Aussie’s Comment On Canada’s Multi-Culti

IF you doubt that the fine notion of a human right is degenerating into a greasy little phrase used to hold Western mores to ransom, it’s time to return to the birthplace of multiculturalism. Canada, the country that invented multiculturalism more than 30 years ago, has been consumed with another doctrine in recent weeks. Canadians call it “reasonable accommodation of minorities”. Translated into Australian, the question becomes: at what point should we tell minorities “You’ve had a fair go, pal, now stop asking for special favours”?

To understand this fertile debate, you need to dip into Canada’s multicultural chronicles. A Montreal YMCA agrees to frost the windows of a room used for exercise classes so that teenage boys at a neighbouring synagogue will be saved the indignity of glimpsing Lycra-clad women doing Pilates and aerobics classes. An Ontario judge orders the removal of a Christmas tree from the entrance to a Toronto court to avoid offending non-Christian sensibilities.

The Supreme Court overturns a Quebec school board’s ban on Sikh students wearing a kirpan – a ceremonial metal dagger – to school because it infringes a boy’s religious freedom. Female police officers in Montreal are requested to let their male counterparts deal with Orthodox Jews who find it offensive to be touched by a female. A Filipina mother complains to the Quebec Human Rights Commission about her son being chided at school for the way he eats. The school said they were targeting bad manners. The mother said it was the traditional Filipino way of eating. And……….. on and on it goes.

Against that background, a small town in Quebec caused quite a stir last month by issuing a set of standards so newcomers understand “the social life and habits and customs” of life in their new country.

The provocative statement issued by Herouxville says that a “woman can drive a car, vote, sign cheques, dance, decide for herself, speak her piece, dress as she sees fit … walk alone in public places, study, have a job … However, we consider that killing women in public beatings or burning them alive are not part of our standards of life.”

The statement explains that townsfolk listen to music, drink alcohol and decorate Christmas trees. Boys and girls play games together, men and women ski on the same hill, and “if you came to my place we would send the kids to swim together in the pool”.

“Don’t be surprised, this is normal for us,” the declaration says. It seems that Herouxville, a town with no migrants but in need of immigration, has been watching events unfold in Europe. Mayor Claude Dupont told one newspaper that the standards are “saying out loud what some people are thinking quietly but don’t have the balls to say”.

But when a small town in Quebec does the talking, it is depicted as insular, racist hicksville by Canada’s left-leaning media. When respected academics such as Francis Fukuyama say more or less the same thing, even keen multiculturalists will slowly nod their heads and concede there may be something to this argument about realigning the unruly rights debate. Writing in the Journal of Democracy last year, Fukuyama pointed out that “some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality” on which Western societies are built. The kinds of accommodation include demands for sharia law, or at least Islamic family law, the right to exclude non-Muslims from certain types of events or the right to challenge free speech in a pluralist society, he explained.

[…]

More Here: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au

Advertisements

‘Heretic’ Imprisonment

 

By Paul Fromm

Germany and much of Europe slides ever backwards into the era of religious fanaticism where the “wrong” religious beliefs could mean dungeon, fire and sword. Today, it’s not Catholic versus Protestant or mainline Protestants versus Dissenters. The new heretics are those who dare to question the new state religion of holocaust. A German court sentenced political prisoner Ernst Zundel to the maximum 5 years in prison for questioning the new religion of Holocaust. Germany is using its six-month presidency to try to export this religious fanaticism to all other European Union members, seeking to make questioning the new religion – the Hollywood version of Jewish suffering in World War II – a crime punishable by imprisonment.

In demanding the maximum sentence, the prosecutor Andreas Grossmann thundered: “We must save Germany from political rat catchers like you!” (Agence France Presse, February 2, 2007)

“That decision was welcomed by Jewish and anti-Nazi groups in Canada and elsewhere. Zundel has been standing trial in Germany since November of last year in what were, at times, raucous proceedings. The initial attempt to try him collapsed last March over a dispute with one of his attorneys, Sylvia Stolz.

