their own country:
“In 1993 The Herald Sun reported that Bob Hawke, former Labor Prime Minister, “told a Brisbane conference he found it difficult to resist a contention in a new book that the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda”. Hawke said that “There are no other issues on which the major parties have been prepared to act in this way, with the common cement of ACTU support, to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be” (that is, the major political parties have been prepared to impose mass Asian immigration upon our nation, to advance the interests of their liberal-internationalist beliefs, despite their knowledge that most Australians opposed their plans)(30) At the same Brisbane conference, Ian Macphee (a former Liberal Minister for Immigration) said “I think bipartisanship is crucial because immigration and multiculturalism issues are of such long-term importance”.(31)
“In 1997 Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, admitted that “Large-scale immigration is always a sensitive issue, but in Australia there was understanding between leaders that this was vital for the security of our children, and that therefore racial issues were off-limits in the political arena.”(32) Bob Hawke has further explained: “the Liberal/National Party government of Harold Holt, with the support of the Australian Labour Party, began to dismantle the infamous White Australia policy. Neither Chifley, nor Holt, nor any of their successors enjoyed majority community support for what they did… Bipartisan support for a completely non-discriminatory immigration policy has been one of the great and rare distinctions of modern Australian political leadership. It has been a triumph of principle over populism, of reason over fear, of statesmanship over politics. Now all of this is at risk”. What Hawke is saying is that the Australian Establishment intends to Asianise Australia, and does not “give a hoot” for what the majority of the Australian people think and want.(33)”
Similarly, government and major media outlets enforce the themes of multi-racialism and multiculturalism by tacitly promoting a non-white view of Australian society. The methods are remarkably like those in Canada. The CBC’s manipulation of news, dramas and other events to reflect and reinforce their support for a multiracial, multicultural Canada are repeated in Australian media circles. Sadly today many television and radio productions seem like nothing more than excuses or opportunities to portray as many racial groups of people working together in harmony while pretending to ignore racial boundaries. Consider the Australian situation:
“John Bennett, President of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, has exposed the media practice of disproportionately focusing on Asians, and has also revealed how “TV ads and TV ‘soapies’ are used surreptitiously to change public opinion which is still strongly opposed to the attempt to Asianise Australia” (37). He further says that “many TV and newspaper ads now seem biased against the white majority and give non-whites great prominence. Thus, a full page ad by Myer in The Sun, Melbourne, the largest circulation newspaper in the southern hemisphere, recently featured 7 children, only 3 of whom were white. In a society which is 95% white the use of a majority of non-whites in such ads is deliberately calculated to brainwash Australians into accepting the idea that a multi-racial Australia is both inevitable and desirable and to overlook the fact that multi-racial societies elsewhere are an abject failure. The use of multi-racial ads – a ‘Big Brother’ brainwashing technique – is a deliberate policy to encourage white Australians to accept large scale non-white immigration, the long term intention of which is a non-white majority in Australia”.(38)
John Bennett has also exposed the extraordinary disproportionate use of Asians in The Sun (Melbourne) newspaper in “photographs and stories giving Asians a prominence out of all proportion to the percentage of Asians in the community”, as well as revealing that one of Australia’s leading newspapers, The Age (Melbourne), “has used its paper as a brainwashing agency to secure public support for a high level of Asian immigration and has deliberately suppressed the views of the 70% of Australians opposed to that policy” by a massively disproportionate use of pro- immigration feature articles and letters to the editor (Bennett reports that “The Sydney Morning Herald had a similar bias”).(39)”
“The main reason for all this anti-Australian bias in the media is almost certainly to be the ideological favouring of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and multiracialism apparently held by most journalists in Australia nowadays, although an economic angle is also possible – such as in the current American practise to “hire minority reporters”, “include minorities in stories in which their race, sex or ethnic background are unrelated”, and whereby “editors are encouraged to include photographs of minorities and women on their front pages”, because “news executives are realising that they must appeal to minority readers or risk losing them”.(40)”
“It is interesting to note here that it was journalist Phillip Adams who was the “brain” behind the Department of Immigration’s strategy to “feed themes sympathetic to immigrants into popular television soap operas”. Adams is not only an influential author, broadcaster, and film-maker, but also heads one of Australia’s biggest advertising agencies –there can be little doubt that he has used his influence in order to “influence” (“brainwash”?) the Australian public; in his words, to “modify a hostile or anachronistic community attitude”. John Bennett reports that “The advertising millionaire Phillip Adams has great influence in the advertising industry. He has stated that his own advertising company tries to use ads which promote a multi-cultural Australian society, and avoid W.A.S.P. ads with only white Anglo Saxon Celtic Australians”.(41)”
Sound familiar? Government communications and private advertisements in Canada consistently attempt to portray as many different racial groups of consumers as possible. What is most disturbing about such advertising is the unspoken reality that such advertisers and governments are recognizing and responding to in their advertising. The deliberate and tasteless artificial manner in which various races of people are forced into the same commercial belies a belief that the government is too afraid to openly addressed. Namely, that in a population of say 10 million people (90% white), the most important distinction between people is not that one is a technician and another a painter, but that one is White, others Black, Asian and Indian who by no means necessarily see themselves through the portrayal of other racial groups. That is an ironic thing for the government to unconsciously admit, and contains a caveat that would be wise to respect.
