Dan Murray, Canada Free Press, Monday, June 23, 2008
In Prime Minister Harper’s recent apology to Canada’s First Nations people over the residential schools issue, he stated that the purpose of the residential schools was “to kill the Indian in the Indian”. Canada’s media and politically correct have been quick to repeat the phrase—-probably without doing too much research into the issue.
Undoubtedly, mortal sins were committed in the residential school/colonization process. But before all those associated with residential schools are lowered into the deepest circle of Hell with no hope of parole for their role in the colonization process, we should note that a reverse colonization process is underway right now. Moreover, we should note that its effects on Canadians and on the entire country will be far more mortal in scale than anything seen in the residential schools. Ironically, First Nations people who suffered may be better able to see what is happening than many other Canadians.
To enable the current colonization process to occur, a number of steps have been necessary. Here are a few of the more important ones.
One was to immolate much of Canadian history. According to Canadian historian Jack Granatstein (author of “Who Killed Canadian History?”),
“the core—‘the politics, diplomacy and warfare which led to the creation of British North America and the Canadian political system’—has been largely excised from our schools and universities. So, too, has the political, diplomatic, and military history of post-Confederation Canada.
“The social historians . . . are, regrettably, the same historians who simultaneously removed the political leaders, diplomats, and generals.
“And the bureaucrats who set the curricula for our schools have cheerfully gone along with this for their own social engineering purposes: the elimination of any controversy that might offend students and parents, and an emphasis on the sins of Canadians so they can create a mythical city on the hill.
“In those provinces where Canadian history is still a compulsory course in high school, scant attention is paid to anything but social history. And much of the teaching focuses on the maltreatment of aboriginals and immigrants, the abuse of women, and the evils of capitalism. I agree all these issues must be studied, but I oppose the blatant indoctrination our schools practice. Far from teaching patriotism, our schools now focus almost exclusively on historical ills.” (From “HOW WE TEACH HISTORY MATTERS MOST”)
In our view, a thorough presentation will give history the role of guiding parents in Canada’s future. Social engineers (a host of our history writers, bureaucrats, and grievance promoters) have separated Canada from its parents and its heritage and taken away the wise guides that our society needs.
In general, the socially-engineered version of Canadian history leaves Canadian adults and students with the impression that their ancestors were a group of rogues and that their descendants somehow have to compensate for the sins of their rogue ancestors. The only way to do this is to indulge in life-long, self-loathing and self-abuse. The first problem with this idea is that, in general, this view of Canadian history is wrong. The second is that it leaves Canadians floundering in the present—cut off from their ancestors who have already travelled in realms unknown to the present. It kills the Canadian in the Canadian.
A second necessary step has been to give Canada a new set of parents. In effect, multiculturalism and diversity have been elevated to that role. They are a major part of the new reality and they are Canada’s new elders and guides.
There is a major problem with putting multiculturalism into that role. Multiculturalism, by suggesting that Canada is a mere collection of people from everywhere, undermines the role of Canada’s founding people: the First Nations, the French and the English. It weakens Canada and makes it vulnerable. It implies that Canada’s older host population and their ancestors never inherited or developed any culture (other than a negative one) in the old Canada and do not deserve any special attention in the new Canada. In effect, it works at erasing First Nations, European and Canadian history.
It also creates a false historical equality between host and newly-arrived. As a result, the wishes of Canada’s founders are entitled to no more consideration than those of the newly-arrived. To multiculturalists, the host should not expect the new to adapt to the host’s traditions. In fact, the host should have to cater to all the demands of the new—-in particular their demand that they be allowed to bring to Canada as many of their own as they wish. To some of the new, it is their right to come here and Canada has an obligation to take them. Multicultural cheerleaders boast that Canada will soon have much more than the current 20% visible minority population. What they are really saying is that, if high immigration inflows continue, their diaspora will eventually outnumber the host population. When they have reached that state, they will be able to do whatever they deem necessary to finish the process of killing the Canadian in the Canadian and establishing a diasporic reality.
The problem with having diversity as a foster parent is that it implies that Canada was culturally impoverished before the post-1990 flood and that Canada has been enriched by the new arrivals. This is like arguing that enriched bread is better for us, but, as we know about bread, if the original whole wheat grains had been left alone, the bread that was made from them would have been infinitely healthier than the enriched bread with all its additives. Like multiculturalism, diversity teaches guilt, self-loathing and the necessity that the host Canadian seek absolution. That is, it teaches the killing of the Canadian in the Canadian.
It is difficult to imagine parents any more un-Canadian and more devoted to abuse of their foster child than Multiculturalism and Diversity.
A third step has been to organize a large number of those born here and those newly-arrived to denounce much of what Canada has been founded on.
For example, current Supreme Court Judge and social engineer Rosalie Abella, who proudly says that she escaped the Holocaust in Europe, was asked in the mid-1980s to determine whether visible minorities suffered from discrimination in the workplace. After her study, whose carelessness was thoroughly exposed by Dr. Martin Loney, she proclaimed that Canadians were guilty of discrimination. In her view, Canadians (particularly white males) had to expiate by submitting themselves to her Employment Equity programme in which visible minorities would be rushed to the front of the employment queue. Ironically, the Holocaust escaper has created a Holocaust in Canada in which the careers of probably tens of thousands of white males have been incinerated on a funeral pyre in order to receive absolution for the alleged sins of their parents.
