Culture, politics, science, philosophy.
General manifesto ***** Immigration manifesto
The deep Crisis of the West
Council of European Canadians
25.06.2014. We believe Canada is a nation founded by Anglo and French Europeans. In 1971, over 100 years after Confederation, the Anglo and French composition of the Canadian population stood at 44.6 percent and 28.7 percent respectively. All in all, over 96 percent of the population was European in origin. We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the European character of Canada. We believe that the pioneers and settlers who built the Canadian nation are part of the European people. Therefore we believe that Canada derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and that Canada should remain majority European in its ethnic composition and cultural character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into Canada that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority within our lifetime. Thus writes the founders of the Concil of European Canadians under the heading Our Beliefs and Goals. They continue:
We believe that existing strategies for immigration reform have not been successful and must be abandoned. We believe that assimilation (of non-Europeans in the current state of mass immigration) would be fatal to our European heritage, and that if we aim to enhance European Canada we must rely upon the current mechanisms afforded by multiculturalism while it lasts. Multiculturalism recognizes the right of ethnic groups to preserve and enhance their identity and cultural heritage.
We must be honest and courageous in expressing our interest as European Canadians, avoiding vague terms about “mainstream Canadians” or “Canadian values” when we really mean to say “European values”.
We must be proud of our heritage, of the heroic role European pioneers, settlers and nation builders played in the history of Canada. We will nurture a view of Canada that emphasizes our nation’s greatness, achievements, and glory. We must learn to take risks, and learn how to be consistently Eurocentric in our behaviour and communications. We must reject all euphemism, double-speak, and opportunism. The Council will produce key concepts and arguments that will arm people with the ideas and courage to speak and fight against those who seek to demonize us and in our efforts to recruit and persuade Canadians.
We are not interested in imitating so-called conservatives who operate within the existing cultural Marxist system, distract us with petty promises, and utterly fail to achieve any substantial change. We are not interested in playing the current game of open borders, “diversity is our strength,” “we are all immigrants,” “immigrants are the source of Canada’s prosperity,” “we are all individuals”. We have a history, a culture, a religion, memories, and ancestors that make up our identities, and enhance us as human beings. We are European and our nation is Canada.
We want a support network that is widely open, consisting of conservatives, environmentalists, socialists, libertarians and others agreeing with the Council’s goals. The Council will accept members who are not ethnically European as long as they agree with the rationale, objectives, and principles of the Council. We will permit individuals to hold divergent opinions on religious beliefs, taxation, environment, markets, and matters of detail regarding tactics.
The Council agrees with the classical liberal traditions of free speech, individual rights, and representative institutions uniquely cultivated by Europeans. These traditions were nurtured inside homogeneous European societies. We agree with John Stuart Mill’s observation that "it is in general a necessary condition of free institutions, that the boundaries of governments should coincide in the main with those of nationalities...Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities."
We are not opposed to globalization but we are opposed to globalism, which is an ideology that promotes the liquidation of nations. We are opposed to the notion that diversity enriches European Canadians. We support the expression and celebration of the European subcultures and regional identities of Canada. We oppose all efforts to dishonour, denigrate, or subvert our historical, cultural, and religious heritage. Public monuments and symbols should reflect the European heritage of our people, and not a politically expedient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage. We are opposed to Political Correctness.
We support the Canadian landscape and its conservation for future generations. We believe that only in a Canada with a strong European fellow-feeling, same official languages, religious traditions, customs, and mannerisms, we can promote public altruism, and a strong environmental ethics. We believe in the racial biodiversity of the peoples of the earth, and opposed all efforts to promote the creation of a standardized and generic race without roots and traditional identities.
For additional information, such as Mission Statement and Matapolitical strategy see the website of Council of European Canadians.
The moderateness of the «Far Right» and the extremism of immigration
25.06.2014. The mandated claim that mass immigration is indispensable to the cultural and economic “enrichment” of European nations is possibly the most extreme policy ever implemented in human history. This cultural Marxist-initiated policy is bringing an irreversible alteration in the intrinsic ethnic and cultural identities of European nations. Economic Marxism was reversible and indeed worked to protect the former Soviet sphere from the less physically violent but far more insidious cultural Marxism dominating the West today. Thus writes Ricardo Duchesne in his article The Moderateness of the Far Right and the Extremism of Immigration. He continues (italics and links in original):
Our political landscape is so entrapped by the correctness of this sinister ideology that its proponents are portrayed as moderate and tolerant characters living up to the true spirit of liberal ideals, whereas the opponents of mass immigration are seen as “far right extremists.”
Recently I decided to investigate the ideas and policies of some of the political parties designated in the media as both “extreme” and “right-wing.” Since the parties that are so labelled exist primarily in Europe, the main search phrase I used was “Extreme Right-Wing Parties in Europe.” What struck me right away is that the only reason a political party in Europe is called “extremist”, “xenophobic”, or “ultra conservative” is its opposition to high immigration numbers – irrespective of overall platform. I was also puzzled by the fact that both the left and the “moderate” right-wing media use these inaccurate labels.
The majority of parties that are called extremist generally fit within the Western liberal tradition. They are as varied in their political viewpoints as the other mainstream parties. They include an interesting combination of nationalist, traditionalist, social conservative, libertarian, socialist, and environmentalist policies. They challenge Europe’s immigration problems within the framework of its liberal-democratic institutions. Yet these parties are regularly called “neo-fascist” and “neo-Nazi” by leftists and fake conservatives.
How has it come about in the Western world, and only in this part of the world, that parties wishing to maintain, conserve, and avoid a radical alteration in the historic identities of their nations are called “extremist” by the standard media outlets, while the forces calling for a permanent revolution in Europe’s heritage, including the rooted European character of Canada, the United States, and Australia, are called reasonable and moderate?
I will start with an overview of the respective platforms of some of the major “extremist” parties of Europe. [...]
It is truly astonishing that all these parties have been so designated by both the left and the mainstream “conservative” news and opinion outlets: Business Week, TIME, Guardian, the New York Times, Nation, National Review, Slate, National Post, Euro News, CBC, CTV, BBC, The Economist, and, in agreement with all these venues, Al Jazeera. Such uniform inaccuracy bespeaks the successful “march through the institutions” carried out by cultural Marxists. The mere wish to retain the ethnic and cultural identity of one’s nation in opposition to unrestricted immigration makes one a xenophobic fascist.
In the near past, love of country, loyalty, attachment, and respect for one’s ancestors was normal and accepted by the both the right and left parties. People then did not consider European nations to be mere deracinated places defined by “universal values” (democracy and equality) for the benefit of every ethnic group in the world. Nations were homeland to historic peoples with a particular set of customs and religious beliefs, a people rooted in a unique historical and ethnic landscape.
On the other side of the political ledger, the right views immigrant labor as essential to economic well-being and corporate globalization. It reduces everything to economics and regularly uses the Marxist language of "inevitable" in reference to a "looming" labour shortage due to low birth rates and retiring baby boomers. It barely challenges, if not welcomes, the feminist downgrading of motherhood and the traditional family. It subordinates non-economic concerns to international capitalism and views ethnic attachment as an obstacle to be thoroughly demonized and suppressed. It refuses to ask why non-Western countries facing the same economic and demographic trends are refusing immigrant multiculturalism, and why all Western nations were created in the past under far more difficult circumstances without employing policies that would forever destroy their heritage. The mainstream right has accepted the leftist claim that opposition to immigration is "xenophobic."
Both the conventional right and left should therefore be held morally accountable for endorsing the extreme policy of mass immigration that is abolishing the genetic diversity of Europe and the world in the name of a generic racially mixed humanity without roots and pride in ancestry and easily manipulated by global elites interested in leveling cultural and economic differences across the world combined with rabid consumerism.
This article was published by Council of European Canadians.
Not welcome in all UK schools
21.06.2014. The head of one the Birmingham schools at the centre of the 'Trojan Horse' controversy has revealed that parents of Pakistani origin wanted her to "get rid of the white kids" at her school, reports Breitbart (link in original):
Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, head teacher at Anderton Park Primary School, told the Sunday Times that when a small number of white children arrived at her school, which was predominantly Muslim, parents started making a series of racist demands:
"We had kids saying 'What are you playing with the white kid for? What are you playing with the Christians for?' The dad of one of the Pakistani heritage pupils at the school even told me I should 'get rid of the white kids'.
"He said, 'If I was head I would get the white kids and shove them in the corner with white desks and a white teacher and keep them away from the rest of the kids. I told him that what he had said was racist and I was going to write it down. Then he said, 'You should get rid of the white kids, that is what the community would want you to do.'"
She later reported the parent to the police.
Read the entire story at Breitbart.
Permalinks to older articles