Those who wish Canada had never accepted so many white people fail to understand that Canada was built by white people, and it is their responsible and natural choice to preserve their racial identity as much as any other characteristic of the society they built. Canada is not simply a land mass available for possession–Canadians are a people. A nation consists of more than a crowd occupying the same land mass and operating under the same government. It consists of people who share a common language, a common culture, a common identity, and similar values. Differences between people are not wrong, but they do imply boundaries and the potential for conflict. They are compomising Canadians control over their country. To ignore that reality is to invite the evil that many anti-racists and liberal activists claim to be against.
IV: Population, Poverty and Political Expansion: The Future
The issue of third world poverty, over-population and immigration must be honestly addressed. Where is the morality in condoning third world expansion beyond the capacity to provide humane living standards for their people? Where is the morality of people who create misery by begetting children who can never have a decent life, nor afford to? Parents in western countries must limit their reproductive capacities in light of economic constraints or face the consequences, why shouldn’t this be expected of others? Where is the morality in demanding Canada be sacrificed to accommodate the irresponsibility of foreign cultures?
“In a system that depends entirely on family responsibility for the survival of the children, population control may be attainable by family planning. If the family does not take care of their children, nobody will. But when family responsibility is overthrown by a social welfare system, family planning is no longer capable of producing population control. The family has the children, [their children], and the community at large feeds them. Such a policy guarantees that family planning will not produce population control.” (Garrett Hardin) In addition, this policy ensures that the responsible, temperate, and far-sighted support the advancement of those who are ambitious, irresponsible and refuse to regulate their reproductive capacity. Those who doubt such situations can lead to serious conflict, particularly when one group chooses to deliberately outbreed another, need only look to French (Catholic) Quebec’s ‘revenge of the cradle’, or Sri Lanka today. Government efforts to limit population growth in Ceylon during the 1960’s failed because the Tamils, a minority, failed to comply with the family limitation provisions of the government. The majority Sinhalese strongly objected, realizing that if the minority Tamils were allowed to outbreed them they would eventually form a majority and seize political control. The population of Sri Lanka, racked by ethnic conflict, continues to grow over 2.5% annually.
It is imperative that third world countries drastically reduce their populations to levels permitting sustainable and decent living conditions. To do this, they must insist upon tying procreation to economic sustain ability. This is the only morally acceptable answer: it is straightforward, but difficult. Third world nations can, over some seventy years, reduce their populations to sustainable levels. The Indian sub-continent, for example, can sustainably support a population of 500 million people. Achieving this will involve reproductive sacrifices, limiting each woman to one or no children, to ensure that future poverty and military conflict are avoided. Parenthood must be seen as a privilege, not a right, which can only be enjoyed under certain conditions and to a limited extent. Failing to do so is morally evil; it is selfish, shortsighted, and places guilt where it does not belong. These parents deliberately ensure the misery and starvation of their children and many others. Western nations do not have this problem, nor are they responsible for it.
Should developing nations refuse to limit their populations, they must face the problems of overcrowding with only limited economic and charitable aid from the West. Massive immigration is not an acceptable answer: the West cannot be expected to relinquish control over their identity and civilization for the failure of foreign peoples to regulate their reproduction. Population growth without limitation is a form of greed, and cannot be rewarded. Do third world nations intend to use their excess populations as a means for cultural and political expansion, as China is doing in Tibet? The Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mathathir has proposed that Asian and African countries swamp Europe and the U.S. with millions of legal and illegal immigrants if developing nations are not allowed to prosper. “We should migrate North in the millions, legally or illegally Masses of Asians and Africans should inundate Europe and America”. The immorality and potential conflict these actions engender must be addressed in light of the basic right of Western nations to guard their future. Why should the West regulate its population growth if foreign demands are to decide the West’s demographic future?
If Western nations acquiesce to this greed and irresponsible behaviour by allowing foreign populations to expand through immigration, they will ultimately destroy themselves for the failures of foreign peoples. The refusal to recognize limits, a markedly liberal tendency, ensures the proliferation of a host of evils. It is a product of the same arrogance and emotional immaturity present in the omnipotent illusions of the new-born child. The cowardice inherent in failing to hold others to the same moral standards will lead to the grisly hardship Thomas Malthus predicted: “A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, … has no claim of the right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact, has no business to be where he is. …. [Nature] tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The report of a provision for all that come fill the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counter-acting those strict order to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh corners.”
Ultimately, the problems of any state must be solved by its subjects, rather than importing people and problems created elsewhere. Those who berate the West for third world problems must stop the hypocrisy in demanding the West pay for the mistakes of the World. While demanding money and generous refugee/immigration policies as ‘reparation’ (for what?), these people rarely defend their position by actually residing in these countries and initiating reforms on site. Only by doing so will it be realized that problems cannot be solved without internal reform. Those who denounce the West and demand more ‘compensation’ to third world nations paint themselves as charitable and righteous, but their motives are often selfish and cynical, serving their own political and moral aggrandizement. Alienated or lacking the power they seek within their own society, they gain influence by acting in the interests of those who want to destroy Western society. Their love for the poor or foreign stems not from charity, but from the power and influence that can be gained by controlling and exploiting the fulfilment of other peoples needs. It is not only that they aim to destroy societal norms they are alienated from, but by pretending to do so, often unconsciously, in the name of a superior morality and benevolent love they deceive others of their real intentions. Their ability to portray themselves as defending rights and needs of others hides the fact that their goals may directly oppose the rights and interests of those they appeal to for support. Because of their white-washed appearance, it is difficult to discern that their kindness masks a much stronger hatred of something else. They condemn the West for its wealth only because they see others are poor and consequently a potential tool to manipulate people’s conscience. They castigate the West for consuming 80% of the world’s economic output, while ignoring that the West produces 90% of the world’s output. Wealth is not necessarily the cause of poverty elsewhere. Yet this is what a socialist doctrine implies, demanding that earnings be transferred from the rich to the poor on the basis of one interpretation of justice. Were the conditions, methods, effort and values used identical?–then why should the outcome be identical, and who is to blame? Unless the underlying motivating factors for such demands are exposed, only the worst in human nature need be expected. The third world is poor largely because they continue to over-extend the carrying capacity of their environment. They must reduce their populations or face the consequences. Until they regulate their reproductive capacity in the light of environmental constraint, these countries will continue to manufacture poverty, disease and war. Allowing these nations to avoid the responsibility for their plight by expansion and migration is immoral and certainly not in the West’s interests. The road to prosperity by the West was fraught with famine and hardship, and as elsewhere it will not succeed without population control.
V: The Consequences of Reckless Social Policy So Far
It is abundantly clear that the federal government, more specifically the Federal liberal party, has shown callous disregard for the interests of Canada. The immigration department callously admits that public polls are used to set the “department’s communication strategy and not for setting policy”. Democratic input is limited to aiding development of government
propaganda. This has continued for 25 years. Yet the changes occurring from immigration will not be superficial, but fundamental. Canada has already been rapidly and deliberately changed by allowing massive numbers of peoples from Asia and Africa and South America to settle in Canada. That is unacceptable, and is a sellout of the Canadian people to the irresponsible greed of third world overpopulation pressures. Canadians are a free people: the government of Canada cannot be allowed to give the wealth and infrastructure built by Europeans to third world countries wanting a part of Canadian prosperity. This is nothing racist in such a statement; it is a basic right of sovereign nations to self-determination. Allowing immigrants from non-European racial backgrounds into Canada has exactly the effect of displacing Canadians in their own society, forcing Canadians to compete against foreign peoples for scarce resources and political control over the direction of their society, and directly increases population pressures within Canada. Comments from immigration proponents that ‘Canada has enough white people as it is’, or that ‘many minorities still feel like they’re in a foreign country’ (University of Toronto Law School, Feb/98), only foreshadows the reality that diversity will be divisive. It already is.
Indeed, what can be expected if current immigration policy continues to change the ethnic composition of Canada? Based on historical evidence, already apparent in Canada, a number of changes must be expected:
a) Ethnic conflict in Canada will increase, with the white majority showing declining tolerance for minority demands. White Europeans will become a self-conscious ethnic group, expressing increasing concern for protecting their cultural heritage. Ethnic issues will become prevalent in an increasingly wide range of issues, raising ‘politically correct’ sensitivities which stifle genuine debate. An example? Corrine Sparks, Canada’s first black female judge, in a case involving a black teenager and a white police officer, used her ‘experience’ and ‘perspective’ over the evidence in deciding a recent verdict. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka expressed ‘concern that some judges are making decisions that are wrong in jaw for fear they will be criticized by pressure groups’, and that the tendency of many minority groups to ‘not only criticize the expression of views which do not accord with their own but demand that contrary views be suppressed’ is a serious threat to freedom of speech in Canada. A coalition of minority students at the University of Toronto Law School recently demanded more representation of ethnic minorities in Canadian law schools, claiming that “we still feel like we’re in a foreign country”. Affirmative action has ensured that twenty percent of students enrolled in The University of Toronto law school are visible minorities. The majority of these students or their parents have been in Canada for under twenty years. When a leading representative for the Afro-Canadian Legal society exclaims that “you had better treat us well, we’re going to be the majority here in 50 years”, what are Canadians setting themselves up for, and what is the caveat in his message? Yet issues such as these will progressively allow government and judges to expand their power by intervening between pressure groups to decide a ‘correct’ decision. When Canada’s first aboriginal judge announces her appointment as a great opportunity for bridging the legal systems between ‘my people and yours’, are we heading for less emphasis on race or more? The Canadian common law tradition is being openly questioned without causing the least concern from the justice system!
When cringing politicians and multicultural activists have the temerity to suggest that `sometimes equality means treating people differently’, outright discrimination is being actively supported. In March 1998 a Metis Indian band in Manitoba, protesting against Manitoba Hydro, demanded the public utility specifically hire Metis for work, suggesting that “This hall should be a hiring centre…they owe it to us”. If employers cannot fire employees on the basis of race, there must be unequivocal intolerance towards suggestions that employees be hired on that basis.
Rocky Serkowney of the Federal Heritage Department recently suggested that “Treating people the same does not necessarily result in equality”. Of course: all people differ in their abilities, motivation, experience, beliefs, personality and aptitude towards specific tasks. This admission should imply that many inequalities are not the result of malevolent discrimination but rather the result of free choice and the natural inclinations of individuals. Instead, however, this statement is manipulated to garner support for actively interfering with the freedom of some individuals to ensure equality of outcome for others. It will be used to justify deliberate discrimination or special treatment to manipulate a pre-conceived definition of equality. Note that demands for equality of access or outcome occur only in areas deemed desirable by those who cannot attain the desired outcome any other way. Such ‘equality’ conveniently ignores issues of precedent, worthiness, effort, achievement and responsibility. In the hands of any political organization these unstated assumptions become effective tools to force those they despise to pay for those they approve. Because some type of inequality can always be found, arguments for intervention to suit political purposes will always be found in the name of equality. Double standards such as these are extremely dangerous: when unchallenged they provide the sustenance under which the totalitarian of Louis Veuillot’s warning gains the upper hand.
b) The strong tendency of ethnic groups to identify and vote as one block will initially result in greater minority influence, but will eventually force the ethnic majority to coalesce as one group in order to exert political influence. The resulting polarization of the political system along racial lines will increase ethnic conflict between groups pursuing divergent political and social values. Sound familiar? The 1997 Toronto mayoral election was largely a contest between the middle class suburbs, wanting lower taxes and less government interference, and the downtown immigrant population voting for redistributive policies to enhance their economic and social power. Further examples include the difficulties encountered with Quebec Nationalists and their demands for special status for Francophones, in the form of official bilingualism and minority language promotion. Chartered Accountant Jim Allan estimates the costs of official bilingualism at over $25 billion annually.
Why is the government ignoring the harsher facts of human nature, and sacrificing the interests of Canada for minority activism? Katherine Betts explains why: “Politicians do not invariably respond to majority interests. There may be more political advantage to be gained from taking up a focused and articulate minority interest than from supporting a diffuse and inarticulate majority interest. And there is a logical reason for this. Any given claim on resources that is successful and based on membership of a small category will result in a higher return for an individual than a similar claim made on the basis of membership of a large category, because in the latter case the benefit will have to be more widely shared. So it is in the interests of individuals to make claims on politicians as members of an ethnic minority rather than as, for example, members of the working class or as citizens of the nation. From the politicians point of view voters who receive a relatively large benefit are more likely to express their gratitude at the polls than voters who receive a relatively small benefit.” Federal politicians have indeed demonstrated their readiness to betray representative democracy and responsible citizenship in favour of power politics and racial division.
White flight from areas with large minority populations will increase, resulting in highly visible ethnic enclaves in cities, while ethnically based cultural differences will create political indecision, economic stagnation and growing resentment against the majority culture. This will result in demands for government to intervene in a wide range of areas to promote minority interests. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms already makes perfectly legal policies which discriminate in favour of certain segments of society which the government deems to need special privilege. Among the most effective ways for minorities to increase their power is by facilitating greater immigration from their home countries, to augment their numbers. This is already standard policy for the Quebec Government, which aims to increase the french-speaking population of the country as a tool for political and cultural power.
