[Editor's Note: We're reluctant to let good copy to just sit in the comments section, so the following commentary was lifted from Britain's Sarah, Maid of Albion in reference to her post titled "Mongrel Island?".]
“BritishActivism“
“Unfortunately the (British) public seem to have no concept of what their true heritage is, and – as is written in this article – what a devastating and unprecedented effect vast numbers of interlopers are (having on) this country, and why it is extremely different to what has ever happened before.
(In addition to) how the people’s eyes have been trained to glaze over, whenever these ’race‘ issues get mentioned – and, well — it doesn’t really bode well for us in the future.
However, perhaps only by informing people (and thus smashing apart these ludicrous (multi-racial) fairy tales), will the inner struggle and outer national culture on the matter, change towards that of actively seeking self-preservation.
If they are told they are nothing — were nothing — have a shameful past — are the same as everybody else — all interchangeable — have no homeland — have nothing unique, etc, then in their view, why would (indigenous Brits) care, or even fight in any way against what is taking place (in their homeland)?
If we are going to set out our premise of why we nationalists hold some of the ‘tricky’ (political-incorrect) positions we do, then I think we need to have balanced tone and factual articles like this one (and the one before it) from time to time to remind us – and to inform new people who may be coming along with fresh eyes.
There is a gulf out there, it seems, between those of us who know these silly games they play, and know the real state of affairs – and those who are ignorant of them and have no understanding of why we hold some of the views we do.
Unbelievably, I still hear debates and phone-in callers going on about “hating people just because they do not look like you do” or being “ignorant” of different races and cultures and religions and “ignorant” of our so-called ‘mongrel’ ”nation-of-immigrants”.
First, there is no hatred of people for the reasons of “looking different” to us – that is certainly not why we are here.
Anybody who believes we simplistically “hate” people in this world for being Black or Asian, etc. (and all the “Paki’s Smell” or “Chinkies eat dogs” style buffoonery that they associate with ‘racism’) has no idea of what we (nationalists) are here for. They should do us the basic courtesy of finding out the true situation for themselves before they open their silly, ill-informed mouths.
Second, we are not ignorant of other races and religions – most of us know what the real situation is with both racial differences, and the real nature of some religious groups and ideologies.
It is often the same people who say we are ignorant, who themselves, don’t have any idea of seeing anything beyond the end of their ultra-egalitarian, relativistic and universalist nose.
Thirdly, as in this article, we know our history better than most of the general public – especially when it comes to our own ethnic heritage, and matters of percentages of earlier migrants to (Britain)”. …continued HERE.
[Editor's Note:Crimes Of The Times is a website that analyzes published news stories originating from the New York Times newspaper. By reading between the lines of published NYT articles, Crimes of the Times' readers are made aware of how one such massive propaganda tool is used to expertly guide unsuspecting minds towards avenues of thought the mainstream media (MSM) have deemed to be your destinations, and all without your approval.
The following analytic review is an example of critical analysis of one MSM newspaper, a trait incidentally, that seems to have lost its flavour among intelligent people since "political correctness" became a sinister force to be reckoned with.
If Canadians had an equivalent "reviewer" who could duplicate the works of Crimes Of The Times , and turn the same attention towards the Toronto Star newspaper, for example, we would have another story to report here.]
In a front-page puff piece of unadulterated xenophilia (attraction to foreign peoples, cultures, or customs) entitled “At Ghanian Funerals, A Time To Dance and Worship,” the New York Times embarrassed themselves today, even worse than they did yesterday with their voodoo-worship piece, which you read here.
As Africa descends anew, into the Stone Age from which it was pried by Western intervention, the wishful-thinking-reality contortionists at Amerika’s newspaper of record are firing up the after-burners on their propaganda machine to make it appear that the rise of Islam in the Maghreb, and Ivory Coast is a beautiful thing, while reminding us every single day how evil and undesirable Christianity is (unless it’s being practiced by illegal Mexicans, in which church-going is presented as a sign of “stability and responsibility“).
It’s really starting to feel like the left-wing psychopaths at the New York Times are increasingly feeling the heat of mass defection from the enforced and prevailing (leftist) liberal dogma that is politically safe to adhere to, but that more and more people are seeing as the sinister campaign of global anti-Westernism that it really is.
