We Need To Talk


Salim Mansur

The release this week of Census 2011 provides Canadians with a broad picture of the country’s population at 33.5 million people and its urban makeup.

Between 2006 and 2011, Canada’s population growth rate at 5.9% was the highest among G8 countries. According to Statistics Canada the engines for this growth are new immigrants, non-permanent residents, seasonal workers, foreign students and asylum seekers.

[See: Canada’s Black Population]

[UPDATED to July, 2015:  Calgary’s CANADIAN-BORN family forced out of home by AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS.]

Immigration is the big issue — the proverbial elephant in the room — that needs wide and open discussion in Parliament and during federal elections, and yet … the topic is scrupulously avoided.

The most detailed historical study on immigration was prepared by Freda Hawkins and first published in 1972. She wrote, “Canada has had no settled view of immigration. No common convictions about it exist among Canadians.”

Canada was embarking on the path of official multiculturalism when Hawkins’ study was released. In retrospect, we can now see how multiculturalism has turned immigration into a taboo subject.

[See: Duped By Multiculturalism]

Immigration and multiculturalism working in tandem, provided the Trudeau Liberals with a strategic advantage in electoral politics for the long term by capturing ethnic (visible minority) votes in urban ridings.

This advantage was further exploited when the residency requirement for citizenship was lowered to only three years in 1977, enabling new immigrants to vote in federal elections for the party that made it possible.

Later, the Mulroney Conservatives did their part in pushing multiculturalism and immigration to gain electoral advantage among ethnic voters in urban centres. As a result, there are no political leaders or federal parties willing to break the taboo of critically discussing immigration and multiculturalism and the unintended consequences of the two together on the political culture of Canada as a liberal democracy.

In recent columns on immigration — this being the last in a series — I barely scratched the surface. But I indicated the weakness of the economic, fiscal and cultural arguments advanced by the pro-immigration lobby when these are carefully examined.

A case can still be made that immigration is strategically necessary to maintain a positive population growth, given the low fertility rate in advanced democratic societies of the West. But an effective immigration policy responsive to the demographic requirements will only work, without doing irreparable damage to the functioning of liberal democracy, provided that multiculturalism is repealed.

The great immigration wave of the 19th and early 20th centuries from the Old to the New World worked to the benefit of everyone because the movement of people occurred within the boundaries of shared culture and civilization.

This pattern of immigration changed in fundamental ways during the past half-century, and its effects are indisputably disruptive for the host country.

Empowered with the politics of multiculturalism, the new immigrants insist on the host country to accommodate their cultures, instead of them adapting to the host country’s culture.

How hugely disruptive and divisive multiculturalism has proven to be in Europe is a warning sign, perhaps somewhat late, to Canada and where it is invariably headed.

English: Enoch Powell appearing on television ...
Enoch Powell – July 3, 1987

And if Canada is to save itself from repeating Europe’s experience, (as Enoch Powell warned Britain a generation ago) it will require the strong political fortitude of the majority of Canadians — given the spinelessness of Canada’s political class.   –Source

“The mass media is controlled by a group of people who desire to reduce the power and influence of Europeans everywhere. They see White European people as a threat, and so they want to flood all European nations with dumber Third-Worlders. This will destroy homogeneity, forever fracturing  European nations — sort of a ‘Divide and Conquer’ strategy. 

The idea is that the resulting diversity will cause eternal division, conflict, class, religious, ethnic, and racial warfare, within each country. Meanwhile, the new, low-IQ population will destroy education, technological innovation, and the economy, thus forever weakening the “enemy” — i.e., Whites. It’s working quite well, as seen in the economic and social decline in Canada, UK, America, France, Sweden, etc. ”  -Anonymous


The Topic With No Name

Canada – Land of Pandering Fools

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: