Part I | Part II
You would think that the “Community Engagement: Language” I wrote about in Part I would be enough to handle the voices of dissent against Chinese-only signs. Sorry guys, this is not a one time show; it is and will be a permanent psychological assault, using the softest and most deceptive effeminate techniques possible — “dialogue”, “community harmony”, “respect for difference” — to bring about emotions, values, and behaviors that are favorable to mass immigration. And this will continue to happen, not just in Vancouver, but in every city across the West, as masses upon masses of immigrants push their way into our nations at the behest of both the left and the corporate right.
All our European nations are being redefined as “immigrant nations” in order to persuade their founding inhabitants that they must be continuously open to the immigrants that define them. The very values that created our modern political culture, democracy, liberal rights, free speech, fairness, are being manipulated, radically altered in their meaning, to suit the objectives of this program.
Don’t believe these deceivers. There is nothing in our concept of individual rights that implies that immigrants have a “right” to come to our lands. There is nothing in our concept of democracy that implies that our nations must be populated by majorities of immigrants, There is nothing in the history of our nations that calls for them to be defined as “immigrant nations”. All our nations were created by European pioneers, settlers, and nation builders, which is why all their institutions and modern infrastructures are European in character.
I have paid close attention to the two events Kerry Starchuk was invited to for this reason, because they are symptomatic of a new newspeak spreading across the West, in which our most cherished ideals are being perverted by means of (seemingly humanitarian) techniques of psychological control, in order to create the illusion that the extremism entailed by the forced diversification of native European populations is about “harmony” and “respect for difference”, while labeling as “extremist” normal humans who engage in “oppositional politics” against this assault.
These two events, and you can examine the ones at your own cities for similarities, “The Urban Agenda Vancouver. Creating a Great City of Communities”, which took place at UBC on January 19, 2016, and the “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, which is taking place in Richmond on January 21, are illiberal to their very core, inconsistent with our liberal traditions, incredibly deceptive in their doublespeak, manipulative in the way they misinterpret the word “dialogue” to mean “no opposition” and “no debate”. Manipulative as well in the way they misuse the word “tolerance” and “difference” to mean “acceptance” of the eventual demise of Canada’s European heritage, in the way they speak about “acceptance of difference” but exclude any intellectual position that questions the merits of diversity, and in the way they claim to be open to all Canadians yet monopolize the word “Canadian” to mean only Canadians who agree with mass immigration.
Canadian Race Relations Foundation
These two events are being hosted by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The ” mission” of this Foundation is very clear:
providing leadership in the building of a national framework for the struggle against racism in Canada; providing advance understanding of the past and present causes and manifestations of racism; providing independent national leadership and serve as a resource and facilitator in the pursuit of equity, healing, fairness and justice in Canada; contributing to Canada’s voice in the international struggle against racism.
This Foundation, which under the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act, S.C. 1991 obtained a fund of 24 million dollars, is singularly obsessed with fighting racism in Canada. The board of directors are appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In the Orwellian world of multiculturalism, however, this Foundation is not dedicated to Canada’s heritage, but rather to the condemnation of this heritage as inherently racist and in need of replacement by the heritage of foreign peoples who played zero (or, in the case of some ethnic groups, a minuscule) role in the creation of Canada. Every single event promoted by this Foundation with tax payers money is aimed at the promotion of non-European Canadians. Check yourself.
The board of directors of this foundation is made up mostly of non-Europeans, with a Silverman and a Friedman.
Vancouver Was Created by Eurocanadians
|Downtown Intersection of Vancouver, BC, circa 1950|
What was it about Kerry Starchuk’s objections to Chinese signs that has prompted this Foundation to organize two meetings in rapid succession? Well, this plain spoken mother of five children, with deep roots in Richmond, noticed what we are not supposed to notice or talk about: that the Richmond where she raised her family as a fourth generation resident is no longer “Richmond”, is no longer Anglo-European, but overwhelmingly Chinese and Asian. Her point of criticism has been the Chinese-only signs. These events are intended to put a lid on any potential spread of discontent beyond these signs.
The theme of the “Urban Agenda Vancouver” meeting is: “managing diversity and race relations in large cities with rapidly evolving demographics“. One of the dictionary meanings of the word “evolving” is “develop from a simple to a complex form.” They want you to think that the welcoming of millions of immigrants into Vancouver was a process of improvement and betterment over the once-ethnically “simple” Anglo-European city.
To be sure, Vancouver was virtually a White European city from its beginnings in the 1870s to the 1980s. In the 1950s, when the city had been fully developed into a metropolis, the British accounted for about 75 percent of the population, and other Europeans accounted for about 18 percent, whereas the Asian proportion (Chinese and Japanese) accounted for only 3 percent.
The total number of Chinese in 1951 was still a meager 8,729, in a population of roughly 345.000; in 1961, it increased slightly to 15,223, and then to 30,640 in 1971. It was during the 80s that the gates were thrown wide open when the Third World was invited to come to Canada. Consequently, by the mid-90s, the Chinese population in Vancouver suddenly shot up to 300,000, out of a total population of 1.8 million. By 2011, Eurocanadians were reduced to a minority, accounting for only 46.8 of the population, with visible “minorities” accounting for 51.8 percent.
There is no precedent for this dramatic change in the ethnic demographics of Vancouver and the Western world generally, other than past instances of conquest and genocide.
Urban Agenda Vancouver: Debate is Prohibited
We are told that the panel at Urban Agenda will discuss: “How do people of various cultural, social, religious and ethnic backgrounds live together harmoniously?” You can be sure that living harmoniously means accepting this dramatic demographic shift, and targeting as “racist” any opposition unless the opposition can be controlled as part of a “dialogue” over language signs. The use of the term”rapidly evolving demographics” has nothing to do with rapid population growth, for otherwise this meeting would not have been organized by a foundation dedicated to opposing racism, by which it means fighting Whites who oppose their ethnic displacement.
Not a single voice of dissent has been allowed in this meeting. There are eight speakers. Albert C. Lo is the chairperson of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Farid Rohani “comes with a lifelong passion and commitment to promoting the value of cultural diversity.” Kori Wilson is “dedicated to the success of Indigenous people”, which is a fine endeavour, but which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Showcasing Indigenous people is now a typical strategy to camouflage White replacement, as if mass Asian immigration would somehow enhance the rights of Indigenous peoples. I am for the ethnic self-determination of Indigenous peoples and Eurocanadians.
Vi Nguyen has dedicated her young career to the success of “racialized young people”. What does “racialized” mean? It is a term invented in academia to designate the “negative attributes” assigned to non-Whites by Whites, It is a term that allows non-Whites to identify themselves racially, work to advance their interests on the grounds that Whites have racialized them negatively. Race is a social construct and Whites don’t exist except insofar as Whites can be identified as a group responsible for the racialization of non-Whites who must therefore struggle as non-Whites to work for their “success”.
Jennifer Reddy works for “an inclusive world where people are engaged as valuable and deserving individuals”. Shauna Sylvester is “Professor of Professional Practice” (whatever that means), and the Director of the Simon Fraser University Centre for Dialogue. This Centre, with a staff of 19 members “aspires to be a globally recognized centre in the teaching, scholarship and practice of dialogue.” Its “vision mission” states that it has a “profound belief in the power of dialogue…to humanize participants”.
|Shauna Sylvester: I have seen the light|
Sylvester actually thinks she has found a way to solve the world’s global conflicts through “dialogue”. She used to be an activist engaged in “oppositional politics” but then “experienced first-hand the power of dialogue over debate in neutralizing conflict and fostering collaboration.”
But Sylvester is merely voicing the standard script among diversity promoters and academics inhabiting an environment in which actual oppositional ideas are not tolerated. What leftists mean by dialogue and “neutralizing conflict” is an atmosphere in which the ideological terms have been decided before the discussion starts. Her claim that debate creates conflict and war goes against the very principles of our parliamentary traditions. The dialogue she eulogizes is akin to the discussions one finds in North Korea where everyone is expected to smile and accept the reigning ideology. This is why all the 8 speakers in this “dialogue” are exact ideological copies of each other. Robert Baum, another invited speaker, is a member of this Centre.
One speaker among the eight, I must qualify, has forwarded some critical observations about the state of immigrant Vancouver; his name is Douglas Todd, a journalist for the Vancouver Sun. He is a decent man, senses that something is wrong in Vancouver, has written sympathetic columns about the critics of Chinese-only signs, and other problems related to immigration experiences. One of the headings of a column this past November was “Immigration fraud on a grand scale”. Unfortunately, Todd is unwilling to address this issue from the stand point of the ethnic interests of Eurocanadians, in the face of an actual reality in which Eurocanadians are experiencing replacement, and a Chinese population consciously promoting its own particular ethnic interests in the name of multiculturalism knowing full well that accusations of racism apply only to Whites. As early as 2031, Whites will constitute only 2 out of 5 Vancouverites. We must engage in oppositional politics if we are to be taken seriously and respected, rather than integrated into a controlled dialogue.
Richmond Living Together
The second meeting, “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, set for July 21 at UBC, is very similar in orientation, but without even a blip of dissent. It claims to be an “invitation to everyone…to explore Canadian values and identity”, in which seemingly substantive questions will be addressed, such as “Do you feel Canadian? If so, why? If not, why not? If you immigrated to Canada, what did you seek in coming to Canada? Did you find it?”
But make no mistake: this is NOT a meeting for “everyone”:
Living Together is a symposium dedicated to people who share the vision of a diverse and inclusive community.
All the eleven speakers are promoters of mass immigration or activists against “white racism”. Joan Arbot “worked for many years as an Unlearning Racism facilitator.” Anita Bromberg is the Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, formerly the National Director of Legal Affairs for B’nai Brith Canada, responsible for an “Anti-Hate Hotline”. Elaine Chau works for CBC recounting endearing stories about immigrants. Robert Daum is a “facilitator of inclusive communities”. Kanwal Sign Neel organizes educational programs for immigrant and refugee children.
Suresh Kurl “has worked all his life as a community builder and cross-cultural ambassador.” Albert Lo is here again, to make sure things go according to the aims of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Peter Maclead is a public relations guy committed to persuading Canadians that diversity is synonymous with civic citizenship and democracy. Shane Point is a ceremonial Aboriginal speaker. Henry Yu has built a very lucrative career arguing that Canada is a White supremacist nation. Cecilia Point has donated a “tremendous amount of her time to her nation [First Nations] and a number of local Aboriginal causes”.
Promoters of mass immigration always exploit Aboriginals to advance their agenda, even though they never care to tell us how Asian immigration benefits Aboriginals? Would these speakers approve of mass immigration into Aboriginal territories in Canada? Would they ever say there is not enough diversity in the mushrooming Chinatowns across the West?
Don’t expect answers. Canada is ruled by a massive bureaucratic apparatus dedicated to the enforcement of immigrant multiculturalism, multiple government agencies, offices, careers, titles, grants, departments and programs in many universities, with thousands of hirelings seeking opportunities to justify their positions, some of whom are recent immigrants utilizing multiculturalism to promote their ethnic interests while employing leftist arguments about White racism even though they come from backward racist cultures.
We have to cultivate our own meetings, our own networks, appeal to the general public, to the millions of Eurocanadians, like Kerry Starchuk, who feel something is wrong, the system is corrupt, malicious, and misuses our liberal language to degrade our liberal traditions.