More cultural relativism from the freakazoids at the NYT. Yes, the Irish can’t throw a funeral party like these Ghanians. It might not be as wonderful and as enriching as Haitian voodoo, but the way these Ghanians get together and dance all night – is really something that us boring, bland Americans could never replicate.
A closer look at the articles reveals that these Ghanian funeral-goers are actually engaging in incredibly, uncivilized behaviour, reminiscent of over-the-top stupidity that one sees in Africa all the time. [It] turns out, these “funerals” that the NYT goes to such great lengths to positively report on, are nothing more than money-making scams based on the excuse of some Ghanian dying somewhere.
In a sane society, the newspaper of record [NYT] would be frowning upon the exhibition of such alien and morally questionable behaviour. But precisely because of propaganda machines like the NYT, this is not a a sane society; this is a society where — up is down — left is right – right is wrong – and down is up.
Third-Worlders and their primitive religions will be boosted and uplifted at all costs. Meanwhile, anything [of] Western [values] or tradition(s) will be relentlessly lambasted, mocked, and sneered at. –Source–
I have in front of me an article, dated August 15th to Sept. 15th, 2011 in the AWAJ newspaper published in English — a small free newspaper distributed in Montreal, Quebec.
The author’s name is Dr. R. Raashed, M.A., Ph.D in law from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. Dr. Raashed is described as the Director of Islamic Information Services for Australia.
Dr. Raashed says:
“Muslim is an adjective of Islam. Hence there can be no Muslim without Islam. The bottom line is a Muslim can NEVER be a SECULAR.’ … (secularism) ‘represents a great challenge to the national identity of Muslims…”
It specifically discusses a recent secular alteration to the constitution of Bangladesh. Dr. Raashed says:
“The deliberate removal of ‘Trust in God’ from the constitution of Bangladesh, put the current Awami government in a head-on collision course with the Qur’An. Hence, the government is necessarily at an ideological WAR with the believers in this ‘Only Book that contains No Doubt’.”
Dr. Raashed says, “No matter who devised it — now that such a MAJOR CRIME has been committed by the current government — it is an Islamic obligation on every serious believer to reverse it AT ANY COST. Come what may, the Qu’ran (Koran) will come out victorious. Removal of the accomplice government from office… is the first remedy.”
Now – if SECULARISM is “a MAJOR CRIME” for Muslims, and “a great challenge to the national identity of Muslims” (and I think we must understand “national” here to mean the body of the Muslim people, not merely a geographic territory where the PEOPLE itself is the resident NATION), then:
[a] how can Muslims comply and realistically be ASKED to comply with secular LAWS in any country?
Dr. Raashed also identifies secularism as atheism:
“Sec·u·lar·ism [sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm], noun, is defined as:
1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.”
[b] How can Muslims NOT view our secular governments as authors of CRIMES against Islam?
[c] How can they therefore NOT — by command of their religion – seek the overthrow of OUR governments by any means, whether overtly, or by stealth, when we foolishly invite them to reside on OUR OWN SOIL?
(As a case in point, Muslims are currently threatening the Royal Palace in UK.)
[d] There clearly can be no such thing as multiculturalism for Islam (there can be none for the West, either… let’s get real);
There can be NO SUCH THING as Muslim adherence to the laws of a non-Islamic government… period.
Muslims don’t acknowledge the authority of such governments. So why is the West deceiving itself that such a thing is possible? Are Western countries blind, deaf, dumb and suicidal?
There is NO REMOTE POSSIBILITY of mutual tolerance on the same soil.
While we are busy self-righteously tolerating THEM – perhaps to show them just how wonderful we are, so they will want to be just like us — they are busy planning to overthrow our governments because they necessarily (unless we’re idiots) see themselves in an ideological WAR with OUR Western culture.
What they have done in the United Kingdom in publicly calling for the overthrow of the royal Palace — as in Constitutional law — is described as HIGH TREASON — as any such threatened overthrow “compasses the death of the Sovereign.”
One, or the other has to go! It’s either Islam or western culture/government. If on Western soil, the choice had better be Islam, and FAST… unless we want our little granddaughters growing up to wear the Burkha, and view their ancestors as “infidels“.
Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com
(My websites are being systematically hacked, including by my Denver-based registrar, domainsite.com, which took all my HCC domains off-line weeks ago. They’re refusing to restore them, although they are all paid up and in good standing. Here are two backups:)
ENGLISH (French sub-titles to wake up Quebec – Sous-titres français pour réveiller le Québec).
ENGLISH TITLE: The Key Role of Jews in the Multicultural Transformation of Europe:Barbara Specter
Comment: Multiculturalism is a Zionist tool to destroy non-Jewish nations. This official policy is being used in Canada to disintegrate the founding peoples, to whom belong, the distinct Provincial Legislatures.
Canada was founded as a FEDERAL State because FEDERALISM PROTECTED the founding peoples who wished to preserve themselves in DISTINCT sub-states, but under a shared political nationality, i.e., Canadians.
Multiculturalism is a totally different system that allows OTHER CULTURES in large, populated countries elsewhere, the right to set up countless mini-states on Canadian soil, and then compete for cultural and legal power with founding Canadians in Legislatures that were created to protect THEM in 1867.
Multiculturalism is a form of ANNEXATION of Canada and our provinces to a foreign power (ZION) to dispose of OUR culture, people and nation via imported ethnic and cultural cleansing by foreign peoples, and who can always return home if they change their mind.
But, Canada is all we’ve got! We can’t go anywhere once they’ve changed it to suit their design— and altered us to be a subordinate minority on OUR OWN SOIL!
In the middle of the 20th century, the importation of dissimilar races and cultures into a nation was recognized for what it is: the true word, GENOCIDE.
An American professor wanted to use similar techniques to exterminate the Germans, which he believed could be done in 2-3 generations.
How many generations has CANADA left before FOUNDING CANADIANS, cease to exist on our own soil, including our Constitution which PROTECTS us, if we invoke it, and thus eliminated to the benefit of Zionist banking elites and the multinationals?
Proof that Canada was long ago TARGETED by Zionists for elimination, is this 1941 communist world planning map (linked below). There is NO CANADA on this map, but there is HEBREWLAND drawn in the Middle East where Palestine still existed; and this is before Pearl Harbor, before the U.S.A. entered WWII, and before any allegations of a holocaust… as the pretext to found Israel. The map was prepared by a Jew, Maurice Gomberg, who sympathized with the Communist Party of America (CPA).
Our corrupt elites are currently giving EFFECT to that Map by advancing North American integration, under which CANADA is intended to vanish.
This is more clear because the entity we call CANADA is the apex, the pinnacle of our country, where the national sovereign powers are jointly exercised by elected representatives from all the Provinces. Every one of the federal powers is targeted for transfer to a NEW “authority” in a fascist-merged North America.
Without the federal powers, there simply IS no CANADA. Which is why there is NO CANADA ON THIS 1941 PLANNING MAP OF WORLD UNION.
Pat Buchanan
[...]
In three weeks of my radio-TV tour to promote “The Suicide of a Superpower,” no question has occurred more often than one about the chapter “The End of White America.” Invariably, the question boils down to this:Why should we care if White Americans become a minority? America (interviewers remind me) assimilated the immigrants of a century ago—Italians, Poles, Jews, Slavs—and we can do the same with (NON-white) peoples from the 3rd World.
And perhaps they are right. [...] Yet there are reasons to worry.
First, the great American Melting Pot has been rejected by our elites as cultural genocide, in favor of a multiculturalism that is failing in Europe.
Second, what we are attempting has no precedent in human history.
We are attempting to convert a republic, European and Christian in its origins and character, into an egalitarian democracy of all the races, religions, cultures and tribes of planet Earth.
We are turning America into a gargantuan replica of the U.N. General Assembly, a continental conclave of the most disparate and diverse peoples in all of history, who will have no common faith, no common moral code, no common language and no common culture.
What, then, will hold us together? A Constitution, over whose meaning we have fought for 50 years?
Consider the contrasts between the old and new immigration. Where the total of immigrants in the “Great Wave” from 1890 to 1920 numbered 15 to 20 million, today there are 40 million (immigrants) here.
In 1924, the United States declared a timeout on all immigration. But for almost half a century since 1965, there has been no timeout. One to 2 million more immigrants, legal and <u>illegal</u>, arrive every year.
What’s the percentage (%) of WHITE people on this planet? ANSWER
Where the old immigrants all came from Europe, the new [immigrants] are overwhelmingly (NON-white). But America has never had the same success in assimilating peoples of color.
The Indians we fought for centuries… live on reservations. And if we did not succeed with a few million Native Americans, what makes us think we will succeed in assimilating 135,000,000 Hispanics who will be here in 2050, plus scores of millions of Indian ancestry?
We have encountered immense difficulty, including a civil war, to bring black Americans, who have been here longer than any immigrant group, into full participation in our society.
[...]
But, we cannot deny the difficulty of the problem when, 50 years after the civil-rights revolution, one yet hears daily the accusation of “racist!” on our TV channels and in our political discourse.
Ought we not first solve the problem of fully integrating people of color, before bringing in tens of millions more?
[...]
Here, again, are but a few of the differences between the old and new immigration:
Today’s [immigration] numbers are twice as large. Where the old immigration stopped after 30 years, ours never ends. Where the old immigrants were Europeans, today’s immigrants are Third World people who have never been fully assimilated by any Western country. Where those who arrived from Christian nations, many of today’s immigrants come from a civilization that battled Christianity for 1,000 years.
Where Western powers ruled the world in 1920, today the West is aging and dying, and much of the world is on fire with anti-white and anti-Western resentment of 500 years of European domination.
In 1920, Western people were nearly one-third of mankind. Today, Western man is down to one-sixth of the world’s population, shrinking to one-eighth by 2050, and not a tenth by century’s end.
When did the American people assent to our taking this risk with their republic?
I, (William Borst) was recently discussing the tax system with my attorney who had just completed my mother’s estate.
[...]
Karl Marx
He had no idea that Karl Marx had written the major elements in the (U.S.) tax code with which he had been working his entire professional life. All one has to do is read the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848.
The fact that an educated, sophisticated man, such as my lawyer, had been totally unaware of this fact speaks volumes about the vast majority of Americans. As Yankee manager Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up!“
Most Americans believe that when the Berlin Wall went down with a thundering crash in 1989, it marked the end of the bloody ogre that had enslaved half of Europe for over forty years.
They believe that the country has nothing to fear from Communism any more. They have been conditioned to believe that the anti-Communism crusade of the 1950s was nothing more than paranoid ranting of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The fact is Communism is still very much alive and thriving in this country. It has taken on a more subtle, destructive guise.
The situation is analogous to the frog that is put into a pot of tepid water. If the cook were to quickly increase the temperature of the water, the frog would quickly jump out to safety. But the smart cook increases the temperature only gradually, so that the poor frog does not realize it is being slowly but surely boiled to death. William Lederer once referred to America as a “nation of sheep.” I believe America is more a nation of frogs.
How did this happen? The place to start is with the writings of a Sardinian intellectual,Antonio Gramsci.
Born in the village of Ales on the island of Sardinia in 1891, Gramsci became the most successful interpreter of Marxism. He left Sardinia for the mainland where he studied philosophy and history at the University of Turin. In 1919 he founded a newspaper in Italy, the L’Ordinine Nuovo, or the New Order. In 1921 with Palmiro Togliatti, Gramsci founded the Italian Communist party.
When Italy adopted Mussolini’s fascism, Gramsci fled to Russia where he analyzed Lenin’s adaptation of Communism. He was profoundly disturbed that Communist Russia failed to show any great interest in a “workers’ paradise.”
Gramsci clearly understood that the Russian ruling class had maintained its hold on the workers by resorting to sheer terror and mass extermination. Communism had merely replaced one with the other.
After Lenin’s death and ensuing struggle for power, even Russia became a dangerous place for Gramsci. Lenin’s successor Stalin eliminated anyone suspected of deviation from his party line.
Gramsci returned to Italy to struggle against Mussolini, was arrested as a likely agent of a foreign power, and imprisoned in 1926. He spent the remaining years of his life expounding on his philosophy. It was here that he wrote Prison Notebooks and Letters from Prison, which have become extremely influential on the college campus. When he died after being released in 1937, he had produced a total of nine volumes on history, sociology and Marxist theory.
Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple the repressive Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.”
He repackaged Marxism in terms of a bona fide “cultural war,” not its doctrinaire class struggle. He was well aware that most people did not believe in the Communist system.
Their Christian faith was the big obstacle, preventing the necessary leap to Communism. Gramsci knew that the civilized world had been thoroughly indoctrinated with Christianity for 2000 years, so much so that civilization and Christianity were inexorably bound.
It was the Christian character of the West that had provided an almost impenetrable barrier to infiltration. More than an opiate, religion was the peasants’ lifeline that helped them endure the harsh realities of life. According to Pat Buchanan’s book, The Death of the West, Christianity was the “heat shield of capitalism.” To capture the West, Marxists “must first de-Christianize the West,” that is, destroy its religious foundations.
DE-CHRISTIANIZE THE WEST
Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.
To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy if you would, to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny.
Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and “fathers,” who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.
It was another cultural Marxist who brought the Gramascian strategy into the schools. George Lukacswas a wealthy Hungarian banker. He was reputed to have been the most brilliant theorist since Marx himself. Echoing the future sentiments of Jesse Jackson, Lukacs cried out “who will free us from Western civilization?”
As deputy commissioner of culture in Hungary under Bela Kun, his first task was to put in radical sex education in the schools.
He reasoned that this was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family. Hungarian children learned the subtle nuances of free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure.
Children were urged to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public and even some Catholic schools today. Lukacs was the forerunner of President Clinton’s libidinous Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.
Gramsci’s and Lukacs‘ ideas came to fruition through the Frankfurt School, or Institute of Social Research, as it was originally called in the 1920s. They translated Marxism from economics into culture terms. One of the keys in the Frankfurt School was to merge Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning (brainwashing).
According to their Freudian and Marxist amalgamation, just as under capitalism, the working class was automatically oppressed. So, under Western culture, blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics and women (everybody, but evil white males) were automatically the collective targets of Western oppression.
The notion of group-solidarity, or what is called “identity politics” was designed to create nothing but division, leading to violence and social anarchy.
In order to undermine Western society, the cultural Marxists would constantly repeat the charges that the West was guilty of genocidal crimes against each and every civilization that it had ever encountered throughout its history, and the historical oppressions of mankind.
CRITICAL THEORY
This idea evolved into “Critical Theory,” which has served the left as its main weapon in the battle for the soul of American culture. The “Crits” employed destructive criticism of the main pillars of Western civilization, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, morality, tradition , sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, Conservatism and especially the language.
Critical Theory, which is endemic to all the major law schools in the country, holds that the patriarchal social structure should be replaced with matriarchy.
The belief that men and women are different, and have properly defined roles, would be replaced with androgyny and the heterodox belief that homosexuality is normal. The differences between the genders, not sexes, had to be minimized. According to Marxist feminists men and women were fungible. That is they could be easily interchanged. Genders’ differences were nothing more than mere “anatomical accidents”.
Another key ingredient in Cultural Marxism was Theodor Adorno‘s idea of the “Authoritarian Personality.”
His book, which he published with Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford in 1950, was premised on the singular principle that Christianity, Capitalism, and the patriarchal or authoritarian family created a character susceptible to racial prejudice and fascism.
To them anyone who upheld the old traditional standards had an authoritarian personality that was basically fascist in nature. If, a family adhered to Christian and capitalist principles, the children would most likely grow up to be “fascists” and “racists”.
Pat Buchanan called Adorno’s book, “the altarpiece of the Frankfurt School.” If fascism and racism are endemic to the culture, as Adorno believed, everyone who was raised in the traditions of God, motherhood, and family becomes in need of a psychological help.
This is Orwellian logic that seems to have already established a beachhead in the American consciousness. Cultural determinism had replaced Marx’s economic determinism.
Political correctness is the key to understanding the plight of the American culture since the dawning of the sixties. P.C. represents the lead vehicle through which the Marxist mind has driven its cancerous ideas in undermining the genius of American politics and culture.
Under the rubric of “diversity,” its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, ‘TV producers, newspaper editors and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace. One can easily see that happening in our society every day.
HERBERT MARCUSE
Probably the most important member of the Frankfurt School was Herbert Marcuse. He was largely responsible for bringing Cultural Marxism to the United States, when he moved to New York City to escape the Nazi persecution in the thirties. In the 1960s he became the guru of the New Left while a professor at University of California at San Diego.
Marcus was a full-blooded social revolutionary who contemplated the disintegration of American society, just as Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs contemplated the destruction of German society.
In his book, An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed the means for transforming American society. He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed.
“Make love, not War!” was his battle cry that echoed through the ivy-covered college campuses all over America. His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture.
By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the more uninformed young of America. He deliberately acerbated race relations by emphasizing the idea that White men were all guilty for slavery, and Blacks could do no wrong.
These cultural revolutionaries were faced with a serious question raised by the Graniascian shift. If the proletariat was not the basis of the revolution… what was? Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society. They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution.
If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation. The idea that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” is no idle statement.
What better way to influence the generations to come than by subverting the traditional roles of women? The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.
One of the heirs to this cultural strategy was Betty Friedan, the former Naomi Goldstein.
Her book, The Feminine Mystique, served as the textbook in sabotaging the American family. Friedan described the traditional housewife as a “parasite”, who was forced to deny her true nature. To Friedan, the stay-at-home mom was a mindless robot devoid of a real brain. Though she was not a member of the Frankfurt School, Friedan’s hatred and disdain for men and patriarchy, made her the “godmother” of radical feminism.”
The subversion of the family, and the decline of respect for patriarchy, has led to the increased feminization of the nation’s cultural institutions, including the churches, schools, and universities, political parties and even the military and our police forces.
“Modern man” resembles more like the saccharine sensitivity of an Alan Alda than the lusty bravado of a John Wayne.
According to Carolyn Graglia‘s book Domestic Tranquility, the “editors at Playboy (Magazine) could not have orchestrated the women’s movement” any better.
If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bull’s-eye. Today women unrealistically aspire to anything a man does, from being a fighter pilot, a combat soldier, policemen, firemen, priests, boxers, and several jobs that require manly strength or a masculine disposition, and even the presidency. They have lowered themselves from their lofty pedestals and sacrificed their natural moral superiority to men on the altar of equality and choice.
Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom, and the sweaty release of casual sex. Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at Betty Friedan’s doorstep to a large degree.
This has not happened like the Biblical “thief in the night.” It has been a gradual process, as Americans lay fat and lazy on their lily pads, watching Oprah, or the next “big game”.
To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, our civilization will end, not with a big bang, but with a faint croak…. if we do not do something now. -Source-
Myron Fagan speaking during the 1960s. He died in 1972
The job of elected government is loyalty to its OWN citizens.
It is disloyal for government to deliberately squeeze its own citizens financially, socially, economically with far-leftist policies of “wealth redistribution” by forcing Canadians to compete for their own jobs, and on their own soil with foreigners.
Add to this the slur & libel — under intimidation from some willing media — who imply Canadians are “racists” if they object to having THEIR OWN TAX MONEY used to finance the very mass immigration that is competing for their jobs, thus depriving them of their hard-earned modest lifestyles.
Canada is moreover, constitutionally, NOTan “ethnic MIX”, but a legal CONFEDERATION of its FOUNDING PEOPLES under their own sovereign legislatures established in 1867 to safeguard the fundamental right of these different communities to exist and to perpetuate themselves on their own soil, on their own terms for all time.
Mass immigration is an assaulton all these Legislatures and on the very existence of the composite founding Canadian people.
It is an illegal Constitutional amendment bypassing the amending formula to indirectly alter, and even REPLACE the founding peoples to whom Canada belongs… with a myriad of foreign races and cultures who have no roots here, who do not share or care about OUR unique heritage; they are here for our job$.
What ever happened to post-war-style baby bonuses? If founding Canadians are not multiplying fast enough, as alleged by immigration proponents, the FIRST response should be to use Canadian tax dollars not for immigration, but to sustain Canadian families so they can afford to grow.
Instead, OUR taxes are paying subsidies to alien cultures to help THEM reproduce on our soil through welfare hikes for each child born. Canadians are so highly taxed… so to import, feed, house & clothe large-family foreigners… that Canadians themselves, can hardly afford to feed, house & clothe the 1 or 2 kids that they produce.
This bizarre inversion of aid & breeding rights to foreigners paid for by hard-pressed founding Canadian families being forced to finance the extinction of their own people & culture… has to stop!
Oskar Freysinger warning of the intrusive Islamic threat to Europe
(English Sub-titles)
