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.

O’Rourke on the 2nd Amendment

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is now openly speaking against Second Amendment rights of citizens. I suspect he hasn’t had a change of heart, but has always held these views; the left has seldom upheld the ideas inherent in the Second Amendment. He basically says that it’s useless, and implicitly wrong, even theoretically, to consider opposing a tyrannical regime; after all, you have no chance of prevailing, even though you may be in the right, so don’t even think of defending yourself, your family, or your rights.

(By the way, O’Rourke’s name is Robert, so why again do we call him ‘Beto’? Is this not what the ”woke” left call ‘cultural appropriation’? His name is Robert, so why is he not called Bob, or in more appropriate Texas fashion, ‘Bobby’? Is he not a born Texan? He has no discernible Texan or Southern accent, but then that’s typical of his generation (since judging people by generation is somehow the ”done thing”, then let’s label him too; he’s a Gen X-er). And he is also one of those deracinated, cosmopolitan types, hence the affected ‘Beto’ nickname; I guess that explains it. He wants to show he is ‘down’ with the diversity thing; no ‘White-bread’ Texan or Southron, he.

In times past, someone like him would never have been elected; the Democrat Party. which dominated all of the South until what, the 1980s, would never have nominated him. Even the Democrat Party did not present such far-left candidates back in the time of the Solid South.

But the way in which he brushes aside any consideration of the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers thought crucial to preserving the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is just astounding, but then it’s typical of today’s left, who no longer pretend to honor our Founding principles.

Yes, I know it’s the thing now for even the right to deride the Founding Fathers, flippantly declaring that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that ‘muh Constitution’ is worthless, echoing G.W. Bush who reportedly said ‘it’s just a G–D—-d piece of paper‘ — but with what would you replace it? Of course no rights exist if we no longer believe in them, and dismiss the writers of our Constitution as clueless blunderers who should have somehow magically divined the ways in which future politicians would deliberately twist and warp the words and intentions of the Founders, or just blatantly ignore or defy the rights delineated in our founding documents. How could they have anticipated the developments which led to our present dire predicament? Could they have anticipated a world in which literally millions of people from the ‘have-not’ countries could somehow find the means (cheap air travel, money given by NGOs, etc.) to come en masse to our country?

And critics usually forget that our system of government was explicitly intended for a ”moral and God-fearing people’, and it was not suited to any other. Little wonder that it’s fallen to pieces; the more we forsook our traditions and became disconnected from our roots, including our religious roots, the more this country fell prey to subversion and decay. We can’t blame the Founding Fathers, who could hardly envision today’s world, nor can even the Boomers be blamed — sorry, Boomer-phobics. I won’t even blame Gen-Xers, except for the likes of ”Beto” Robert O’Rourke, though I will fault him for either his ignorance of or disregard for our inherent right to defend ourselves. It appears he thinks we should just cower in our houses if bad guys are breaking in, and give in to their demands.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” – Aristotle

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

Children suing countries over climate issue

How does that work? How can under-age children sue countries over the climate controversy? I read that Greta Thunberg and 15 other children are suing the countries which are supposedly obstructing the progress of the effort to ‘fix’ climate change.

Emmanuel Macron spoke about his country being sued, and he was oddly noncommittal about this situation, not exactly enthusiastic, but still he emphasized that he and France are not opposing this effort. He did, though, called Greta and her ‘children’s crusade’ against nature ‘very radical’ and possibly antagonistic towards some of the nations being sued.

It seems surprising that Macron would say this, given his own leftist and globalist politics. But still it’s odder for children (or more accurately, teen-agers like Greta) to be traveling the world, being made the face of a movement like this, at such a young age. Let’s be honest: these young people are not children; they are being called that in order to make them more sympathetic. Children, it’s said, are innocent (though few are that, these days) and they are supposedly naive and trusting, and ‘honest’ in the same guileless way that only the very young can be. But how old is this Greta? I believe she is 16, nearly 17. That’s not a child, though Greta looks strangely childlike for her age, as though she may have a growth problem; she looks more like 11 or 12, and it isn’t just her short stature. But her short stature and childlike looks probably garner more sympathy from adults.

This looks like exploitation, cashing in on the youth and vulnerability of those who are being made the public face of this movement.