[…]

Another of Zundel’s five attorneys, Herbert Schaller, told the court that all of its evidence that the Holocaust took place was based only on witness reports, instead of hard facts. (Canadian Press, February 15, 2007)

In letters from prison, Mr. Zundel had been preparing his wife Ingrid Rimland, who lives in Tennessee and runs the Zundelsite, and his supporters for a ruthless sentence as an increasingly frantic Germany State seeks to quell the swell of skepticism and heresy and or indifference about the new state religion. A few weeks ago, the German press was all agog that picnicers were using some of the grotesque impressionistic slabs in a huge Berlin holocaust memorial as an outdoor urinal.

[…]

Supporters are awaiting news as to what the sentence means. That may seem a silly question. However, in Canada, Mr. Zundel would almost certainly have been given double the “dead time” – two years less two weeks – that he’d already been in custody. He would be immediately eligible for parole as he’d served more than two thirds of his sentence.

[Despite Zundel’s views or opinions, he is entitled to freedom of speech and thought. Sending dissident people to jail was a common occurrence in Soviet Russia….a sinister practise that some Western Countries (including Canada) have now adopted themselves. A refresher reading course of George Orwell’s book ‘1984’ is paramount because it’s becomining closer to reality every day.]

Herouxville, PQ Enters Immigration Debate

The tumultuous entry (now broadcast around the world) of Herouxville, Quebec into Canada’s immigration debate demonstrates the great divide that exists in Canada on the immigration issue.

On one side are the majority of Canadians who instinctively feel something is wrong with Canada’s mass immigration policy (currently about 250,000 per year, the highest per capita in the world). On the other side are Canada’s mass immigration industry and its supporters (often described as a fifth column) who tell Canadians that mass immigration is wonderful.

[Hyphenated Canadian at Hogtown Front: Vdare calls the American immigration industry the treason lobby. That works for me. What else do you call politicians and special interests who insist on raising immigration levels when the government’s own research shows that new immigrants are falling further behind?]

The national and international uproar that Herouxville has caused is wildly out of proportion to its size. The town has a population of 1300 and is located in rural Quebec, about 150 km. northeast of Montreal. Most Canadian towns and cities of all sizes have passively accepted the historically high immigration levels that Canada’s federal government set for the country in 1990, but which it has never justified. In doing so, Herouxville is literally like David taking on Goliath.

[. . .]

Clearly, recent immigrants have felt empowered by their high numbers. And they have been encouraged by Canada’s immigration industry to assert their power.

And that is precisely what Herouxville is reacting to. In the opinion of many Canadians, the little town is saying now what the country’s federal government has been too timid to say, but should have said many years ago: that the interests of the country (in this case, Canada’s cultural practices) are paramount. Cultural practices that conflict with those in Canada have to be left behind in immigrants’ countries of origin.

The councillors clearly point out that, like most Canadians, they are willing to accept some immigrants, but that a long-established society exists in Quebec. This society has developed its own culture and it is tired of hearing recent multiple demands, (particularly in the Montreal area) that Canadians should adjust to the cultural wishes of new arrivals.

[. . .]

One thing that the declaration does not say directly is that the immigration industry and a significant number of recent arrivals seem to believe that this demographic change in Montreal and other parts of Canada should continue unabated. It would seem that Herouxville does not approve.

Obviously, this is because, like the rest of Canada, Herouxville was never asked if it wanted a mass immigration policy. Nor was it asked if it wanted the major demographic transformation which has occurred in the country since this policy was implemented in 1990.

It would seem that, by implication, Herouxville (as well as a number of other Quebec towns and some provincial politicians who have recently expressed solidarity with Herouxville), are bluntly saying to Canada’s official “accommodators“: “Why are we bringing in all of these people?” and “Enough is enough!

[Herouxville is not Elliot Lake…and it’s very unlikely that our ‘city’ council would dare broach a similar tactic to that of ‘Heroville’ ……in addressing the transformation of our country’s roots by importing 9 out of every 10 new immigrants (5,000 every week, year after year) from third-world countries.]

Full article: Immigration Watch Canada bulletin

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

By Jared Taylor

[In] November 2006 , Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor’s background, and was now unwilling to let him speak.

These are [some of] the remarks Mr. Taylor had planned to give.

[…]

And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that an assertion — a belief — is all it is. How, exactly, is racial diversity a strength for Canada or any other country? Does it raise per capita GNP? Does it improve crop yields? Does it lower crime rates? Does it reduce green house gases? Does it lower taxes?

No, it doesn’t do any of those things. I’m not sure I have ever heard its boosters say specifically what it does. I will tell you what racial diversity does: It results in conflict, tension, and hostility. At its worst, racial diversity can lead to race riots, racially-motivated murder and assault. At its best, when communities of different races try to live together they simply leave each other alone. The result is relatively peaceful voluntary segregation. Except for a few bohemians, people of different races do not often mingle naturally and happily.

[…]

Now, you probably think that every major Canadian institution from the federal government on down takes the view that racial diversity is a “great strength” for Canada. In fact, they all agree with me. They all assert most emphatically that racial diversity is not a source of strength, but a source of conflict. The only difference is that instead of the word “conflict,” they use the word “racism.” Whatever “racism” may be, they all agree that it is a very bad thing, and that Canadian society is riddled with it.

Now, if there were no racial diversity in Canada, there could be no racial discrimination, could there? So please remember this: Whenever people complain about racism, bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, discrimination, they are not talking about the joys and benefits of racial diversity. They are admitting that it is a source of tension and suffering.

[…]

How bad is the race problem? The Ontario Human Rights Commission says “Racial discrimination and racism” are “pervasive and continuing.” The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says “racism is serious and pervasive.” The Canadian Commission for UNESCO says racism “imperils democracy.” The federal Human Rights Commission says “hate and, in particular, its manifestation on the Internet pose a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society.”

How can racial diversity be a strength if it gives rise to something that “imperils democracy” that “poses a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society?”

This question deserves an answer, ladies and gentlemen, but because Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me, I’m afraid it will not get one. In fact, I suspect Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me because he knows this question has no answer.

[…]

Racism within the health care system; Racism in the criminal justice system; The racism inherent in white civilization; Racism in Shakespeare’s The Tempest; Everyday racism in medical school; The systemic racism that is prevalent in Nova Scotia; Contemporary Representations of Racism in Children’s Books; Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights; Racism and Science Fiction; Thinking More Creatively About Racism and How to Tackle It; Systemic racism affects every aspect of our daily lives; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. By golly, its everywhere!
And this is just a tiny sample of the stuff that’s on the Dalhousie site.

[…]

So it appears that racism is a very considerable scourge in Canada, but it is reassuring to know that commissions and tribunals and study groups and associations and foundations are beavering away night and day fighting it. They’ll soon have it under control, right? Well, maybe not. A recent survey by Statistics Canada found that, nearly 50 percent of blacks say they have suffered from discrimination or unfair treatment, as have 33 percent of South Asians and Chinese. (No report by StatCan on whether any Whites suffer from racism.) A 2003 report on immigrants living in West Central Toronto found that 68 percent had suffered just from housing discrimination, let alone any other kind of discrimination.

[…]

Let us accept, for a moment, the lefty view of all this, namely that racism — whatever that may be — is a moral failing that afflicts only Whites.

Non-whites — every man, woman and child — are noble, un-offending sufferers, whose sole aim is to be accepted as the loyal Canadians they are. Parenthetically, this seems to be the view of all your human rights commissions, too, but no matter. If this view is correct, it means Whites are a uniquely defective people who break out in helpless spasms of racism whenever they encounter NON-whites.

But if that is true, why must Whites — and their NON-white victims — be put through the ordeal of racial diversity? If, after decades of combating racism, Whites are still hopelessly “racist”, what is gained by an immigration policy that brings in yet more NON-whites only to make them suffer at the hands of Whites, and that degrades Whites by bringing out the worst in them?

TORONTO used to be virtually all-white. There couldn’t have been much racial discrimination. Now, all official sources agree that Toronto is a hive of racial discrimination. How has racial diversity therefore been a strength for Toronto or for Canada?


gooderham building in toronto

TORONTO – Canada’s largest city had a HOMOGENEOUS WHITE population of about 97% in the 1970s. [Today in 2017, the city of Toronto’s WHITE population has plummeted to just 48% while 3rd-world, NON-white immigrants continue to flood into this once “Canadian” city .]

[…]

Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. (see below) We know, for example, that blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in youth gangs, and blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn’t want to know.

Minorities, Crime and Punishment

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
http://www.nc-f.org/colorcrime1999.htm (PDF File)
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

[…]

Back to Toronto. In 2005 — a coalition of 22 black community groups — but let’s stop right there. A coalition of 22 black community groups? Twenty-two race based associations? What do they all do? Why are they needed? Why are they racially exclusive? How many more are there that are not part of this coalition? Are they all glorying in the strengths of racial diversity?