- Issues of equity and fairness will increasingly be viewed along racial lines: Equality will become more important than individual freedom. The decision to allow this to happen must be made by Canadians, not recent immigrants to Canada. The government already expropriates large sums of money from taxpayers to support and promote aboriginal Indian cultural and economic interests–free education, health care, special employment, business ventures, cultural programs–all of which should be paid for only by private money from Indians themselves. Presently aboriginals maintain these benefits only be expropriating wealth earned by other citizens. This should be recognized for what it is, whenever it occurs–sanctioned stealing. The Heritage Ministry has no problem with forcing Canadians to pay and support the agenda of private groups of all kinds, be they ethnic, linguistic, feminist, business or social. At the same time the government uses these expenditures of taxpayer money to gain a political presence with these groups and thereby influence votes. This is a pernicious evil. Taxpayer money must only go towards expenditures which benefit the common interests of all Canadians–and which they support.
These developments may not be desirable, but they are readily apparent in major Canadian cities. Don’t blame the harbinger for the message. If Canadians want to avoid racial conflict, the most prudent means is to prevent the deliberate creation of a multi-racial society. Canadians
have the right to define the nature of the country, and have the responsibility to insist that anyone wishing to become Canadian accept those conditions. This is what a nation is, at least while it lives. If citizens give up this right, others will attempt to impose a new identity to suit their values and interests. This is in serious danger of happening in Canada. Displace the European ethnicity of Canada with third world peoples and there will be some shocking surprises. What the Federal government is doing is evil–their motives are replete with pride and high-minded vanity; the conflicts which will result are all unnecessary, all avoidable; and the people who have deliberately created this situation must bear responsibility for their involvement in the creation of evil. Canadians must not allow their government to forfeit Canadian sovereignty to the demands of a massive influx of immigrants from around the world who cannot or will not be assimilated. The solution is simple, stop the multicultural policies currently in vogue, and control the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population to ensure that the makeup of the Canadian population is not changed by immigration. Here’s how.
VI: Immigration Policy: Solutions In The Interests of Canada
1. The issue of race and ethnicity must be addressed head on, honestly and without duplicity. Immigration must not change the ethnic makeup of Canada. It has been doing just that for the last 15 years. Immigration policy must not allow the establishment or growth of ethnic minorities. Every immigrant of an ethnic minority fuels the demand for more immigrants from their home ethnic and religious community, and encourages the demand for multicultural policy in Canada. Immigrants must no longer be allowed to set the agenda for Canadian immigration policy. In addition, the demands for affirmative action and employment equity trace their roots to the demand that minorities see their interests actively promoted by the government, even if this hinders the rights and interests of the white majority in Canada. That is unacceptable and foreshadows the reality of racial conflict being forced on Canadians by a very destructive and foolish government policy. Canadian must demand politicians who have the maturity and honesty to address the issue with regard to the interests of Canada. Avoiding the issue of race for fear of being labelled a racist is cowardly and irresponsible. Race is both a legitimate and important criteria for selecting immigrants to Canada. Why then is input limited to the interests of ethnic minorities? The ethnic composition of immigrants must be changed to return the ethnic makeup of Canada to its composition in the 1970’s, before the Canadian government began its current adventure in social engineering. Ethnic and cultural compatibility with the Canadian majority must always be a prominent aspect of immigration policy.
- Canada should accept a very LIMITED number of political refugees to Canada: under 1000 at any time. As by the United Nations own conventions, refugees must first seeking protection and relief in the nearest territories adjacent to their home country. This means that the Canadian government must put the responsibility and pressure on both refugees and foreign governments on their responsibility to assist genuine refugees in crisis for a limited time. It must be made clear that anyone applying for refugee status in Canada must do so from their home country and not Canada or they will be turned away and be completely ineligible to reapply to Canada under any means, including application for immigrant status. In addition, refugee applicants must be permanently ineligible to apply for citizenship or immigrant status in Canada. This will discourage applying to Canada as a refugee in order to gain access to Canada; currently 85% of claims are false–claimants are applying for economic advancement, not refuge. Refugees will be allowed to stay in Canada for up to 3 years, after which they must reapply for refuge. It must be made clear that any children begotten or marriage to a Canadian citizen will not change the refugee status of either the refuge or their offspring. All will be returned to their country of origin. This is simply in the interests of Canada: our generosity was to provide refuge, not a permanent home.
Immigrants entering Canada must be free of all disease and health problems which may pose a threat or cost to Canadian citizens. The health of the Canadian public is being completely ignored to facilitate third world immigrants. The high prevalence within certain well-defined immigrant populations of asymptomatic parasitic infections that may be transmitted within households, daycare centres, specialized institutions or in schools poses an egregious risk to the Canadian public. The potential for reinfection or new infection, the long asymptomatic survival times of parasitic infections, and the potential increase in health costs due to importation of parasitic infections makes screening of high-risk individuals essential.
A minimum ten year moratorium on all immigration is currently necessary to permit the Canadian public to assimilate the irresponsibly managed influx of foreign peoples into Canada. In any event, Canada does not need more immigrants. Encouragement of the majority of these immigrants to return home is a must.
Immigrants applying for residency in Canada must demonstrate complete literacy in the English language before being permitted into Canada. In addition, all immigrants must demonstrate that they have an education equal to or better than the average Canadian, and be applying for work in a field that is currently suffering a serious shortage in the labour area. The failure of government and business interests to properly invest in Canadians is not an acceptable reason to import foreign workers. Foreign workers should only be offered the chance to work in Canada as an economic opportunity without offering citizenship. Canadian citizenship has become too cheap. Canada may be seen as an opportunity for third world peoples looking to obtain a better life, but it comes at the expense of displacing Canadians in their own country. The government of Canada has destroyed its credibility: claiming that immigrants bring desperately needed skilled labour and economic growth to Canada is a demonstrable lie: why then is the immigrant presence so highly visible in all low-wage, low skill jobs that Canadians of lower education could have had?
There must be NO family sponsorship of immigrants. Every application must demonstrate their value to Canada independently of other factors. Taxpayer costs for ESL training total over $270 million annually. English language proficiency must be a mandatory component, in addition to the issue of both ethnic and cultural compatibility with Canada. Immigrants and refugees must be completely ineligible for all welfare and government programs, including up to 10 years after being granted Canadian citizenship. This includes subsidized post-secondary education for their children, and health care. These programs are not free. They were invested by past generations for the express benefit of their children, not for immigrants or others seeking to obtain this wealth for their own benefit. Although uncomfortable for some to admit, the morality of the massive wealth transfer being permitted to happen from a foolish immigration and social policy is questionable. The economic value of gaining access to Canada’s infrastructure and high standard of living are worth over $50,000 alone. When recently arrived ethnic minorities are awarded competitive positions in government, universities and professional fields because of race, deserving Canadians with far more claim to these opportunities are being cheated. The wealth of this country was built by past generations of Canadians, and they have the absolute right to insist the benefits be assigned in their interests and to the benefit of Canadian citizens.
Repeal all policies and programs encouraging multiculturalism, employment equity and affirmative action. Multiculturalism is incompatible with the goals of a united society, instead producing miniature replications of foreign cultures on Canadian soil. The idea of employment equity and mandatory monitoring of the racial composition of the workforce is incompatible with the principle of merit and freedom of choice in the workplace. Multiculturalism challenges Canadian interests in foreign policy, encouraging the government to appease ethnic minorities for votes. Because multiculturalism actively encourages immigrants to take pride in their countries of origin and cultural heritage, minority activism often at odds with those whose primary commitment is to Canada. The Air India bombing, Sikh extremism and Hindu Nationalism, Somalia, Arab and Jewish conflict, the Balkan war, the Gulf War, Iraqi refugees, and Chinese dissidents have all brought attempts to influence Canadian policy for foreign interests. More recent examples include Kurdish immigrants rioting in Montreal, Asian immigrants in Vancouver demanding their own school system, and racial conflict in Montreal from Caribbean immigrants. None of these racial and national problems can occur if non-white immigration to Canada is extremely limited–yet Canadians have deliberately been exposed to these problems and forced to handle them by their own government’s irresponsibility. There are ghettos in major cities such as Toronto and Montreal where Canadian citizens do not even feel safe to leave their homes alone.
Human rights tribunals must be eliminated and a return to the common law and courts of justice. The danger to free speech posed by the power of these tribunals to determine what constitutes hate, and censor opinions which a given segment of society deems offensive, particularly ethnic and multicultural activists, homosexuals, feminists, environmentalists and anti-racists, cannot be underestimated. The argument in favour of free speech on condition that the manner of expression be moderate, tolerant and unoffensive to others may seem innocuous. However this demand goes to the heart of the issue: you cannot be in favour of free speech only when you happen to agree with the opinions being expressed: “if the test be offense to those whose opinions are attacked, experience testifies that this offense is given whenever the attack is most telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperant opponent.” It is precisely to silence the opposition that such conditions on free speech have and will be sought.
The composition of Immigration and Refugee boards must also be monitored to ensure that the interests of Canadians are put first. Political activism by ethnic minorities in Canada has placed an unrepresentative number of minorities with inappropriate level of influence over immigration selection into Canada. The consequence is evident to all. Ethnic minorities promote policies which will increase the presence of ethnic minorities of similar backgrounds to themselves.
VII: Politics, Propaganda and Canadian Sovereignty: The Impact of Immigration Policy
Who speaks for Canada? An examination of the Immigration and Refugee Board reveals a disturbing answer. In October 1997, Lucienne Robillard announced seven new appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The preponderance of immigration lawyers and lobbyists is unacceptable. Among the latest appointments: Kathy Major is past legal adviser with the Immigration and Refugee Board, Raza Naqvi is past chair and director of the Pakistan Canada Amity Forum and former member of the Peel Multicultural Council, Philomen Wright is the former Executive Director with the Mayor’s Committee on Community, Race and Ethnic Relations (North York), Michael Hamelin is a lawyer specializing in family, immigration and general litigation, Abdol Hossein Kafai is past Chair of the Media-Communications Committee of the Ottawa-Carleton Immigrant Services Organization, Joulekhan Pirbay is a former member of the National Settlement Committee of the Ismaili Council for Canada, and Pia Zambelli is a lawyer involved in immigration, refugee law and human rights issues. (C-FAR report) Who stands for Canada? What about the majority of Canadians upset with the radical changing of the ethnic balance of Canadian neighbourhoods? There is good reason for concern. The people controlling current immigration demonstrate a very anti-White, anti-Canadian agenda by cavalierly changing the ethnic makeup of Canada under the racial activism of minorities (advancing the demographic, economic and political power of minorities). The immigration department’s actions clearly demonstrate a prevalence of implicitly held attitudes denying national sovereignty and private property as rights of free citizens. This attitude is expressed in government policy. Immigrants and refugees are automatically eligible for virtually the same benefits available to Canadian citizens who have alone developed and paid for them, while multiculturalism explicitly denies any cultural and religious heritage of which Canadians have the right to protect and defend. Canada is simply a land mass, free for the taking. Concern is clearly justified, and needs to be openly addressed. An honest observation of race and racial issues is a perfectly legitimate concern–except in totalitarian societies. Canadians are watching their country being given away, merely to allow foreign peoples a claim to a prosperity that was built by Canadians for their children.
Those who denounce any consideration of immigration and racial issues as racist should consider the implications of such a position. For one, it denies any notion of national sovereignty, democracy and the right of free nations to decide their future. With such a policy, Canadians will see their country and its wealth taken over by those who have failed to take respOnsibility for their population growth and prosperity. In fact such a stance is demonstrably racist against White people as a racial group. To expect White nations to permit the racial makeup of their populations to change to allow the expansion of racial groups who will not regulate their population is a capitulation to the aggressor and endorses the dispossession of whites from control over their countries and their future. While non-white countries continue to expand their populations, whites are being told to endorse their own diminution by allowing other racial groups settlement in white countries.
Such an expectation gives no regard to the existence of whites as a racial group, and denies the right of self-preservation to the very people who built this continent by insuring their complete disappearance from Canada as the majority ethnic group. If just I% of the Chinese and Indian population were allowed to immigrate Canada would become unrecognizable as country built by Northern Europeans; Canada would have a population of some 80 million people or more, but with virtually no ties to Western culture or tradition. Normally such a situation would require military force to carry out, and it would be condemned as genocide. For people with no regard to the basic right of white nations to preserve their identity, it is called anti-racism, multiculturalism, ‘diversity’ or affirmative action. It is a sellout of Canada, and it must be addressed.
Unfortunately, racial issues continue to be discussed with selective censorship, imposed double standards and hypocrisy unbecoming a free society. The Canadian media has demonstrated its complete willingness to censor public dialogue by manipulating the facts and issues behind immigration to suit the agenda of governmental and bureaucratic elites. By portraying themselves both tacitly and explicitly as unbiased sources for the transmission of events and issues (not their interpretation and promotion), they have lied. Their readiness to arrogate critical judgement and controversy on immigration to favour facts and ideas suitable to their own political leanings constitutes a repudiation of democratic process in favour of the acquisition of power they claim to condemn. Having chosen to suppress the only real value of democracy–the citizens right to determine public policy through the free exchange of thought– and permit massive changes to take place in Canadian society while suppressing the consequences of such actions from millions of people, the Canadian media have acted in a manner appropriate to the charge of treason.
Propaganda is nothing more than the selective and prolonged manipulation of the information and ideas available for public thought to control people’s behaviour. Over a period of months or years its influence can be very profound; it cannot change people’s attitudes overnight. Effective propaganda ensures that conflicting facts and opinions are carefully kept from public consumption, while creating an atmosphere portraying all opposition as bigoted -meaning unprincipled (thus requiring suppression of all discussion on principles), ignorant or threatening. Events and issues which question the dominant propaganda are ignored until awareness reaches the point that active discrediting and misrepresentation of opposing opinions becomes necessary. Only at this point may the public even become aware of other viewpoints on the subject.
What is the difference between bias and principled belief? How can one identify issues where propaganda has or is effectively manipulating facts and ideas to prevent the majority of citizens from making informed decisions? The appearance of a lack of controversy–specifically the lack of a strong, multi-faceted presentation of polemical views in light of evidence and events which call into question the pre-dominant position. The key to propaganda is selective presentation of facts and ideas favourable only to one viewpoint, thereby associating these ideas as established truths in the public arena, while minimizing the occasions to reconsider conflicting ideas. Controlling the direction of public thought means minimizing occasions for opponents to argue their position in their own words, instead of through interpreters who can filter the message. Effective propaganda changes the analysis of ideas from questions of true or false to good or bad–particularly by ignoring the intrinsic merits of an argument and focusing on the character and motivations of the speaker. Thus disagreement with the dominant propaganda is evidence of malicious intent, thereby ensuring the dismissal of contrary views without consideration. Propaganda need not appear coercive, primarily because the pressure to accept propaganda occurs in an atmosphere filtered of strong dissent and absent of apparent alternatives.
Once the propaganda is accepted, however, it becomes necessary to act in a manner consonant with the accepted dogma; for to do otherwise would require forfeiting the psychological foundation already adopted to justify and interpret one’s decision. The individual must continue to accept and support the implications that follow the propaganda, committing to a cause of which he can have only limited knowledge and understanding. He has been subtly prevented from examining the basis for his beliefs.
Media coverage which follows this pattern is propaganda, and it has prevented the Canadian public from voicing their real concerns. The reporting or teaching of ideas in this manner is often motivated by naive but well-intentioned motives–namely to prevent the public dissemination of ideas deemed dangerous or potentially evil. But no one who assents undoubtingly to informed opinion, without knowledge of the grounds for the opinion and unable to defend it against the most superficial objections, can be truly safe from propaganda. This attitude, tacitly denied by many journalists and even university professors, is fundamentally opposed to the search for truth. Anyone sincerely desirous of truth will always support free examination of a wide range of opinion, for it is exactly the contrast and collision of differing positions which reveal their strengths and weaknesses.
Advocates supporting selective filtering or conditions on free speech are fundamentally enemies of the truth. Their primary motive is to control the actions and thoughts of others for political purposes. The free expression and dissemination of controversial viewpoints, no matter how offensive, remains the greatest protection against the propagation of error and falsehood: “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by collision of adverse opinions that the reminder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or experience” (John Stuart Mill).
Immigration, as with much in Canadian political and social policy, has suffered the effects of propaganda. It is a discussion long overdue, avoided for the worst of reasons. Why? Because in the ideological struggle for power, a group’s claim to special privileges and status is directly proportional to their ability to market themselves as victims. The power of victimhood lies in seeking the moral authority necessary to justify the revenge sought against the perpetrator, warranted or not. And for the taxpayer funded anti-racist community, racism exists in two forms. That practised by whites, abhorrent and inexcusable whatever its motives, and that practised by non-whites, always justified since it is an expression of righteous revenge, and therefore up to whites to be understanding. Such aggression, couched in the terms of victim ideology and ‘the need for diversity’, must be challenged for its hypocrisy and ulterior motives.
Many proponents of immigration are insincere, supporting immigration not because they believe it will benefit Canada, but because they believe support for immigration portrays themselves as altruistic and morally enlightened. As such they are focused on the interests of potential immigrants, and not toward the needs of the Canadian society. But by pretending the gift of settlement is in fact theirs to offer, without cost to Canada, advocates will continue to use immigration to further private interests in sectorial economic growth, for political power, or to elevate their social status as generous humanitarians, all while being protected from the direct costs which others must bear. As long as their arguments go unchallenged, they will continue to benefit from this hypocrisy. The present attitude of immigration policy makers is offensive to the historical reality of Canada. They have come to treat the world’s peoples as if they were all merely Canadians in waiting–most conspicuously identified by such Immigration department advertising describing Canada as ‘A Welcoming Land’ while ignoring the real problems and concerns of Canadians. But Canada is not a land mass, and Canadian citizenship will not simply make someone a Canadian–unless being Canadian is to mean virtually nothing. This is the direction immigration policy has led for the last 25 years, and it is unacceptable.
Fifty years from now many issues of current importance will have faded from memory; the consequences from immigration policy will be evident to all. It will determine the type of society we have. Canadians do not want these changes, or even the risks posed by allowing such immigration to occur. They need only realize that none of it is necessary. That the Government of Canada has allowed a situation to develop where white Canadians find themselves a racial minority in major cities across Canada, and face racial discrimination applied both explicitly and implicitly to ensure equality of outcome for ethnic minorities, should be recognized as a serious failure of Parliamentary democracy and a grave concern to all who believe in freedom.