THE MULTICULTURAL HOLOCAUST : SOME ADVICE ON HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND EXTINGUISH IT BEFORE IT EXTINGUISHES CANADA
The following is an exchange of reader views which appeared in The National Post from Monday to Wednesday (January 26 to 28). Readers were commenting on a column by Rudyard Griffiths entitled “Canada pays the price of immigration on the cheap”. Mr. Griffiths' main point was that Canada's blase attitude towards immigrant settlement was causing serious problems and that Canada had to spend more money on helping immigrants to integrate.
The first reader was an immigrant named Yussi who complained that Canada was “nowhere near as multicultural as it should be”. Readers commented on Mr. Griffiths' point but, as one would expect, Yussi's comment sparked a firestorm. However, as you will see, it was a predominantly articulate and enlightening one.
We present a shortened version of reader responses to Mr. Griffiths and to Yussi.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE MULTICULTURAL HOLOCAUST : SOME ADVICE ON HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND EXTINGUISH IT BEFORE IT EXTINGUISHES CANADA
by Yussi
It would be absurd to decrease immigration – this country is nowhere near as multicultural as it should be. However, the government (needs to) provide more resources for this matter. One idea: tax-deductions for companies that employ new Canadians.
____________________________________________________________________
by Fred_001
Not as multicultural as it should be? Now there's a loaded statement. “Should be?!?!?!” You mean there's a level of multiculturalism that nations are supposed to have, are morally required to have? So you mean every nation that is not as multicultural as Canada, is in the wrong and “should” be changed? I got an idea, Yussi. Being the fervent multiculturalist that you are – you and a bunch of buddies from the old country go back there and try to tell your countrymen that their nation is too uniform, too whatever it is – you have decided that it “should” be populated by roughly equal proportions of themselves, and Africans, and Asians, and Texans, and Latins, and you have come back to ensure this transformation is imposed on them by rule of law. See how that goes.
_____________________________________________________________________
by Robertbj
The basis of immigration should not be to rustle up as many warm bodies as you can and get them over here so they can continue or enhance their begging careers, it should be to encourage people to come who wish to finance their own transportation, have a little money to start out with, and want to work, in jobs that exist.
If they want to come, under those circumstances, they will. It worked before, and it cost tens of billions less than it does now.
________________________________________________________________
by Fred_001
Mr. Griffiths,
Thank you for trying to open a reasoned discussion on immigration.
You talk of the need to reduce immigration levels if we are not prepared to spend the money necessary to ensure their integration. Is this really the only valid reason for reducing immigration? I think not.
There are those who find our high immigration levels a source of national pride – but there are those who find it a source of national disgrace. Disgrace at the suicidal nature of it, the lack of self-respect it demonstrates. Canadians of traditional heritage are drowning themselves. The one useful lesson of multiculturalism is that all peoples have a right to their identities – yet we are in the process of drowning ours out. When we tried to do it to the Indians, it was a terrible crime. Then we turned around and invited the world to do the same thing to us – if Canada were a person, it would merit therapy for its self-destructive behaviour.
An economic necessity in the face of reduced birth rates? A popular story – but (a) I've not seen a single proof of this; and (b) how committed is Canada to sustainability if we admit that our economy can only function if we have constant, unrelenting population growth? More people, more people, and ever more people, or we all go broke? Something's very very wrong with this picture.
Of course all this is buoyed by modern Canadian history rewriting – this myth that Canada has always been about diversity. It's a patent lie. On one page, immigration proponents will wail about laws in effect just 50 years ago with the intention of keeping Canadian demographics primarily European. Then, on the next page, they'll tell us how Canada has always been a doors wide open to everyone Shangrila, so we're morally obligated to continue that way forever. Basically, this rewritten history serves to bury the existence of a Canadian people, wipes them from the national memory. So that people like Yussi can declare someone's nation “not multicultural enough” without realizing that, in doing so, he's calling for the subsuming of an entire people under tsunamis of newcomers. We'd be evil to wish that on anyone else, but in Canada, you can wish that on traditional Canadians and be considered progressive.
This is a typical problem in western countries. Why do you think France is having the troubles they're having? The French people overwhelmingly did not want massive immigration from North Africa. But the ideologues decided they knew better – they would give it to them anyway and they would darn well learn to live with it. Today's mess in France is the result (of) when the special interests try to impose their ideology on the people.
_________________________________________________________________
by Avartist
We have done well on turning Canada into a third world country with our current immigration policies. I personally liked this country the way it used to be before we had multicutralism shoved down our throats.
More people means more gridlock, more pollution (air and water), more strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, more destuction of natural areas and farmland as we build new subdivisions, factories and highways. Growth cannot go on forever. Once we run out of supplies of cheap energy (oil and gas) everything is going to come to a grinding halt. There are no replacements.
________________________________________________________________
by Fred_001
Avartist said: “I personally liked this country the way it used to be before we had multicutralism shoved down our throats.”
Now THERE's a courageous statement.
Decades of political correctness have made saying this simple statement very difficult in polite Canadian society. But I suspect that many, many people who knew pre-multiculturalism Canada feel the same. I bet even some who were born too late to see it wish they could again.
It was truly a great country with a great history and heritage. A heritage that deserved to be preserved and perpetuated. Instead, we dreamed up multiculturalism out of thin air and ever since have been busy trying to bury the old nation so no one will remember what really was.
________________________________________________________________
Owngoal said: “People don't envy Canada's muliticulturalisn. They envy our sense of fairness, opportunity, law and order and relative stability…”
Very true. Anyone who has travelled much (and by that I mean been immersed in other countries, not just sat on the beach in Cancun) knows that people the world over LIKE their nations and their identities.
Try this – go to a country with a well defined identity, and tell them that this (the present composition of their population) will not do – they should be more multicultural. Being too “whatever” is bad, wrong, and they should immediately embark on a program to ensure that their kind becomes a minority in all of their largest cities within a century. Tell them it's wrong to have a national identity and they should replace it with multiculturalism's non-identity. They, as a people, are to exist no more, replaced by a vague notion of love of diversity as their sole defining characteristic.
Most people around the world will either think you're crazy or run you out of town. And they're right to.
_____________________________________________________________
By Majorpriapus
Certain multi-ethnic neighborhoods in Canadian urban centers are witnessing a scandalous 30% failure rate in high school.
These neighborhoods can best be described as Canadian banlieus representing demographic ticking time-bombs, not at all dissimilar to the marginalized multi-ethnic banlieus that exploded in France all too recently.
We ignore European precedent at Canada's peril!
______________________________________________________________
by Crocodile Dundee
Yussi, if Canada isn't multicultural enough for you, then go back to where you came from!! Why should Canada change to be like the place you came from? If it is so great there, then stay there!
And you want me as a taxpayer to pay more so I can destroy my culture and promote yours! Get real.
This idiocy of others coming here and trying to change it to the 'old country' is destroying Canada.
_______________________________________________________________
by Sassylassie
Yussi wrote: Crocodile, Canada is officially supportive of all cultures. If you don't like it then it is *you* who should consider leaving.
We most certainly do not support all other cultures especially cultures stuck in the seventh century. We've tolerated medieval cultural practices because we were forced to by the Liberal Party and HRCs (Human Rights Commissions). Those days are long gone. It's not our job to accommodate new immigrants It's their responsibility to integrate into Canadian Culture, not ours to adapt to their backwater cultures.
_______________________________________________________________
by Prometheus1
For once, I actually agree with most of the posters here. Canada is a majority White and Christian society and that character should always be reflected in our immigration policies so that this group is maintained as the majority. Immigration should NOT equal invasion. Does this mean that non-whites or non-Christians aren't welcome? No, it simply means that these groups should be kept at much smaller percentages than the dominant group.
No other society in the world would allow the dominant racial, ethnic or linguistic group to be outnumbered by other groups. Tell the people of ANY country that the dominant racial or linguistic group should allow itself to be outnumbered by those of different groups and they will tell you that you're insane. Take Jamaica, for instance, with a population of around 2.8 million citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom are black. Do you think they would allow 2 million Chinese or Indian immigrants? There would be blood in the streets!!!!!! We should NEVER allow that to happen here. It's absolutely unacceptable.
I notice that a lot of the posters here are using Western Europe (England, France,The Netherlands, Germany) as examples of cases where native populations are being swamped by immigration but there are better examples of how this crime (and yes, ethnic cleansing is a crime) can lead to racial conflict and violence.
In Fiji, hundreds of thousands of indentured Indian laborers were imported to the islands by its British colonial rulers for such an extended period of time that they soon grew to outnumber the natives. Does anybody need to ask what happened next? Massive unrest and violence spread throughout the islands, with native Fijians going on anti-Indian killing sprees. As a result, ethnic Indians fled the islands by the thousands, leaving the country once again with a Melanesian majority. Now, the country has regained some stability but only with an extraordinary amount of unnecessary bloodshed.
___________________________________________________________
by Fred_001
Yussi says: What makes Canada unique is that we are by design not a nation state but a multicultural mosaic of different communities.
That certainly is the official propaganda of recent years. But it's a lie. Worse, it's a racist lie.
In the over 400 years since Cartier leading up to ~1965, over 95% of all people ever to come to what is now Canada were from just 5 or 6 countries. Neighbouring, European countries with long, intermeshed ethnic and cultural histories. Compared to global diversity, these were little more 'diverse' than cousins at a wedding. The nation was founded by just two of them – French and British.
It was as recently as ~1950 that Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in parliament: “There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” And he was right.
So this “mosaic by design” is a pack of lies – historical revisionism – a fairy tale.
But what makes it a racist fairy tale is this: every time you repeat it, you deny the true existence of a distinct Canadian people and their true history. You spread the false belief that there never existed a nation state of Canadians with an identity of its own. To deny the very existence of a people is the worst kind of racism.
Yussi also said: “…if Canada is to truly represent the world…
Why should Canada represent the whole world? Personally, I don't want it to. Every other nation in the world gets to have an identity that you (Yussi) would have represented in Canada – why can't Canada have its own identity like everyone else? Once again – anti-Canadian racism. In one sentence, you confer recognition on all the other peoples of the world, and bury Canadian identity under them.
Do you have a problem with China being “too yellow”, or Nigeria being “too black”? Of course not. But you'll trot out the insanity that Canada is “too white” and think yourself progressive?!?!? Racism, pure and simple.
Yussi, your position is basically well-intentioned ethnic cleansing. Anti-Canadian, anti-white racism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