Our CBC, which also sees itself as a social engineer, has no reservations about denouncing Canada’s past. The CBC should be a forum for national discussion of Ms. Abella’s work as well as of other far-reaching immigration issues. But it has been turned into a virtual propaganda arm for the immigration industry. There are undoubtedly voices within the CBC which dissent with the coup that the current herd of independent thinkers staged a number of years ago. But official CBC proclaims multiculturalism as one of its policies, and CBC hosts and reporters absurdly claim that their staff (some of whom from Asia have trouble understanding English) is “diverse”. Every day, for example, CBC Radio in Vancouver gives air time to those who want to tell listeners that immigration is wonderful. In a discussion related to the recent dismissal of the CBC Orchestra so that more “diverse” music could be played, CBC reporter Gillian Findlay sarcastically referred to the music often played on CBC as music written by “old white guys” from Europe. If any Canadians were to use insults such as “Raghead”, “Chink”, or Pakky”, Ms. Findlay and CBC management would self-righteously crucify them. But it seems they have no qualms about throwing abuse at Canadians in actions such as the dismissal of the CBC Orchestra, in words such as those used by Ms. Findlay or in the thousands of hours of free air time that they (a publicly-funded institution) have shamelessly given to Canada’s immigration industry to undermine Canada.
As Multiculturalism and Diversity’s promoter, the CBC is also a reviser of Canadian history. One of the latest, outrageous versions of the new “CBC truths” in Canadian history has arisen over a film just released on the anniversary of the Air India bombing. The film, with CBC blessing, alleges that white Canadians are responsible for the Air India mass murder which most Canadians still view as part of India’s ongoing quasi-civil war between Sikhs and other Indians.
Canada’s private media are slightly different. Some in our private media have questioned Canada’s new parents (Multiculturalism and Diversity) and the effects of their abuse of Canada. But these reporters are few and their voices are, to this point, drowned out by a host of others who have no difficulty in denouncing Canada. In fact, some newspapers have officially or unofficially designated “immigration and diversity reporters” on their staffs. One of these Toronto reporters has at least once contemptuously referred to Canada’s host population as “whitebread”. Apparently, he has received no reproach from his self-flagellating editors. Our criticism is not that the media do not cover the immigration issue. On the contrary, they cover the issue but they seem to think that it is their duty to hang on every word that immigration advocates say. As a result, they publish or broadcast little other than what Canada’s immigration industry tells them to write. As such, they—-like the CBC—- betray professional standards and cannot be taken seriously.
Denouncing and killing the Canadian in the Canadian (that is, killing the heritage and interests of Canada and Canadians) infected our social-engineering politicians many years ago. A number of our federal politicians now brazenly and openly state that Canada’s immigration programme should serve the interests of immigrants. In fact, NDP MP Olivia Chow, who is a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration and who seems to be writing NDP immigration policy, recently proclaimed this. If her husband, NDP leader Jack Layton, is afraid to stand up to her, then other NDP MP’s should take her aside and whisper a few words of Canadian history in her ear. One point should be that Canada had an immigration policy from the 1920s until 1990 which put the interests of Canada’s own workforce first. This point is particularly relevant now in Ontario where the manufacturing sector has already suffered tens of thousands of job losses. Ms. Chow did not grow up here, and seems to be unaware of Canada’s past. But if she knows so little, why are the NDP MP’s who were born here allowing her to articulate the immigration policy of the NDP, the party which professes to be nationalist, that is, the party which defends Canada’s interests?
Ms. Chow’s Liberal MP counterparts on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration seem to be equally devoted to abuse of Canada. Like her, Jim Karygiannis and Andrew Telegdi were not born here. Other immigrants have recovered from their move to Canada, but these two suffer from serious gaps in their awareness of Canada. They also seem to think that Canada’s immigration policy should serve non-Canadians. In fact, whoever in the Liberal caucus allowed these two to become members of the Standing Committee on Immigration suffers from the same delusion that these two MP’s and MP Chow do: that the stakeholders in the immigration issue are immigrants and our immigration industry. Someone in the Liberal caucus has to take these two aside and tell them that the major stakeholder on the immigration issue is the Canadian public (both host and newly-arrived). If the Canadian public’s interest is not being looked after by this committee and the rest of our government, who will look after it?
Unfortunately, any observer of the immigration committee can see that the Bloc Quebecois and Conservative members of this committee have also not said much to defend Canadians.
Many other examples could be given. But our point should be clear by now:
Our high immigration numbers and a series of federal policies have already done much to kill the Canadian in the Canadian. That is, they have severely damaged the heritage and interests of Canada and Canadians.
If not stopped, the blow that some in our First Nations have experienced will seem small compared to the blow that is being compounded every day for all Canadians by high immigration.