[Also read:

Is Burlington TOO White?

Canada’s BLACK Population

[…]

So what are we to conclude from all this? Ladies and gentlemen, let us face facts squarely. Racial diversity in Canada, just as it is in America, is an ordeal. Sometimes, a difficult, agonizing ordeal. It is a source of resentment, guilt-mongering, and endless charges of racism.

If it were a strength, non-white groups would not set up countless race-based organizations to protect and advance their interests. If it were a strength, no one would need diversity managers or sensitivity training. If it were a strength, Canadians would not naturally separate on racial lines.

[…]

Let’s return for a moment to the subject of speaking freely. Let’s talk abut white flight. There was a 2004 Toronto Star article about a new Statistics Canada report on the appearance of visible minority neighborhoods in Canada’s big cities. Whites used to live in these places but they have moved out. According to the Toronto Star, StatCan could not bring itself to use the term “white flight,” and (instead) wrote only about “rapid replacement.”

Well, someone apparently wasn’t told about how we are now supposed to talk. That same year, 2004, Toronto city councilman from Scarborough Mike Del Grande told his local paper that “a lot of white people are moving out” of his ward. Another councilman immediately jumped on Mr. Del Grande: “To hear someone say White people are leaving and Chinese are coming in can be nothing other than a racist comment,” said Joe Mihevc. Poor Mr. Del Grande had to apologize: “I should have said many older residents of the community (are moving out),” he said. “I didn’t say it in a politically-correct way.”

Now, what is going on when a city councilman says something that is obviously true, is accused of racism, and is forced to say he should have spoken in code rather than speak clearly? You can’t even describe what is going on before your very eyes, much less talk about why whites are leaving and whether they might even be justified in leaving. This doesn’t sound like a strength to me.

The vice principal of Queens University unbosomed what strikes me as a significant truth about Canada. Recently he was quoted as saying, “Our Canadian culture has been squeamish about gathering race-based statistics because no one wants to see ethnic makeup reduced to numbers on a page. But unless you get this kind of information, you don’t really know if you have a problem.”

Well, yes. How do you even begin to assess whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness unless you gather the information. Do different groups have different rates of illegitimacy? School failure? Poverty? If they do, does it make [any] sense to add to those groups through immigration? Take crime data. [Read: Importing Black Violence] I understand Canada does not keep records of racial differences in crime rates. Too squeamish, I suppose. And yet everyone knows some groups commit more crime than others. Your newspapers talk about it indirectly.    >MORE>>

[…]

Also:

Race Diversity – But WHY?

Frank Talk On Immigration

Immigration & Race

Non-Assimilating Immigrants

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

The RACISM Ploy

Racism – It’s Everywhere

Multi-Culti Not Working

 

By Marina Jimenez, Globe and Mail (Toronto)

It is here, on the border of Brampton and Mississauga, that it is most striking: Canada’s famed multicultural mosaic has morphed into a series of monocultural neighbourhoods.

If it weren’t for the snow and salt in the parking lot, Plaza McLaughlin Village outside Toronto could as easily be in New Delhi. There is goat and lamb for sale at the Doaba meat shop. The latest Bollywood hit, Guru, is at West End Video. You can do your taxes, go to the doctor and book a flight in Punjabi. And the clock in the photocopy shop shows the time in New Delhi. The only Caucasian faces are the officers at Brampton’s community policing station.

The number of ethnic enclaves like this one has exploded in Canada. In 1981, there were only six in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. By 2001, there were 254, according to a study by Statistics Canada, which defines ethnic enclaves as communities with 30 per cent of the population from one visible minority group.

[…]

“In Canada, we may live in a multicultural society, but the evidence suggests that fewer and fewer of us are living in multicultural neighbourhoods,” says Allan Gregg, who has written about geographic concentrations of immigrants and is chairman of the Strategic Counsel, a polling and market-research firm. “We spend so much time congratulating ourselves on tolerance and diversity that we have allowed it to slide into self-segregated communities, isolated along ethnic lines.”

The change over the past 15 years has been dramatic, with the three largest visible minority groups—Chinese, South Asians and blacks—experiencing a marked increase in their residential concentration, according to Statscan.

[…]

Mostly, it’s too early to tell. But one thing is already clear: Multiculturalism isn’t working that well for visible-minority newcomers.

[…]

Some researchers are beginning to question whether the nation’s famed multiculturalism policy—first articulated in 1971 by prime minister Pierre Trudeau and still considered a model in Europemay in fact be exacerbating differences.

Canada has the highest per capita immigration in the world—three times higher than the United States—and its geographic self-segregation of immigrants and their offspring could become an explosive issue. So far, the country has avoided the social upheaval under way in Europe, where riots struck the mainly Arab and African Paris suburbs two years ago.

[…]

By the 1990s, almost all of Canada’s immigrants came from Asia and China. In 2001, visible minorities made up 13.4 per cent of the population and nearly half of big cities such as Toronto.

[…]

Read full article here: Globe and Mail

‘Whiteness Studies’ Demands An Explanation

By Sam Francis – vdare.com

On the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court unbosomed its wisdom on why whites should allow special privileges to less qualified non-whites in admissions to elite law schools, the Washington Post published a huge front-page story on the merits of college courses designed to instigate racial guilt into whatever white students are still permitted to enroll.

If this little double whammy doesn’t tell whites that something important is going on that they might want to find out about, it’s not clear what will send that message. [“Hue and Cry on ‘Whiteness Studies’; An Academic Field’s Take on Race Stirs Interest and Anger,” By Darryl Fears, Washington Post, June 20, 2003]

The courses, which the Post says are now taught at “at least 30 institutions—from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles,” are known as “whiteness studies,” and there’s very little pretense as to their true purpose—“to change how white people think about race,” as the Post describes it.

The purpose, you understand, is not to instruct with knowledge about race, but to change what people think about race; not to change how whites and non-whites think about race but to change how white people think about race; and (most importantly) to make certain that the white people whose thoughts are laundered come out of the wash thinking what they were told to think about race.

The purported assumption is that whites in general harbor all sorts of stereotypes, prejudices, hatreds and other dark mental cargo about other races and that they fail sufficiently to think of themselves as the “privileged” oppressive oligarchy they really are.

One little classroom activity should suffice to show how the courses work.

The instructor lines up all the students and reads out a statement. If the statement applies to you, you step forward.

The only example the story offers is the statement that “you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted it.” As one pathetic young white girl remarked when she heard it, “Oh my God, here we go again.” Forward she stepped. [VDARE.COM note: A full list of “privileges” is here.]

The assumption of course is that only whites can get bank loans and non-whites can’t. As a white man who was once turned down for a bank loan, I know that’s untrue, but what’s interesting is that the young white woman, already brainwashed into accepting the assumption, immediately felt guilty about it.

Even if it were true, why should whites feel guilty? Why shouldn’t banks prefer to extend loans to people who statistically are more likely to repay them? What is wrong with being unequal at all?

My bet is the courses never explore such questions. More likely, they proceed with their brainwashing on the basis of the unquestioned assumptions of liberalism that have already been drilled into the white students’ minds in high school, at church, on television and in popular culture generally—the assumptions that inequality is evil and unnatural, that race doesn’t exist anyway, and that the history of whites is one long dark night of repression and terror against their non-white victims.

And if they don’t think that by the time the “whiteness studies” catch them, you can be sure they’re made to think so by the end of the course.

When one white student said she and a friend visited “a hall reserved for black student affairs” but “didn’t feel comfortable,” they got a little lecture from one of the black students in the course.

“‘So what?’ said the black student, who “rolled her eyes.” ‘I never feel comfortable here. I’m a student at a school where most people are white. The only time I feel comfortable is when I’m at home.’”

The difference of course is this: When the white student didn’t feel comfortable among blacks, she left. When the black student doesn’t feel comfortable among whites, whites have to change how they feel.

And that’s what “whiteness studies” are really about: Who is and who is not in charge, who adapts to whom.

The biggest error of the curricula is their assumption that whites themselves remain in charge—of the universities, the curricula, the legal system, the banks, the country. If they were, these courses wouldn’t even exist.

The people who peddle whiteness studies make no pretense about their real purpose: to change how whites think about race so as to make whites feel guilt about who they are and what they or their ancestors have achieved and thereby to destroy whites’ capacity to resist being shoved aside by non-whites.

Once that purpose is achieved, non-whites will find the actual seizure of social and political power much easier than simply trying to grab it at the point of a gun.

This used to be called “subversion.” Whatever you call it, it is still revolution.

As with any other revolution, however accomplished, it will eventually wind up with the losers facing the guns of the winners.

Skilled Immigrant Jobs Don’t Exist

By Martin Collacott, National Post

[…]

Why are today’s highly qualified immigrants doing so poorly? The answer is obvious: We simply don’t need the services of many of the skilled people coming to Canada. The jobs they hoped to find here do not exist.

According to the latest data presented by Statistics Canada, during their first year here, newcomers are, on average, 3.5 times more likely than native-born Canadians to fall into the low-income category. While their situation improves somewhat after the first year in Canada, a disproportionate share (2.5 times the share for those born in Canada) remain in a “chronic” state of low income.

Canadians may find this hard to understand given all we hear about the shortage of skilled labour in Canada. Yet immigration is an effective means of dealing with labour shortages only in rare cases.

Alan Green, emeritus professor of economics at Queen’s University and one of Canada’s most distinguished specialists on the economics of immigration, has pointed out that while Canada did not have the educational infrastructure in place to meet all of our skilled-labour needs back in the 1960s, when we launched programs to attract skilled immigrants to Canada, these educational facilities now exist. We should, therefore, be able to meet our skills needs from within Canada’s existing population.

[…]

What is unfortunate about the current situation is that tens of thousands of well-educated and experienced newcomers are being enticed to come to Canada in the expectation that they can improve their lot, when in fact many of them have little chance of finding employment in their fields of specialization.

Nor are [current] Canadians benefiting from this situation. Cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are being burdened with increasing levels of congestion and pressure on their health and educational infrastructure.

While governments and immigration advocates continue to tell us about the economic benefits we get from the high influx of newcomers, some recent analyses tell a different story. In a September, 2005 study, for example, former economics professor Herbert Grubel calculated that, given the poor economic performance of immigrants in recent decades, the cost to Canadian taxpayers amounted to TENS of billions of dollars per year. Our high immigration levels may have a negative economic impact in other ways as well.

[…]

Despite increasing evidence of just how badly current immigration policies are working, special interests that benefit from maintaining high intake attempt to justify such policies in one way or another. One tactic is to argue that without a continuously increasing population and growing workforce, Canada’s economic growth would be jeopardized. Such predictions are unjustified, however.

[…]

What we urgently require is a fundamental review of immigration policy in order to build a better picture of just how many newcomers Canada really needs and can absorb.

[…]

Martin Collacott is a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute in Vancouver.

For some immigrant stories, check out: www.notcanada.com

Multicultural Brainwashing

By LAURA CLARK – Daily Mail (U.K.)

[British school] children will be taught race relations and multiculturalism with every subject they study—from Spanish to science—under controversial changes to the school curriculum announced by the Government. In music and art, they could have to learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments, and West African drumming. In maths and science, key Muslim contributions such algebra and the number zero will be emphasized to counter Islamophobia.

And in English, pupils will study literature on the experiences of migration—such as Zadie Smith’s novel White Teeth, or Brick Lane, by Monica Ali. One critic accused Education Secretary Alan Johnson of ‘politicizing’ lessons with the new agenda. Tory MP Douglas Carswell, a member of the Commons education select committee, said “schools will be vehicles for multicultural propaganda and classrooms turned into ‘laboratories for politically-correct thought”.

Mr Johnson was also attacked over attempts to put Britishness on the curriculum as it emerged that suggested core values are so woolly they could apply to many countries. With concerns that standards in the three Rs are unacceptable, ministers will also face accusations that they are diverting attention away from vital subjects. Under the recommendations—put forward in a report by former headmaster Sir Keith Ajegbo—teachers will be expected to make ‘explicit references to cultural diversity’ in as many subjects as possible.

A new central theme covering ‘identity and diversity’ will be added to citizenship classes, which have been compulsory since 2002. Pupils should be encouraged to discuss topics such as immigration, the legacy of the British Empire, the Commonwealth and the EU. Teaching on immigration, including recent population movement from Eastern Europe, should touch on the benefits it brings to the economy and society, while also bringing ‘political discontent and criticism’. Pupils could even be tested on their attitudes to diversity in A-level and GCSEs, which will be redrafted to ensure they include ‘issues related to diversity’.

But Professor Alan Smithers, of the University of Buckingham, asked: ‘Do the Government have in mind a Britishness test for youngsters born in this country, as they do with people who arrive from other countries?’ Meanwhile, information technology lessons would involve joint Web projects or video-conferencing with youngsters around the world. Sir Keith [Ajegbo], whose report was commissioned following last July’s suicide bomb attacks in London, warned that pupils could become ‘disaffected’ and ‘alienated’ if they felt unable to discuss cultural issues in subject areas. ‘Education for diversity must be viewed as a whole-curriculum focus,’ he said.

However, Mr. Carswell said: ‘This report is prescribing precisely the wrong medicine to heal the wounds of a society that multiculturalism has divided. This is a stark example of the politically- correct lobby hijacking the citizenship agenda.

‘Recent arrivals to this country have all the more reason to be given a sense of what we are all about so they can become part of it and share it. But instead this will give the green light to every politically-correct Left-Wing educationist to further undermine our society.’ Teachers’ unions warned that the curriculum is too crowded already to cope with extra demands.

John Dunford, general secretary of the head teachers’ union ASCL, said: ‘Once again, the burden is falling on schools to fix a problem which has its roots in the wider society.’

Commentary:

“There is a serious misunderstanding here that bears clearing up: The purpose of public education has always been indoctrination.

‘Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. He must be taught to amass wealth, but it must be only to increase his power of contributing to the wants and demands of the state. Education can be done effectually only by the interference and aid of the Legislature.’

—Benjamin Rush (1786)

‘The role of the schoolmaster is to collect little plastic lumps of human dough from private households and shape them on the social kneading board.’

—Edward Ross (1900)

The falling educational standards and sheep-like obedience to the state are not symptoms of a system that has failed, but the result of a system that is doing exactly what it’s creators intended all along.”

“This is exactly what totalitarian regimes have always done: Immerse every subject taught school children with inescapable relentless propaganda. (Look at the curriculum of the old Soviet Union, Red China, or Nazi Germany.) Its called INDOCTRINATION, and BRAINWASHING, not education.
And if that were not enough, they teach flagrant LIES: Did you notice the quote “..key Muslim contributions such as algebra and the number zero will be emphasized to counter Islamophobia.” Problem is, algebra and the number zero, as well as our “Arabic” number system, were not originated by Arabs or Muslims: They originated with Hindu and Buddhist Asian Indians. And MOST of the advancements in algebra came about later in Europe.”

“In the current rubble of the Western World, any of us could simply make up the next headline regarding multicultural indoctrination and tyranny. Because there is no phantasm more insane or malicious than the policies and practices actually being introduced daily. Just try to come up with a policy more perverse, malign or downright stupid than the ones already coming down on our heads like a truncheon.”

ALSO READ:

Multi-Culti – A Dividing Force

“Whiteness Studies” Demands An Explanation

“Racism” – It’s Everywhere

White “Guilt” Tripping

Feminism Has Communist Roots

friedan.jpg Betty Friedan

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Betty Friedan, the “founder of modern feminism” pretended to be a typical 1950’s American mother who had a “revelation” that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.

What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See “The Communist Manifesto” (1848).

Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.

Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority “seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals.”

Betty Frieden doesn’t want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her “revelation.” She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of “Red-baiting.”

Why? Because her book “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge — pretending to be just like us. This is the “Popular Front” strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.

Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920’s and 1930’s and referred to them as “my innocents clubs”. He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities (”fellow travellers.”)

In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg “was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the ‘enlightened’ moral agenda of his era.” (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)

In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:

“You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don’t really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.” (Koch, p. 220)

Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic “Popular Front.” The very name, “the woman’s movement” and claim to be for “equality” are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family “a cornerstone of women’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” (”Feminist Politics and Human Nature,” 1988)

The “Congress of American Women,” a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a “foreign agent” by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the “CAW’s agenda prefigured much of the modern women’s movement that emerged in the sixties.” (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)

The FBI kept tabs on the “Women’s movement” but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.

“Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women’s movement but couldn’t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women’s movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive.” (260)

By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?

The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.

Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a “new world order” (a.k.a. “globalization”) in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.

Betty Friedan…. take a bow.

savethemales.ca

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: