Skip to content

The Grotesque Hypocrisy Of The Diversity Establishment: Four Case Examples

​​​All of us who are regulars at the Council of European-Canadians are
generally aware that the establishment in politics and media is terribly
hypocritical and philosophically incoherent. In politics, hypocrisy is
understandable. But in the case of media – especially the mainstream news
media, which is supposed to serve the public interest, it is inexcusable,
even though we have come to expect it by now.

I have decide to break down and distill for you a selection of four of
these hypocrisies.

Systemic Racism in Canada vs
Systemic Islamism in the Islamic World 

On the 29th of January, 2017, a young Quebecois male named
Alexandre Bissonnette walked into a mosque in Quebec City and
began shooting people at random. Twenty-five people were hit,
and six died.

Following this attack, both establishment media and smaller
media began churning out pieces, all of which can be found under
such tags as “Islamophobia” and “systemic racism”. Most of these
are still archived and can be viewed by any of the readers here who
have the stomach to read such nonsense. The use of the term
“Islamophobia” is a misnomer; there are no peer-reviewed
psychology journals that I am aware of who have declared that
“Islamophobia” is a phobia in the true sense. But this term isn’t
what bothers me so much here as the term “systemic racism”. In
the minds of some of these talking heads and the soft jihadists they
think they speak for, this solitary shooting at one mosque in the
second-largest country in the world is enough evidence for them to
claim that Canada has a problem with “systemic racism”. The term
is ridiculous in and of itself, being as how there is no Islamic race
(look for example, at the tension in the United Arab Emirates
between the Indo-Pakistani residents and the Arab citizens. The
most commonly understood language in the UAE is no longer
Arabic – it’s Urdu).

Alexandre Bissonnette” “Greatest Terrorist in Canadian History”

I introduce to you a term that you may pass around when the
term “systemic racism” is shoved in your face by your pink-haired,
piercing-obsessed feminist co-worker or your nu-male former
friend who clings to you because he is in desperate need of
masculine peers: “systemic Islamism”. What is systemic Islamism?
Consider it a socio-cultural soil condition that gives maximum
potential for fertile growth of the darkest and most hideous
practices emanating from Islam.

For something like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to
emerge is not even remotely akin to the likes of Alex Bissonnette,
or a cross-burning on a black family’s lawn, or a mean handwritten
note to an indigenous student in a university dorm. At its zenith,
the number of armed troops serving IS was larger than the number
of people living in many smaller cities in Canada. Add the number
of non-combat supporters living in its controlled region, as well as
the number of individuals and organisations around the world who
have pledged allegiance to it, and what we have is essentially a
loose federation.

The number of people who have such a warped
mentality that they could come to willingly support an
organisation like IS, even after seeing in-person what it is willing to
do to not only its enemies but its own supporters, is evidence of a
sick culture. It is not, as some of the talking heads who have not
pretended to ignore the existence of IS and its fellow travellers may
have stated or insinuated, some sort of tragic accident. It is not a
case like the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, where an inexperienced
trucker and a poorly-designed intersection aligned at the wrong
time. It is not a case of a Harris & Klebold shooting up Columbine
High School, where a pair of mentally-ill, sexually-frustrated and
long-bullied teenagers decided to take revenge against the
institution they believed had wronged them. To willingly go about
planning and creating a state like ISIL takes individuals whose
minds have been worn down to the most distorted shells of what
they should be. In a way, the Quran could be lauded for being the
best war machine creator in human history (if its results weren’t so
gruesome and inhumane).

“It is Islamophobic to call these men terrorists!”

To take a young goatherder boy and
invite him to trade his boring life for an adventure involving riding
fast horses, pillaging treasure, raping exotic women, and killing the
enemies of God, all while promising eternal life and endless sexual
satisfaction if he dies in combat, is an alluring bait for his
unenlightened mind. In the case of the Nigerian Islamist group, its
name “Boko Haram” demonstrates this: its meaning translates
approximately to “No Kaffir Education” or “Without Kaffir Ways”.
A man (or worse, a woman!) who is formally a Muslim but receives
an Enlightenment-style education in Beirut, Istanbul, or Cairo is
for them a distinction from a kaffir without a difference. Keeping
Quranic doctrine as the sole and only organising principle for life is
essential for the likes of IS and Boko Haram (I believe Boko Haram
has declared its fealty to IS) to maintain what I have termed here
today “systemic Islamism”.

