General

Canada’s Contrived Immigration Chaos: Liberal Party Aiming for Permanent Hegemony by Importing a New Electorate

/10 Comments/in /by

The hostile political and corporate elites in the United States and Canada are hell-bent on replacing their White citizens with denizens from the Third World. Canada’s federal Liberal party, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and America’s Democrats are birds of a feather: they are both using population replacement to ensure perpetual electoral hegemony. We are ruled by a corrupt political class that despise us. Our independence, insistence on self-reliance and freedom are an impediment to them. So much so that Trudeau would like to see a rapid acceleration of the great replacement of old stock Canadians. Despite a worsening Covid-19 public health crisis in Canada, Trudeau’s government would see immigration levels skyrocket over the next three years, with over 400,000 entrants being let in each year. Careful observers speculate that the actual number will be far higher.

In an article published in the National Post in 2018, immigration lawyer Julie Taub and intelligence expert David Harris make the assessment that the true purpose of the Liberal party’s reckless disregard for Canadian immigration law is to import a new electorate: “Why is Canada pursuing this kind of policy? Sad to say, the evidence speaks for itself. … Official Ottawa’s averting of its gaze from border breaching, is only one facet of a much larger political impulse. The impulse? To import, through legal and perhaps illegal immigration and refugee intakes, large numbers of future, grateful prospective voting blocs, contrary to Canadians’ national interest.”

In March, the US House of Representatives passed two bills, the Promise and Dream Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which will help to ensure that the immigration floodgates remain wide open. Similarly, just last week, on 14 April 2021, Canada’s federal government announced that it will “grant permanent residency status to more than 90,000 temporary foreign workers and graduated international students as part of its goal to admit 401,000 immigrants this year.” It has been a priority for the Trudeau government to increase the number of immigrants admitted annually: the annual intake of permanent residents has climbed from 241,000 in 2015 to 341,000 in 2019.

In March 2021, Trudeau’s Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino announced that last year’s immigration levels will be increased by 117 percent to the highest rate in Canadian history. This year’s immigration intake will surpass the previous record of 400,900 immigrants set in 1913. The purported reason was to “accelerate our economic recovery.”

This recent intensification was foreshadowed by Trudeau’s initial immigration radicalism that began when he became prime minister in 2015. Candice Malcolm, in her book No Border, describes Trudeau’s immigration and refugee policies in detail from 2015 to 2019. During that time, Trudeau invited the world’s refugees to come to Canada on social media. On Twitter, the Prime Minister reassured potential newcomers that all would be welcome “no matter who they are or where they are from.”

Malcolm goes on to write that Trudeau refused to secure Canada’s border at the notorious Roxham Road illegal entry point; his federal government gave no heed to security concerns by allowing unvetted migrants from terrorist hotspots into the country. He championed the UN Global Compact on Migration and vilified journalists who questioned his motives; and he declared Canada to be a “post-national state” with “no core identity, no mainstream.”

Why would this be? Academic Ricardo Duchesne states that there is no better agent of radical Marxist change than the malleable Third World immigrant: “Immigrants are not only a political force, but a demographic-racial force that will transform White nations into mongrelized post-national states without any common identity other than deracinated masses of consumers grasping for identities in shopping malls and university halls.” For Leftist radicals, like Trudeau and his minders, who are now in power, the White working class has been a remarkable disappointment. They worked hard and grew to love the countries they built; they did not want to see it all given away to foreigners who took no part in the decades of back breaking labor. And worst of all, they were not “woke.” They could care less about LBGTQ+ and are horrified by all the talk of White fragility. The only way to irreparably change the West, including Canada, is to import a legion of Third World immigrants who will slavishly vote liberal and let Leftists stay in power in perpetuity.

One of Trudeau’s most trusted cabinet ministers, Canada’s federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, recently described Covid-19 as an opportunity to reshape Canada: “I really believe COVID-19 has created a window of political opportunity and maybe an epiphany.”  She was echoing similar sentiments expressed by Trudeau half a year ago at the UN when he spoke about the pandemic facilitating a great reset: “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. … This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems.”  The pandemic itself and purported initiatives to stimulate economic recovery have provided the pretexts and smokescreen to open the immigration floodgates to the Third World even wider. And the same people who are obsessed with imposing lockdowns and destroying small businesses could care less about public health implications of their policies.

For the radicals now in power, it’s ideologically anathema for the government to properly screen travelers and secure Canada’s borders. Just like the Biden administration in the U.S., they just will just wave them in and claim the borders are under control. Nothing must get in the way of permanent hegemony of the Left.

This has been devastating in the era of Covid, as provinces defer to Ottawa to “manage screening and quarantine provisions for cross-border travel.” Our borders remain open to pandemic hotspots like variant ravaged India because the current Liberal impulse to radically transform the demographic nature of Canada overrides the need to close our borders to foreigners who are potential Covid-19 carriers. Although completely insane in the current context, it is undoubtedly true. Trudeau and his chief deputy, Chrystia Freeland have said it themselves: Covid has presented a tremendous opportunity to demographically transform Canada no matter how many lives are ruined, no matter the cost, and no matter the number of Covid deaths.

Sources and Additional Links

Justine Hunter, “B.C.’s swelling COVID-19 cases fuelled by variants, travel,” The Globe and Mail, 16 April 2021, available: here.

John Ibbitson and Janice Dickson, “Ottawa aims to grant residency to 90,000 temporary workers and students,” The Globe and Mail, 14 April 2021, available: here.

Anna Mehler Paperny, “Migrant farmworkers coming to Canada remain at risk a year into COVID-19 pandemic,” The Globe and Mail, 14 April 2021, available: here.

“Immigration Levels Up 117%,” Blacklock’s Reporter, 9 March 2021, available: here.

“Trudeau government promises to raise immigration rates 117%,” True North, 9 March 2021, available: here.

Washington Watcher II, “The Traitorous Republicans Who Back Amnesty In 2021,” VDare, 18 March 2021, available: here.

Kareem El-Assal, “Saturday Surprise: Canada invites 27,332 Express Entry candidates in bold move,” CIC News, 14 February 2021, available: here.

“Majority of Canadians oppose Trudeau government’s immigration plan: study,” True North, 27 January 2021, available here.

Candice Malcolm, “Exclusive: 76% of Canadians want a total pause on immigration,” True North, 10 June 2020, available: here.

Candice Malcolm, No Border: Justin Trudeau’s Assault on Canadian Border Security, Magna Carta, 2019.

Ricardo Duchesne, “Immigrants Key Revolutionary Agent Of Cultural Marxists,” Council of European Canadians, 29 November 2020, available: here.

Rex Murphy, “Rex Murphy: Chrystia Freeland’s ‘epiphany’ that COVID-19 is an ‘opportunity’ — that’s pretty dark,” National Post, 15 April 2021, available: here.

Kevin MacDonald, “Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!),” The Occidental Observer, 14 April 2021, available: here.

Kevin MacDonald, “Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues,” The Occidental Observer, 10 April 2021, available: here.

Julie Taub and David B. Harris, “Border refugee crisis all about importing new voting blocs,” National Post, 22 May 2018, available: here.

“Flights from Delhi to Vancouver questioned as India suffers record COVID-19 surge,” CBC News, 22 April 2021, available: here.

Emma Sandri, “Amid surging cases and ‘double mutant’ variant, flights from India touch down in Canada,” National Post, 19 April 2021, available: here.

 

How Will Wokeism Die?

/41 Comments/in /by

Audio Version

Are we approaching an “Emperor’s
New Clothes” moment?

“Racist”, “Sexist”, “Homophobe”, “Transphobe”, “Nazi”, “White Supreeeemist”, etc., are, as we all know in the Dissident Right, the language of control that portions of the White population of the West use against other portions of the White population of the West to maintain control and social power.

Occasionally Non-Whites—usually weaponised by Whites of course—involve themselves in this power dynamic. But it is mainly a form of White-on-White violence, or tyranny, and like all such things it is deeply resented.

But, unlike earlier tyrannies, it is not well understood. Invisible chains are, after all, the most effective ones.But no tyranny can last indefinitely. Indeed, all tyrannies have to be constantly reinvented or rejigged, because, proportionate to their success, they all breed resistance, antithesis, and finally their own overthrow. So it will eventually be with Wokeism too, as well as its central “crime”, “sin”, or “taboo” that certain objectively valid generalisations and topics are somehow “evil”.

In order to facilitate the death of this particular tyranny on the free opinions of mankind—because, yes, its negative effects ripple out over the whole of humankind—we have to start thinking concretely of how Wokeism will actually die.

This is not immediately clear because those who suffer most from this tyranny—certain groups of straight, male cisgender Whites—often misunderstand their oppression so badly that they end up simply reinforcing it.
“Dems/Leftists are the real racists” is a classic example.
Another failing strategy is to embrace whichever term is used to oppress you, along the lines of “Yes, I’m a racist/Nazi! So what?”In both cases the subject just strengthens their own oppression; in the first example by agreeing that the words of tyranny should have power (“Dems/Leftists are the real racists”), and in the second by isolating themselves and agreeing that they should not have power (“Yes, I’m a racist/Nazi! So what?”)
But eventually, after a lot of false starts and toing-and-froing, some sort of effective resistance against the White-on-White tyranny of Wokeism is bound to emerge. Here, in these pages, we have already had some worthwhile attempts to deconstruct the juggernaut going back several years:
There are no doubt others that I have missed.
These are mainly intellectual critiques. But a truly effective resistance against Wokeism is likely to take on a more unpredictable and populist form. With that observation in mind, my predictions are that the death of Wokeism will include some of the following elements:
  1. In Europe and elsewhere it will take on a form of anti-Americanism. Those using “woke” jargon will be denounced as lapdogs of the American Empire and its sick culture, and accused of resorting to “American words” when they make their usual power plays. They will be associated with America’s Globohomo Imperium. This is not as unlikely as it may sound to some Americans because it is undeniable that Wokeism is all part and parcel of US attempts at globally projecting its “anti-cultural” power.
  2. Anti-Wokeism will also increasingly focus on wokeism as nothing more than a tool of oppression. Already non-woke, straight, male cisgender Whites are the most oppressed group in Western societies. This has been masked by their ability to cope with and overcome this imposed and artificial handicap. But, in recent years we have seen the oppression escalate to the point where it is really starting to bite not just the core group but also adjacent groups like gay Whites and White females. Even the White exploiters of the tyrannical mechanism must be increasingly ambivalent about its benefits to them, as the power they gain from it ultimately works to undermine and destroy them.
  3. In America the two trends above will be weaker, because that country is the font of this poison and, in certain important respects, Wokeism serves as a useful social cement for what is in reality a deeply fragmented and asymmetrical society. However, the ongoing underclass replacement that we see in America, where Hispanics have been pushing out Blacks, will highlight the Black Underclass-White Leftist Upper-class synergy that has always been at the heart of Wokeism. In short, Wokeism in America will be perceived as a class problem.
  4. As a result of this, Authentic Black nationalists will become more aware of how they have been weaponised and used to serve inter-White power struggles. They will respond by working to “decolonize” Black identity politics from White Leftist elite control, and instead seek synergy, Malcom-X-style, with legitimate identitarian groups in American society.

Reposted from Affirmative Right, with permission.

Lipton Matthews interviews Kevin MacDonald on Western Individualism

/1 Comment/in /by

This interview was almost exclusively on my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition and how it differs from Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World. I need a haircut

Lipton Matthews Interviews Gregory Hood

/7 Comments/in /by

Babylon Bee: Man Who Agrees With Every Single Corporation Thinks He’s Part Of The Resistance

/2 Comments/in /by

Michelle Malkin on the War on Whites

/12 Comments/in /by

Sometimes it takes a non-White to discuss these issues. Some very telling examples.

https://www.mediamatters.org/michelle-malkin/newsmax-host-says-

Understanding Western Uniqueness

/1 Comment/in /by

A rather long critical review of Joseph Henrich’s recent The WEIRDest People in the World, based on my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. 

Understanding Western Uniqueness: A Comment on Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
Mankind Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2021): 723–766.

Abstract

Despite its many strengths, Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2020) has several weaknesses: 1.) It conceptualizes the uniqueness of the West as solely the result of cultural evolution set in motion by the medieval Church, thereby ignoring the strong tendencies toward individualism in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity, the Indo-European groups that conquered the continent in pre-historic times, and the primordial northern European hunter-gatherers. 2.) It conceptualizes analytic thinking and representative government typical of the West as resulting from the cultural shift brought about by the medieval Church, whereas analytic thinking can be found in the ancient world, particularly among the Greeks, and representative government can be found in ancient Greece and Rome, and in pre-Christian Germanic and Scandinavian cultures. 3.) Henrich’s portrayal of Westerners as non-conformists is overdrawn. Although Westerners are more likely to dissent from a group consensus compared to kinship-based cultures, moral communities based on a variety of psychological mechanisms are a powerful force for conformity in individualistic Western societies, with dissenters subject to guilt, ostracism, and altruistic punishment. 4.) Henrich analyzes the accomplishments of the West solely in terms of social learning and culturally constructed personality variation in traits related to conscientiousness, thereby ignoring data on the biological basis and adaptive significance of variation in personality and general intelligence.

 Conclusion

I agree with Henrich that there has been a strong role for culture in human adaptation. However, the psychological origins of individualism and the psychological systems related to individualism, as well as intelligence and personality, lie far more in the biological realm than Henrich is willing to grant. The unique individualism of the West can be traced to the hunter-gatherer cultures of northwestern Europe as well as to the Indo-European cultures of ancient Greece and Rome and the Germanic peoples that dominated Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church adopted policies similar to some aspects of Greek and Roman culture (non-kinship-based identities, monogamy, and exogamy), thus reinforcing individualism in Western Europe. Despite important differences between different culture areas of Western Europe noted here, the traditional view that the uniqueness of the West originated in the ancient world remains true. Western culture is “of a piece.”

Although the West came to dominate the collectivist cultures of the rest of the world, Western cultures are proving highly vulnerable to collectivist groups that have been welcomed into Western societies. Ultimately these groups are welcomed because Westerners are relatively trusting of strangers and more prone to seeing others as individuals rather than as members of competing groups — phenomena that are now occurring within a cultural context in which the West is widely despised for its history of conquest and slavery and thus the appropriate target of altruistic punishment by Westerners themselves. As Henrich notes, people whose roots lie in collectivist cultures remain untrusting of strangers and are less individualistic-independent and more conformist-obedient even long after immigrating to the West. Such people are prone to acting in their collective self-interest, and they are slated to become majorities throughout the West in coming decades. If that happens, it is likely that the institutions of Western individualism based on the long tradition of individual freedom, representative government, and reproductive egalitarianism will not survive and that Westerners who are genetically and culturally inclined toward individualism will become a diminishing, powerless minority in a world of competing identity groups. Indeed, science, perhaps the crowning achievement of the West, is increasingly deferring to group interests in the publication process (Nature Communications, 2020).

Western individualism is a fragile flower in a world where kinship and tribal loyalties remain strong and are likely to remain so into the foreseeable future.