People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

‘Concerned with only one subject…’

The second paragraph, below, is a quote from one of the many writings of Alice A. Bailey, an English-born woman who, in the early 20th century, was part of a growing esoteric belief system, based mostly on the occultist writings of Helena Blavatsky, usually known as ‘Madam Blavatsky:

“The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation.

The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis…

We are concerned with only one subject, the ushering in of the new world order.”

It all sounds familiar — it sounds as though it’s all going according to plan. Notice that she repeats the phrase about the ‘NWO’ being ‘‘appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis”. This idea turns up often in writings by globalists when discussing the future. ‘Ordo ab chao‘, is the phrase.

The existence of writings like this from decades ago (the quoted words were written c. 1940) reminds us that these ideas have been around for some time, not a new development, not a product of the ‘Sixties.’ But the ideas are a part of the ‘New Age’ movement which many people think of as only another faddish syncretistic religious system, when in fact it is very political, working with the U.N. and other such organizations; I’d be surprised if the organization associated with Bailey, the Lucis Trust, counts many of today’s politicians and officials as members, though they may avoid publicizing that fact.

How has it all changed so much?

VDare has a piece by Harri Honkanen in which he writes about the apparent worrying situation in Denmark as immigration becomes more of a problem. The aggravating factor is accelerating mass immigration from the the Middle East and other disparate cultures.

As Honkanen points out in the article, there were some hopeful trends in Denmark, hinting that they might just be showing some common sense and a smidgen of healthy self-preservation instinct. This article, typical of many written a few months ago, praises her commitment to ‘cutting carbon emissions’ and the usual causes, but called her a ‘hard-liner’ on immigration; this raised the hopes of some on the right.

But those were false hopes, it seems. Mrs. Frederiksen, the Prime Minister, is singing the now-familiar refrains, the same tune that’s so popular among all the Western leadership.

It seems undeniable that female politicians and ‘leaders’ are softer when it comes to immigration or any ‘social justice’ issue. Maybe it’s the maternal instinct kicking in. Mrs Frederiksen is something of an anomaly among European female leaders in that she is not childless. She has two children so we can’t rationalize her political stance as being “maternal” towards the downtrodden at the expense of her own constituents and countrymen.

So why are all the Western countries seemingly moving leftward in recent years? It isn’t all due to the accession of a number of female leaders recently. When this subject is discussed, few people ever mention the factor of the ‘changing of the guard’ generationally. It seems to me that people overlook — or do they evade? — the part played by this factor.

People often say that recent elections have been affected by the increasing numbers of immigrants. No doubt that does play a part. But it’s generally been true that immigrants, according to polls and surveys, have less interest in voting and political action, outside ethnic activism.

But a bigger factor, it could well be, that as the older generations die then the remaining generations are much more left-leaning in their politics, even more so with the youngest new voters. And many of the youngest voters have very strong feelings about their politics.

I noticed some years back that the Silent Generation members, and ‘Greatest Generation’ people who used to be on the Internet were slowly disappearing. The result was the loss of many well-educated and articulate people, people with lots of life-experience. The discussions on the Internet, with the older people gone, became less well-informed, less civil and gentlemanly, more rancorous and given to use of foul language and name-calling.

I miss some of those individuals I used to ”see” around the Internet — and those in real life too; we won’t see their likes again.

The loss of those people means, politically, that there is less support for right-wing or even right-leaning policies. And, just as important if not more so, the culture has become so degraded and corrupt that the oldest generations could scarcely have imagined the shocking headlines we are seeing today, with no change toward sanity in sight.

I know someone will inevitably insist that those older generations were ‘dumber’ than today’s people, which is not supported by any data that I’ve seen, even allowing for some cognitive slowing-down in older age. It’s not even supported by simple observation. Those older people,our grandparents and even our parents, were better-educated; schools were better, and people were not as addicted to mind-numbing TV. Porn was not mainstream then; it was not everywhere
as it is now. The propaganda machine was not running 24/7 back then; people were better able to think for themselves. And they did, more so than today.

Personally I miss the older generations. I’ve always said the people make the place, well, the people make the era, too. The kinds of people who make up the population produce a society that is good, bad, or indifferent, according to the aggregate of individual character.

But as they say, ”you can’t turn the clock back’ so I expect we won’t have such a society ever again; we can only try to salvage what’s left of the one that was left to us. Whether that statement implies hope or lack thereof is up to us.

Changes to the look of the blog

I don’t know if any of you noticed that the blog may have gone through a few different looks over the last few hours, as I’ve again changed the visuals of the blog. The theme I was using had interfered with the blog links’ displaying correctly, so I’ve been trying to fix that, and the legibility of the blog, what with the different colors. I’ve been working at this for hours now, so I hope it is finally displaying as it should, and that it’s readable.