The talking heads who decry the non-existence “systemic
racism” in Canada but ignore the systemic Islamism that gives rise
to the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIL are what I have termed in my
book the Appeasers. I use the term to describe all those under
the umbrella of giving cover to and even collaborating with the
Islamisation of this country and to our ancestral continent across
the Atlantic.

“Canadians of all races served” vs MMIW 

While we are on the topic of “systemic racism”, I am, as most
of you probably are, angered (although not surprised) by the
termination of Don Cherry’s employment as the unrivalled
commentator on hockey that he is from Sportsnet, due to his
recent insinuation that “New Canadians” do not wear poppies for
Remembrance Day because they had no stake in fighting for
Canada in wars past. The left-wing talking heads have been
feasting on this one, finally seeing an opportunity to not simply
denigrate Don Cherry but to completely declare a philosophical
war on him and dare everybody who supports him to stand up.
This response to Cherry included even Peter Mansbridge:

Now, it has been some time since the multiracialist
advertising has penetrated into the officially non-partisan and
solemn recollection of the number of troops this country has, for
the greater good or for folly, sent to their deaths. The most
amusing of these is the portrayal of black women in military
uniforms in promos for the Legion or for Forces recruitment – not
even black men, who have at least a minor history of excellence in
military service – but black women! I give all of you an iron-clad
guarantee that the service of black women in the Canadian armed
forces is statistically irrelevant.

Meanwhile, to return to the more recent responses to Don
Cherry’s statements on the wearing of poppies, what shameful
hubris the talking heads have to make such pithy statements all
amounting to “not all of Canada’s war dead were white men”.
Statistically, this is factual. (I would then hope against hope that
the people espousing such things would be supportive of the
anonymous ‘It’s Okay to Be White’ poster campaign of last year)
But it misses the point as to who has largely shouldered the
burden.

I am of the mind that war is, in a way, rather misandrist. It
takes young men in the prime of their lives and sends them out to
die, often in horrible ways, as a means to an end for the
enrichment of wealth and power of a small elite. In my studies, I
have rarely come across a war in which it really was a featurefilmesque good vs evil conflict. I do not even necessarily think
Canada was always on the right side of every conflict. I
retroactively support the Afrikaner side in the Boer War, seeing
much the same story reflected today here in Canada, with the
oppression of the Prairie provinces by Laurentian elites in Ottawa.
I believe that it might have been better for the Central Powers to
have won the First World War (whatever that might have
amounted to), on the basis that if Germany had not lost that war,
there would have been no NSDAP; and if there had been no
NSDAP, there would have been no Second World War (thus saving
millions of white lives); and if there had been no Second World
War, there would have been no Cold War. But I digress.

The fact of the matter remains that, since Confederation was
founded in 1867, the majority of those who have served in our
armed forces have been men of European origin, and the
overwhelming majority of those who died from wounds sustained
in combat are of the same. For a lifelong civilian to get on some
sort of high horse and attempt to elevate the position of the tiny
minority of non-Europeans who died in service to the Canadian
armed forces is utterly tasteless.

Contrast this with the acronym movement MMIW. 

Although it has quieted down somewhat now, most of you
probably recall MMIW (Missing and Murdered IndigenousWomen). It is basically a soft populist movement within the
indigenous communities that revolves around agitating for greater
state concern and investigation into the reasons why indigenous
women are so disproportionately represented in the statistics of
missing and murdered people in Canada.

I am of the mind that the death of any woman before her time is
unfortunate. I do not begrudge natives, of either sex, for
advocating for an end to the violence towards and disappearance of
indigenous women.

I invite the reader to examine either or both of the following
websites:

As you can see, there are certainly a very large number of missing
persons who appear to be indigenous women.

What the MMIW movement excludes from their advocacy are all
of the other faces you see – namely, disadvantaged white women
and hard-beaten blue-collar white men. These faces are not
relevant to MMIW or to the talking heads who give MMIW air
time in order to perpetuate, once again, their discussion of
“systemic racism” in Canada. What the official inquiries into
MMIW will not reveal to us is what we already generally believe:
that the majority of the murderers of indigenous women are
indigenous men; that the depression and chronic unemployment
suffered by native peoples in Canada is a result of a combination of
alcoholism, fetal alcohol syndrome, and being situated on reserves
a long way from centres of employment.

“Systemic racism” has
nothing to do with it. Canada is not experiencing armed bands of
white males out hunting down and causing forced disappearances
of indigenous women. Indigenous women disappear because they
are raped, murdered, and dumped in remote locations by mentally ill indigenous men, or, because they get very drunk and walk into
remote areas during the winter and succumb to exposure. It’s as
simple as that, yet nobody outside the CEC will call it like it is. The
indigenous peoples of Canada can never achieve self-government if
they never take self-responsibility and stop blaming their own
inability to care for their own people on “systemic racism”.

Trump Fascism vs Quebec Fascism 

I am sure that most of us are by now inured to Donald Trump
and those who support him being called “fascists”. Never mind the
fact that he has created many policies to support black American
workers (while his Democratic predecessors created economic
conditions that put blacks into unemployment); or the fact that he
has a Jewish son-in-law; or that he has at the end of many of his
rallies described the USA as having “defeated fascism”.

Fascism was not “defeated” because it is inherently flawed; it
was defeated because it emerged as a response to an incipient
globalism (initially in the form of communism, which now has
largely been supplanted by corporatism), and its ethos of
isolationism or semi-isolationism and self-dependency is
antithetical to the desires of globalist profiteers. Proto-fascism, as
envisioned by Mussolini and his National Fascist Party, was not as much geared towards proselytising, Mussolini believing that fascism
was a uniquely-Italian response to the growth of the global
communist movement. Mosley, however, thought otherwise, and
in his pamphlet “Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered”
described many problems and fascism’s solutions to them that
were facing contemporary Britain. Many of these answers, I
believe, Donald Trump would be in favour of, and to a degree he
has even pursued some of these, I believe (although not being a
Washington insider, I cannot say for sure).

In any case, the U.S. and Canadian media’s opinion writers, all
over the spectrum, nowadays have a tendency to use the word
“fascism” as a slur, rather than as an accurate description of a
socio-political orientation. They use the term to describe things
like Trump promoting a secure southern border with Mexico; such
as Trump calling Central American gangs “animals”; such as Trump
wanting to increase the power of the U.S. military (in a world
where the only countries that seem to be actually downsizing their
militaries are in the European Union). The U.S. media, for all their
hypocrisies and biases, are entitled to comment on the politics of
their own country. It becomes more silly when Canadian media
outlets take away time from Canadian issues to decry Trumpian
“fascism”.

But what then, would they term the nativism, statism, self-centredness, and nationalism that is a regular part of life in
Quebec?

Quebec collects all income tax itself. It regulates the use of
languages besides French, up to and including at hospitals (a place
where one would hope that human life is more important than
what language they use), to the point where English-speakers in
Quebec have actually fled to the U.S. in order to find warmer peer
groups. Quebec works with Ottawa to decide which immigrants
are allowed to settle there. A Quebec MNA was recently excoriated
and prohibited from entering the Assembly because she was
wearing a hoodie instead of professional attire (I do not sympathise
with her, to be honest). Both the positive and negative aspects of
racial nationalism (the latter including bullying of innocent
people) are more commonly noticeable and reported in the media
in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.

I feel I have enough evidence to declare Quebec a semi-autonomous fascist state within the Canadian Confederation.
There is no amount of facts that can outweigh the supporting
evidence for me to make this statement.

Now, unlike more than 99% of people who use the word “fascist”, I
do not say this in condescension. As one who considers himself a
protégé a number of times removed from Benito Mussolini and
Oswald Mosley, I am not opposed to fascism in and of itself.
However, when Mussolini originally founded the National Fascist
Party, his ideal was to have a united and independent Italy, without
the foreign rule of the various empires that had carved through
Italy in the previous centuries, most recently the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. At no point did Mussolini ever seek to elect members of
Parliament to a House of Commons in Vienna, taking away
influence from more marginalised regions of the above-mentioned
empire, such as Slovakia. Yet, that is precisely what Quebec is
doing to Canada. A province that is for most intents and purposes
already independent robs places like the Maritimes and the Prairies
of electoral power in the House of Commons while not actually
caring about the federal government beyond what it can siphon
from its membership in Confederation. At the present, seventy-eight seats out of 338 in the House of Commons go to Quebec.
That comes out to 23% – nearly a quarter! – of the entire House. If
Quebec’s seats were removed, that would leave 260 seats. In that
scenario, the Prairie provinces’ representation in the House would
be 24% – as opposed to the current situation, in which their
representation is only 18%.

If western federalists are so adamant about getting us in the
West a better deal within a united Canada, one of the first steps to
achieving this would be to support Quebec independence, even if
those same independantistes are filled with loathing for us.

Alberta oil companies’ interests vs.
Ontario and Quebec industrial unions’ interests 

While we are on the topic of Quebec, we may contrast the
difference – not just in the media, but also in the way the federal
party leaders discuss – the workers and their employees of the
hydrocarbon industry in the West, as opposed to the way they treat
workers and their employees of the heavy industries of Ontario and
Quebec.

I come from a small town in Alberta. I have seen more pumpjacks in my life than I can remember. (If you don’t know what a
pump-jack is, you probably aren’t from the plains) I have spent
most of my life either adjacent to or a short drive from nature.
Rarely have I spent time in large industrial areas. The first time as
a teenager that I passed through such an area with heavy industrial
activity while I was on a family vacation, my jaw dropped. I had
never seen such enormity of man-made structure or distortion of
the natural environment. I do not say this as some sort of Luddite;
I simply was not accustomed to such an imprint on the landscape
around me.

Sarnia’s Chemical Valley, Ontario

I spend an inordinate amount of time reading news and
opinion pieces, taking the pulse on what various media outlets,
writers, and region think about what issues. Yet, in spite of the
gargantuan industrial development in parts of Ontario and Quebec
(e.g. the nuclear power plant at Bruce; the auto factories in various
steel towns situated in the ring around Toronto; the Bombardier
aircraft factory near Montreal, etc.), I have never heard one unkind
word from any party towards these factories or industries. Not
once have I ever read the term “carbon footprint” to describe
eastern Canadian industrial activity. Once in a while, I have read
or heard some combative words towards the employers of the
workers in these industries – namely around them not receiving
enough pay or benefits.

The hypocrisy that really gets me is the way characters like
Jagmeet Singh behave towards things such as Ontario auto
factories, as opposed to how they behave towards the Alberta
oilsands. I have watched a number of NDP candidates make
campaign stops inside or out in front of Ontario auto factories, and
not once was ecology or environment a topic of discussion. It is
incredible how blind (willfully or otherwise) to the ecological
damage these factories cause in their local environments. I am not
suggesting, when I mention this, that these factories should be
shut down; industrial development is necessary for our modern day way of life. But for a party that is supposedly greatly concerned
about the planet’s ecosystem, ignoring the huge factory, its hunger
for electricity, and the huge parking lots filled with private vehicles
belonging to its employees surrounding the building, it is
hypocrisy on the highest level.

Meanwhile, a visit to the oilsands at
Fort McMurray shows no such ecological destruction. The drilling
sites and work camps are very much outweighed by the millions of
trees surrounding the area – even after the forest fires that
devastated the area a couple summers ago. Even better, the oil and
NG drilling sites on the Prairies are so ecologically harmonious that
they leave almost no negative impact – except once in a while
when a train carrying crude oil to a refinery derails, because there
are not enough oleducts to transfer oil more economically and
ecologically, so the railroads are worn thin trying to carry this vital
resource.

Figures in media and politics who are subject to such a
chiaroscuro level of hypocrisy are the reason for the emergence and
growth in popularity of the Wexit movement. Whether it is malice
or plain stupidity, such figures will deserve to be known by
historians of posterity as nation-breakers.

Sound Philosophy, Not Partisan Hypocrisy, Must Be
Escorted to Victory 

I won’t get started on the hypocrisy between those calling for
the impeachment of Donald Trump while ignoring the Hunter
Biden affair; or those who call the Alberta oilsands an ecological
disaster while ignoring coal use in China; or the blindness of Jess
Allen to her own apparent hatred of white male hockey players
when discussing Don Cherry’s comments on who isn’t wearing
poppies for Remembrance Day; other writers have already well documented these hypocrisies. But hopefully now all of you having
read this article will now be better equipped to defend our views
when faced with people who are part of the problem in feeding
these hypocrisies.

Thank-you for reading. Ad virtù.

Please follow and like us: