 of populist, anti-immigrant nativism."
Ibbitson is supposedly a "far from typical" "right-wing columnist" in "his unorthodox views," though he is best described as a simple, docile servant of a Canadian state that expects everyone to accept mass immigration without questioning. He says the violence in Charlottesville should teach the Conservative Party once and for all to truly become "inclusive" of "all Canadians — including immigrant Canadians and Muslim Canadians both newly arrived and native born." Conservatives must say "very loudly" that they "will not tolerate" any Canadian who is intolerant of the state-imposed diversification mandate.
While playing up alarmist images about the impending take over of the West by "Nazis," Ibbitson also wants you to think that his call for inclusiveness is all about excluding a few Alt-Right "racists" that violate the principle of tolerance. For some decades the establishment has been deceptively insisting that the principle of tolerance cannot include "small groups of extreme right wing" "racists."
Yet the truth remains that over the last decades a very high percentage of Canadians have been very critical of mass immigration and diversity mandates. In a recent poll, almost half of Canadians stated that "migrants and refugees who illegally cross into Canada at the U.S. border should be sent back to the states."
When asked whether 'less immigration' or'more immigration' would lead 'to a better future 25 years from now,' 61.7 per cent of Canadians said less immigration would be preferable, compared to 34.4 per cent who said more immigration would result in a better Canada.
Don't forget that these views are being expressed in a climate of incredible hostility against any form of "anti-immigrant nativism," to use Ibbitson's disparaging words. This "unorthodox" journalist inhabits an Orwellian establishment thriving in a Newspeak that espouses a code of politically correct "inclusiveness" that condemns deviation with the most censorious labels.
It is an establishment that imposes a standard of tolerance designed to justify the "biological extinction" of traditional Anglo-Quebecois identities in Canada and across the Western world, Germanic, Irish, Swedish, Italian peoples.
The implied exclusion of Whites in the inclusiveness of diversity finds full expression in Balkissoon's Dear White Nationalists: It's Not Unfair, This Is How Equality Works. Charlottesville, this profound woman explains, is about the "undeniable structural truth of global white supremacy," a continuation of the "attempted genocide of Indigenous people across the Americas, concurrent to the enslavement of millions of Africans" and the colonization of the Third World.
The Alt-Right in Charlottesville, Brexit and Trump voters, and "white people" generally have "been raised to believe in their own entitlement" and "taught to fear" that non-Whites will "take-away" countries that don't belong to them. Whites have no right to oppose the taking down of the statue of "the genocidal founder of Halifax, Edward Cornwallis."
There you have it: a truly "inclusive" Canada is one in which Whites accept their "replacement" by non-Whites and the eventual erasure of their history from books and monuments. It is a Canada that leaves no room for "anti-immigrant nativism" and for the expression of dissent by the majority Indigenous Euro-Canadians.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
A good reason to use birth control
Public enemy number 1.
I let myself get roped into downloading the kids favorite villian of choice, gasp,.... the unspeakably evil Sponge Bob Squarepants. They sat on each knee with a gleeful little squeal everytime I started downloading his dark image onto the hard drive.
Really though, I like the comedy, it's just the voice that grates on me like broken glass. Probably why they love him so much. Now Patrick, I actually like him, and Mr. Crab of course. I wonder too if my parents were half as annoyed by Scooby Doo and Space Ghost, Frankenstein Jr., The Groovy Ghoulies, Josie and The Pussycats, The Banana Splits,...
Yeah, they probably were.
Go Figure.
That's not exactly accurate, when you consider that there has been more than one poll
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. But 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
The polls are virtually opposite in their take on what people really believe. I would be interested to see the questions and their wording to really get a view into the way the polls were done. But how many mid-Ohioans do ya think read Newsweek as opposed to the Dispatch? I haven't heard people talking about this, gas prices or the war, but not this. My wife, a democrat, says "good" with a shrug of her shoulders. She's glad that the NSA is doing this to track down the bad guys. She doesn't see it as a privacy issue. I do see the potential for abuse, but come on here. Unless the NSA can grow themselves all a set of crystal balls, how else and with what tools could they hope to gather intell on local cells?
As to the right to remain anonymous, that's long gone. Wether from the government gathering taxes, companies garnering demographics for market share, or universities spreading knowledge, no one is completely removed from the collection of data. You can't uninvent the wheel. The only choices we have now are to the amount of access we wish to allow the government to individual persons and their data. A tough issue, that would occupy great thinkers for a very long time. Screaming about privacy or name calling isn't helpful here. The government has my fingerprints, my FBI file, so to worry about them tracking my long distance calls is kind of silly. They would be bored to tears and that is what most people would say. The Fourth Amendment is to protect against"unreasonable" searchs and seizures, not to prevent them in all cases for whatever reason. The nine supremes will speak on it soon enough, and then it'll be the law that we all have to live with.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Daddry Lord of Rohan
My wife and I really loved the Lord of The Rings trilogy, so this is a fun little item. I actually identfy alot more with Boromir than any of the others. He's flawed, very human, and gives into temptation. He redeems himself in the end by sacrificing himself to save Merry and Pippin, he regains his honor, holds true to the fellowship. His life ends with his desire to save his people still on his lips.
We should all meet our end so well.
Alot has been written drawing political lessons on both the right and left from these films. I won't do that though. Let them stand as the works they are, and if we draw anything at all from them,.. Let it be that friendship, and love, can enable even the most humble among us to accomplish the impossible. That's a lesson we can all find inspiration in.
Enough of Politics;_ylt=AscBj5ZUvxH6_CEhtanQyTJfVXcA
Poseidon? The first movie sucked, death and large scale disaster movie's leave me cold. I want to see movies where life is celerbrated, where lives are saved. Not films where the game is,... who dies next.
Like it if you will, I'll stay home on this one.
How do you define "elite"?
"The nation is hearing echoes of this complaint in words of some of the generals currently criticizing Rumsfeld: “My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results,” said Lt. General Greg Newbold in Time magazine recently. "
Well for one thing, both Bush and the much maligned Rumsfeld are veterans. Something you would think a two star general would know before he shot off his mouth. Second, the article is written by people with very close ties to the Clinton White House. In fairness, they did offer that information in the article. But the whole tone of the piece has a certain taste of, "oh my God, we didn't realize!" quality that is pretty shameful when you consider that they never got that clue when Clinton was in power. They also had to include the swipe at Rumsfeld when a casual check would have told them he was a former pilot. They dance on the head of a pin here trying to both show that the so called "elites" were grossly under represented in the services, while at the same time making an under the table case that only veterans can make the choices about going to war or not.
We've already had this debate. Civilians govern the services for a reason, so that men who may fine officiers, but lousy policy makers don't form a praetorian guard. I also challenge their assumption that the wealthy constitute the "elite" of this country. I've met too many officiers to believe that, they aren't as a group any better than your average high school football team. One or two that really shine, the majority are decent at what they do, and a few outright suck. A moneyed background doesn't