Any sympathy or protective instinct the movement has stirred up in parents or other adults may be counteracted by the angry, contorted face and words of little Greta, berating the adults, the guilty ones:

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming whether you like it or not.

This is pretty harsh and dictatorial language coming from what appears to be a young, pigtailed girl. Whose words is she reading? Or does anyone believe she writes her own speeches? Who is backing this whole sideshow?

Since when do young, callow, inexperienced, and overemotional young people get to dictate to adults? Children can be useful to political movements; some unprincipled people have used children as human shields. In this case, it’s more like manipulation and an effort at manipulating the public.

But these young people have themselves been manipulated by the ”educational” establishment which has conditioned them to believe what the orthodox establishment tells them, and has taught them that only one legitimate viewpoint exists, and that is the political establishment’s.

Power is no longer vested in the citizenry, though in our country the Founding Fathers insisted that the will of the majority was always to be respected. Of course Greta’s country, and I suspect the countries of many of these other activist ‘children’ do not accept the same principles, and at the moment it appears as if our own government is following some other law than the traditions and laws of our forefathers. But as of now, the United ‘Nations’ (funny, a globalist organization referring to ‘nations’, which they want to abolish) is apparently the highest authority. Will we have the third world dictating to us, via their organization, the UN? We are decidedly outnumbered in that organization, and yet we seem to be making obeisance to them. Will Greta and her teen-age ‘sages’ be laying down the law to us? Are they grooming those children to be our future leaders?

An internet commenter the other day quoted this passage from the Bible, which had also sprung into my own mind:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12

Apology for infrequent posts

I’d like to apologize for my irregular posting habits lately.

I don’t usually like to discuss my personal business here (a reader warned me that it isn’t a good idea for obvious reasons) but I am still dealing with some fairly troublesome health issues, which will be a long-term thing. So it’s hard to keep up regular habits under the circumstances.

I have to say in all honesty that it’s hard not to feel demoralized and discouraged what with the state of the world these days. The infighting on the various blogs is out of hand in some cases. There seem to be so many provocateurs and shills, people who seem to be there just to disrupt and derail any constructive conversation.

And it’s disturbing to see that ideas are now being criminalized, and how strange that the ideas that are being criminalized are basically the traditional American points-of-view that were held by a large majority of our population up until a couple of decades ago. Our ancestors would be guilty of all kinds of ‘offenses’ by today’s new code of ”morality.”

So we who put our thoughts and ideas out there have to learn to be very careful not to inadvertently say the ‘wrong’ thing according to the arbiters of the ever-changing PC codes. That’s not conducive to honesty in self-expression, and the blogger or commenter has to be careful not to veer too close to the proscribed Truth.

It’s hard to maintain morale under these circumstances. But I try to rally my spirits and keep on going, though things don’t exactly look bright.

Regardless, I appreciate anyone who stops by this blog and reads, despite my lack of inspiration and energy lately.

Where did it start?

While going through some files I saved from the Internet, I came across a blog comment left by a pseudonymous poster, referring to a certain controversial blogger. The date of the comment is not noted, but the comment was from at least a year ago.

The commenter says this controversial blogger is “at it again. Apparently it’s not the (((YKW))), it’s the boomers who are “to blame for all the ills of Western Civilisation.”

The comment says that “Paxman”, apparently British TV presenter Jeremy Paxman, had ‘pushed’ the narrative slamming the postwar “boomer” generation as the “most selfish generation”. Paxman even wrote a book on the subject and has gotten a lot of mileage from that trope. Others, seeing the money being made by such books, have piled on to make some of that filthy lucre for themselves .

Paxman is himself of the hated generation; is he just trying to fend off any attacks on himself by pointing the first finger at his own generation, signalling that he is not one of the evil, sociopathic boomers, but one of the good guys, by joining in the attack?

So Paxman was one of the first to kick off this generational war. But the blog commenter writing the comments that provoked this piece implies that Andrew Anglin was the one who has popularized the meme among the young male right, or the Alt-Right as it was, on the Internet. There’s always been talk that Anglin was a shill or a provocateur, and now there has been considerable discussion in some quarters of some new facts that have come to light, and it seems the consensus is that he is/was a shill or provocateur.
The over-the-top rhetoric and behavior seems to lend validity to that idea, and now his own words seem to confirm it.

Anglin and company aside, it seems this whole boomer-bashing meme was meant as a divide-and-conquer tactic, just as the commenter notes. He said that the meme became much more popular about 5 years ago, when various media (and Internet figures, too, by the way) people ‘began running with it.” And again, as I keep asking, who benefits? Who would benefit?

So here we are: mainstream [leftist] media people like Paxman, along with people who have popular and influential blogs, launched this meme. So its origins are suspect, as being ‘astroturfed’, sown by people with an agenda. And it seems to have been popularized, by lefty media personalities (aren’t they all leftist?) and Internet personalities with dubious backgrounds.

However it caught on like wildfire, despite its being ginned up by the dishonest media and other on the Internet with agendas.

But doesn’t its popularity and persistence show that it struck a nerve, or rang true for many young people, who are deeply in debt, usually student loan debt?

Not necessarily. Envy is unfortunately a tendency we fallen humans are prey to. I know people who incurred huge student loan debts in pursuing a fairly useless degree. I know some who went to 4 different colleges and spent about 10 consecutive years being professional students. I don’t think boomers or anyone else is responsible for that. But it’s nice to have a scapegoat and an excuse to be envious of the loathsome boomers and their contriving to be born in an easier and bettter time.

Scapegoats are a necessity for a lot of people in this present darkness. And a victimhood mentality, accompanied by the chip on the shoulder, is very popular these days, popularized by the left and their various clients.

No surprise, then, that the left and various (((shills))) on the faux right are involved in this particular smear campaign.

Another interesting fact: the baby-boom generation is the largest cohort of White people, by generation, in the West. When they are gone, following the older Silent Generation, the bashers will cheer their disappearance. But then the younger generations will be further isolated, and probably greatly outnumbered. Something to remember.

The rhetoric is very ugly at times, wishing death on ”boomers” and implying the need for ‘culling.’ It’s all out there in various sources if you doubt me.

The commenter I’ve alluded to above noted that the people who created this meme were ‘setting up an intergenerational conflict’ , setting our folk against each other.

It’s just one more sad chapter of our susceptibility to media influence — even among people who insist they do not trust the ‘lying media.’ They are being played by the media now, if they only realized it. But people don’t want to face it. The envy and resentment feel too good, for those who are caught up in it.

This is a topic I wish I didn’t have to address at all. But this division and the internal fractures are so self-destructive. And no one wants to talk about it except those who are keeping the conflict going. Everyone else is silent on it.

N.B.: I haven’t reproduced the comment I allude to because some blogs copyright even the comments, and readers are sometimes warned not to quote without full permisson from the blogg owner and the commenter. I am not sure from which blog the comment came, but it is genuine.

What about the American dream?

In the early days of blogging I remember writing about the ‘American dream’, and how the idea of it became somehow confused with immigration. There were many articles in the controlled media about how immigrants were compelled to come here because of their lack of material goods, compared to our excess. And the idea was emphasized that the ‘American Dream’, immigrant-style, was about acquiring ”stuff” and owning a house with a yard.

Now? It seems many Americans are supposed to consider themselves lucky to live in a barracks-style facility, with an open plan, and little privacy. In the staggeringly expensive cities, housing is scarce and many people work for low wages, as rentals become increasingly expensive. It’s hard to make ends meet on a barista’s earnings, or a less-than-full-time office drone job.

Take a look at this example of housing in San Francisco’s Tenderloin, at $60 a night, or $1,200 a month. The most obvious question is: with an open plan, how can this be a co-ed facility? What about privacy? How many of us would be comfortable with sleeping in close proximity to strangers, minus barriers or enclosures? What with the prevalence of, say, bedbugs in even four-star hotels (so we read, or hear) how will that kind of problem be prevented or dealt with? And what with the return of communicable diseases that were once eradicated, is communal housing hygienically desirable?

However, the definite scarcity of housing compels a lot of Americans to make choices they would not have made, not so long ago. Now there’s a lack of housing — a lack of housing for the low-wage or medium-income worker can afford. This forces a lot of people to settle for the lack of amenities, and the cramped quarters.

I notice that some people believe the housing issue is a problem only for people in the overcrowded cities, but in smaller communities there is a market, apparently, for those tiny little sheds that are being sold as actual homes, though they appear hardly large enough for a bed and a table, and what about indoor plumbing? About four miles away from me is a ‘community’ of little cabins, very roughly put together, apparently built by or for people who have been priced out of the rental market.

Are people now going to become inured to a much lower standard of living, to be housed either in rabbit warrens, or ‘pod’ dwellings, or in those ‘capsule’ style high-rises as in Japan? Will single people without the means for a real dwelling be content to live in shed-like houses, such as those being offered by the roadside now?

The city denizens excepted, many of us grew up with a concept of the wide-open spaces, and a horizon that stretched on forever. Does anyone remember an old song called ‘Don’t Fence Me In’? The lyrics speak of “land, lots of land, ‘neath the starry skies above….”

Now what with the ever-decreasing wages for many working Americans, and the skyrocketing housing costs, the old American dream of a roomy house with a nice yard, and two (at least) cars in the garage is receding into the long-ago past. If present trends continue our standard of living will decline as we have no choice but to downsize and lower our hopes and expectations. Are we “too spoiled”, as our moral betters keep telling us, and are we expected to atone for our past sins as a ‘spoiled people’?

I am sure there will always be those who prosper. It’s “an ill wind that blows nobody any good,” as the old proverb says. But it would seem that the standard of living, for the common people, will likely decline in the near term. And our quality of life is already diminishing.

And I need not explain just why our standard of living is suffering.

I do hope I’m wrong. I don’t want to see people living in modified dog houses, or crammed into high-priced tenement houses in cities; what a contrast to the life we knew not so very long ago. Material things are not the be-all and the end-all; we can only hope that we learn to appreciate the non-material good things of life.

Trudeau’s ‘Grand Remplacement’

” ‘The very concept of a nation founded by European settlers is offensive to me. Old stock White Canadians are an unpleasant relic, and quite frankly, replaceable, and we will replace them.’

The above quote is attributed to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I first saw it when it was posted in the comments box at The Occidental Observer.

It seems Trudeau said this back in April of 2019. The Canadian Cultural Action Party reported this, as did other websites.

It’s well known that Trudeau himself and Canada are devoutly ‘multicultural’, that ideology being their de facto religion, which brooks no dissent. But even knowing that, I was stunned that Trudeau was so blunt in declaring Old Stock White Canadians obsolete, and ”an unpleasant relic.”

His open declaration that they are, in his view, replaceable and destined to be replaced. “We will replace them’‘, he said outright. But even though most of our ‘leaders’ are refraining from statements like that, it seems that ‘Old Stock Americans”, meaning mostly Anglo-Saxons, are also relegated to oblivion. As I said years ago, we are being written out of the script, though those who have determined this are not yet brazen enough to speak as Trudeau did.

It also occurred to me that Trudeau himself is a descendant of ‘Old Stock’ Canadians,’ that is, through his Scottish ancestors as well as his French-Canadian forebears. Isn’t it odd that he, and so many others with like opinions, denounce and disparage their own blood kin?

According to the sources I found, Trudeau is predominantly Scottish And French Canadian. However he had a distant (fourth generation) maternal ancestor who was half-Malaccan. So I suppose that, along with Elizabeth Warren, he chooses to identify with that one Exotic ancestor, considering himself not one of those ‘Old Stock White’ Canadians who are ‘unpleasant’ and offensive to him.

Surprisingly the news stories I read show that Trudeau aroused some anger from White Canadians, one of whom, a woman, clashed verbally with him, challenging his remarks about those disowned and ‘replaceable’ White Canadians. We tend to think of the Canadians as a meek and passive people who have, up until now, seem to have been quietly acquiescing in what is happening to their country, but it seems they still have the gumption to object, which is more than our folk seem to be showing. And I think Canada has harsher penalties for those White Canadians who speak up.

Speaking of Trudeau’s promised replacement of those offensive White Old Stock people, it’s funny that Wikipedia, which is of course a biased source, states outright that the Grand Remplacement is a ”right-wing conspiracy theory.’‘ Well, it looks like Trudeau has let the cat out of the bag, and made it official that there is a replacement underway, and it is to continue for however long it takes until they achieve their multicult Utopia, and make Canada more ‘diverse’, despite outright renouncing their own original settler stock, the people who actually made Canada.

As the handwriting on the wall has been made so starkly obvious, maybe there will be people with the ‘old stock’ pioneer spirit, those ‘fossils’ who may not ‘go gently into that good night.’