Alliance Fanatic

Gugsy I never said that one race was the master race. However the fact of the matter is that you support Canada becoming a ghettoized nation. Some immigrants come to Canada and start up gangs, which only cause problems. You seem to believe that Canada is nothing, not worth fighting for, a land with no culture, heritage, or history. How would you feel if a person comes to your home that you invited, and then demands that you change everything in order to accomodate that person, and if you believed in Christmas, you must stop celebrating it ourelse you will get sued. Secondly ethnic groups always get a seat at the table, Sheila Copp's is demanding that we bring about more racial prefernce programs. Why do you believe that we should punish the grandchildren of those who fought in world wars 1 and 2. So that we can have racial equity. My family had to work hard to get into this country, and actually build a living. We adopted the country. You are obvioulsy not listening to me. Mass Immigration cause -Balkanization and Ghettoization. -People put their loyalties to their home country, not Canada. - In Vancouver the majority of people nolonger speak english, but mandarin. Canadian's who have lived for most of their lifetime feel like aliens in their own country. What wrong with 4th,5th,6th,and 7th generation Canadian's becoming a minority, well simple, most immigrants will vote in huge blocs. For Example 75%-Liberals 8%-Canadian Alliance 10% NDP Gugsy you are no better than the ranting leftists at Rabble, or the pinko commies at CBC. If you say something politically incorrect than you are a nazi, bigot, racist, hitler lover, homophobe, and a Klansmen. Over the past 30 years, however, a new type of immigrant emerged. He seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. In addition to immigrant societies like Canada or the United States, the new type affected homogenous countries such as Britain, France, or Holland as well. Sometimes the matter was minor. In 1985, for instance, a Sikh CNR railway worker named Bhinder refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. Sometimes it wasn't such a minor matter: In 1991, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction, Susan Eng, declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen. Minor or not, the host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain called al-Muhajroun (?migr?s), led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah. By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in our country -- or rather in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a tabula rasa, a clean slate, for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

Here are a few interesting articles. And may I ask people to tell me how multiculturalism helps a country And what is so evil about the countries culture and values also. [meaning Canada's] By the way Gugsy, dont take a guess that it is automatically racist, or else you make posts that sound like they come from the CBC. patriotism is not racism. "The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation Multiculturalism's volatile mix by George Jonas National Post June 25, 2002 The loyalty of immigrants has been remarkable in Western societies. Canada and the United States have both benefited from it. Lately, however, we've been witnessing a new phenomenon: The immigrant of dubious loyalty. We've also begun to see disloyal native-borns, whether of immigrant ancestry or Islamic conversion. It hasn't happened overnight. To see it in context, it's useful to look at the point of departure. During the First World War, with statistically insignificant exceptions, immigrants from enemy countries as well as their children remained loyal to Canada and the United States throughout the hostilities. During the Second World War, although we treated German, Italian, or Japanese immigrants and their descendants shabbily, as a rule they responded with unfailing patriotism. For every Tokyo Rose (the American GI's nickname for Ikuko Toguri, a Japanese-American woman, born in Los Angeles, who broadcast Japanese propaganda during the war) there were thousands of Japanese-American soldiers who gave their lives to fight Fascism. Some Jews and anti-Fascists who escaped Germany or occupied Europe ended up in Canada or America. Much as these refugees were on our side in the war against Hitler, technically they were enemy aliens. On arrival, they were often placed in internment camps. Many Canadians and Americans of Japanese, Italian, etc., extraction were interned as well, especially on the West Coast. Decades later Canada apologized, first to the Japanese and eventually to the Italian community. But -- and this is the point -- even our small-minded conduct failed to alter the fundamental loyalties of these immigrant groups. The pattern continued during the Cold War, when former nationals of hostile Communist countries often found refuge in North America. These newcomers of various ethnicity and religion, from Eastern Europe to Vietnam, were at least as supportive of the values and interests of their adopted countries as native-born citizens of western descent. Few Americans opposed the anti-American antics of Fidel Castro as resolutely, for instance, as Florida's ex-Cuban community. Over the past 30 years, however, a new type of immigrant emerged. He seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. In addition to immigrant societies like Canada or the United States, the new type affected homogenous countries such as Britain, France, or Holland as well. Most newcomers continued to be loyal, needless to say. Conflicting loyalties influenced only a fraction. Except this fraction was no longer statistically insignificant. Instead of making efforts to assimilate -- or accept the cultural consequences of not joining the mainstream, like such previous groups as the Mennonites -- the new type of immigrant demanded changes in the host country's culture. He called on society to accommodate his linguistic or religious requirements. Sometimes the matter was minor. In 1985, for instance, a Sikh CNR railway worker named Bhinder refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. Sometimes it wasn't such a minor matter: In 1991, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction, Susan Eng, declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen. Minor or not, the host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain called al-Muhajroun (?migr?s), led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah. Disturbing as such talk was, it wasn't unlawful. Dissent was within our democratic tradition, although the tradition presumed that the dissenters would be democrats themselves. Alas, the new dissenters were anything but. Some were terrorists, or their cheerleaders. Eventually their "dissent" culminated in the massacre of 9/11. Most of the Muslim militants who crashed airliners into Washington and New York were legal residents in America. How did this come about? Three reasons seem to stand out. The first two have to do with our culture, the third with the culture of militant Islam. When we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first, our misguided liberalism opened a Pandora's box. Embracing the idea of non-traditional immigration, we seemed to forget that when groups of distant cultural and political traditions arrive in significant numbers, they may establish their own communities not merely as colourful expressions of ethnic diversity -- festivals or restaurants -- but as separate cultural-political entities. Next, we tried to turn this liability into an asset by promoting multiculturalism. We stopped ascribing any value to integration, and began flirting with the notion that host countries aren't legitimate entities with their own cultures, only political frameworks for various co-existing cultures. To paraphrase William Blake, instead of trying to build Jerusalem in "England's green and pleasant land," we switched to building Beirut. Finally, in fundamentalist Islam, we've come up against a culture for which the very concept of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is alien. Puritanical Islam considers that everything belongs to God (or rather, some mullah's idea of God). This concept doesn't allow for a secular or territorial entity, such as a country, to command a higher loyalty than one's faith. If one's religious leader demands the suppression of what he regards as a blasphemous book, the fact that Western constitutions protect free expression is just so much piffle for a true believer. His ultimate goal is a faith-based state, an Islamic theocracy. Commenting on non-traditional immigration requires a footnote. The problem doesn't arise when people come to Canada from the Levant; the problem arises when people come to recreate the Levant in Canada. That's where non-traditional immigration and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is a vastly different proposition. As the late scholar Ernest van den Haag pointed out in 1965, patriotism is not racism. "The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation," he wrote in a prescient piece in The National Review, "requires no justification any more than the wish to have one's own children." By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in our country -- or rather in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a tabula rasa, a clean slate, for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

Gugsy said that I sounded like Hitler, well the truth is that Canadians who have been here before 1960, feel as though they are no longer welcome. The same thing is happening in California. This is what one mexican leader said to the newsmedia after Clinton gave her an award. - White protestants need to get used to the fact that mexicans are the new majority, they [Americans] no longer have the power, we do, if they dont like us using our own language, then they oughta move somewhere else, the fact is we mexicans living in California will never consider ourselves American and always be mexicans. Strangely enough American's have been moving to Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah, from California. As for Gugsy saying that I am saying their is a master race, I never said that at all, what I meant was that Canadian's of European descent are infact second class citizens. Look at politics, Liberals always do whatever the ethnocultural council wants. For example if immigrants want racial preferences, they get it, if immigrants want christmas to be banned, they get it. I think that if we are to de-christianize Canada, then everybody ought to be a part of the debate. Jean Chretien and Sheila Copps, both said that the constitution, and charter of rights was not made for Canadian's of European descent, and only minorities. Here is what I believe in - I think that if we are to make decisions they should be for the group as a whole, not only made to benefit a few ethnic groups. - Assimilation has been proven to work better than using a Mosaic, it worked in the early twentieth century, and it will work today. - Canada has a rich history, and has a distinct culture. - What does it mean to be a Canadian, if you are willing to die for a country then you are a Canadian. - Gugsy obviously supports the ghettoization of major Canadian cities, but I dont. - Lets look at what Canadian's accomplished before 1970's. - One of the best fighting militaries in the world, we gave 600,000 of our best men to fight in world war 1, and 100,000 Canadians died fighting the evils of facism, and communism. - Build a successful economy out of a harsh landscape, and become an independant country which was able to function on its own. - A proud military history with victories dating back to the 18th century. Now look at what's happened to Canada, -70% of Canadians feel that Pierre Trudeau, who said that Canada was just as bad as the "nazis", and sympathised with tyrants who killed millions of innocent lives, was the man who made us what we are today. A country of freeloaders of the US defense budget, so we can spend money on our welfare, and socialist programs. - Canadian's have been brainwashed, especially down in the east, they believe Canada began in 1970, when Trudeau got in, and destroyed countless numbers of lives west, because people never voted for him. -Canadian's seem very arrogant of their own history, many cannot name a single PM before Trudeau. - I think that Canada will one day become just one large nation, with no soul, no history. Its people have nothing in common, language, history, customs, traditions, values. What will happen to Canada. And I never said that we should ban people from third world countries from coming here. However we should lower immigration to 100,000 a year. Or else their will be an even larger influx in crime, and poverty. -I also believe that immigrants should be sent back if they commit crime, it does not make any sense to keep people here who come here to exploit it rather than embrace. [sorry gugsy, i know that you might find this nazi like, but its the truth]

Immigration is causing problems in the city of Edmonton, multiculturalism is beckoning balkanization. We are taught that race makes us different from each other. Secondly Gugsy said that I was borderline Hitler, how is that, because I believe that the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for is now being turned upside down. Look at the Canada that my family built, we valued the family, we valued life, and we embraced Canada as our own country. Now look at what happened to it, our military has been made into a laughing stock by 30 years of liberalism, and multiculturalism. Today immigrants rarely have to work for anything, in the RCMP, if an immigrant applies and gets 63% of his test, and a white male applies and gets 85%, the immigrant is chosen over the white person, I think that that is racism. In some places where Canadian's sing christmas carrols, they'll be threatened by people to stop, or else they will be sued by a human rights commission. One immigrant that I talked to from India, said that it is complete BS, so did Jay Grewal, a Sihk MP. Look I have nothing against people coming to this country and living here. But when they come and go to only three major centers in the country, and start ghetto's then I have a problem. I also have a problem when people like Sunera Thobani, call all 4th and 5th generation Canadian's intollerant bigots. Lets look at what happened to Canada over the past 30 years, what has occured is the world turned upside down. Once we valued the traditional family, now we values homosexuality, and in schools their are posters of men having anal sex, trying to get more gays to use safe sex. Christianity, is hated in Canada, a christian teacher was fired in BC for standing up agianst some of those pay positive programs, which make homosexuality look like its just a great lifestyle. Homosexuality is'nt a lifestyle, its a deathstyle, the bible, koran, torah, and the Atlanta Center for Disease Control, will tell you this. Canada is dead, a civilization, society, and country, based on the tradition family, traditional values, and christian love, has been replaced by a Canada based on welfare, abortion, homosexuality, and a country which no longer values anything other than the quality of life.

Lost in Manitoba, I never said that people can't bring their food over here. I believe that they should adopt Canada as their own, and sever ties to their home country. If I were to move to Japan, I would sever ties with Canada and become part of the Japanese nation. However it is a different case in Canada because when you have over 250,000 immigrants a year going to only three major cities, than immigrants can easily start ghetto's. It's happening in Edmonton right now, most Asian's are only living around Chinatown, and Asians in Vancouver have started their own small city apart from the rest of Canada. As for Siriff's position that Canada took this land from the natives' the fact is that many native tribes took part in torture, and the west civilized natives. -I'm not saying that wrongs were done, but it seems that the whole country is being torn down in favor of a mosaic, but look at what happened in Great Britain, large scale immigration, with multicultularism, beckoned balkanization and race riots. Canada is not far off, if Canadian's of European descent feel that they have nothing in common with immigrants, then race riots, and racism will prevail.

Black Dog, to be honest you hate Canadian culture. You say that western civilization, the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for in two world wars was evil and wicked. You view our history and heritage as evil and despicable you want it to be destroyed. Secondly nobody in my town remembers their former root, such as which country they came from before they came to Canada. We let go of our mother country to embrace the country of Canada, which was one of the best in the world. If Canada was just a country with no common values, common people, or common history, why would Canadian's die for it.

Today Sheilla Copp's bragged about Canada's rich "multicultural" heritage. And about how great it was that 3rd, 4th, 5th, generation Canadian's are now being turned into a minority group by first generation Canadian's. She bragged about how Canadian's of European descent were now the minority in cities such as montreal, toronto, vancouver, and fairly soon Edmonton. But is this uncontrolled flow of immigrants good for the country. In my own opinion no it is'nt. For example in Alberta, most people in Edmonton who have lived in that city for more than 30 years, are now starting to feel like aliens in their own land. Many students who I have talked to, have said that immigrants stay within their own race, and whites stay in one group. There has been a school created in Edmonton only for Students that are pakistani, which teach about the joys of multiculturalism, and Islamic history, but nothing on Canadian history. I believe in assimilation, in the early 20th century, every single immigrant assimilated into the Canadian landscape, they left their mother country, and adopted a new country. I dont know a single thing about my former country of Denmark, Germany, or Russia, after all, why would I, Canada has a rich history, Canada was a country to be proud of, it was built on hard work, the family, and traditional values. However the country changed when Pierre Trudeau took over, multiculturalism toke affect, immigrants started to segregate themselves in the larger cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Immigration has token its toll, in Toronto, most Canadians of European descent now feel like they are no longer in Canada, but in the far east, same goes in Vancouver, where the majority of inhabitants no longer speak english. This countries history has also been destroyed for the good of multiculturalism. Many of my social classes in elementary were made up of the joys of multiculturalism, instead of Canada's heroic soldiers fighting at vimy, dieppe, or normandy. Most canadians of european descent are in fact in favor of limiting immigration, and the vast majority do not want a change in the racial make up of this country. However the media quickly smears the poll as a sign that "intolerance" is going up in this country. In some cities immigrants now seem to be first class citizens, if an immigrant has a problem with the use of christmas tree in a school, it will be renamed a multicultural tree. If any person dare oppose ethnic groups who want to turn Canada into a multicultural heaven, a human rights court punish them. I believe that diversity is in fact destroying this country peice by peice, I propose the following immigration policies. -immigration be reduced to 100,000 a year -scrap diversity, and multiculturalism being taught in social classes, and replace it with Canadian heritage. -Immigrant must learn english, or french. -scrap racial preference programs -scrap programs which offer benefits only to immigrants, and not to Canadian's -Do away with human rights boards Immigration and multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent? Earlier this year, I was invited to address an influential conservative organization on the subject of immigration and its effects on our culture. In the 12 years I have been writing and speaking about these issues, it was the first time I had ever had the chance to speak to a mainstream (i.e., grassroots, Protestant) conservative group; indeed, as I found out after my talk, it was the first time in the twenty-year history of this organization (which holds major conferences covering all kind of subjects thrice yearly) that they had had any speaker on immigration. Phyllis Schlafly, one of the few mainstream conservatives who criticizes current immigration policies, and who chaired the panel I appeared on, said to me: “Immigration is not on the radar screen of the conservative movement.” Since I have obsessed for years about conservatives’ mysterious failure to grapple with this vital national issue, I decided to make that failure the topic of my talk, which follows: Mass Immigration And Its Effects on Our Culture: Why Are the Mainstream Conservatives Silent? Lawrence Auster Council for National Policy Ritz-Carlton Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, California February 9, 2002 The problem of immigration and the changes it is causing in our culture can be approached from many different angles. I could speak about the redefinition of America as a multicultural society instead of as a nation; or the permanent establishment of affirmative action programs for immigrants based on their race; or the town in Texas that declared Spanish its official language; or the thousands of Hispanics at an international soccer match in Los Angeles who booed and threw garbage at the American team; or the decline in educational and environmental standards in areas dominated by Hispanics; or the Hmong people from Laos who bring shamans and witch doctors into hospital rooms; or the customs of voodoo and animal sacrifice and forced marriage and female genital mutilation that have been imported into this country by recent immigrants; or the pushing aside of Christianity in our public life to give equal respect to non-Western religions; or the evisceration of American history in our schools because our white-majority American past is no longer seen as representative of our newly diverse population; or the vast numbers of Muslims established in cities throughout this country who sympathize with the Muslim terrorists and dream of turning America into an Islamic state; or our own leaders who, even after September 11th, keep telling us that the Muslims are all patriotic and tolerant, keep warning us against our supposed anti-Muslim bigotry, and continue letting thousands of people from terror supporting countries to immigrate into America. At bottom, each of these phenomena and many more like them is happening for one reason and one reason only—the 1965 Immigration Act which opened U.S. immigration on an equal basis to every country in the world, rather than, as in the past, favoring our historic source nations of Europe. Without the 1965 Immigration Act, for example, the two or three million Middle Eastern Muslims who now reside in the United States wouldn’t be here, so there would have been no need for politicians to accommodate them by intoning that “Islam is a religion of peace” and by subjecting the whole American populace to random security checks in airports in order to avoid the “racial profiling” of Muslims. Of course many of the recent immigrants from non-European countries, including Muslims, have fitted into America and made good contributions here. It is the unprecedented scale of this diverse, non-Western immigration that is the problem. Now I could easily devote this talk to piling up one example after another showing how the post-1965 immigration is indeed changing our culture in a host of negative ways, including, most importantly, the destruction of the very idea that there is a distinctive American culture. But today I want to ask a different and more difficult question that goes to the very heart of the immigration issue: Why have we Americans allowed this to occur? Why are we continuing to let it happen? And why, even when we gripe and complain about some aspects of it, do we feel helpless to do anything to stop it? Not the cultural left but the mainstream Many on the right have argued, most recently Patrick Buchanan in The Death of the West, that these things are happening because of the cultural left that hates America and wants to destroy it. There is no doubt that the cultural left hates America and wants to destroy it; and there is also no doubt that the left see mass immigration from Third-World countries as a handy way of achieving that. But that argument leaves unanswered a more disturbing question—why has there been no significant opposition to this leftist agenda? Presumably, the Republican party does not hate America and want to destroy it. Presumably, the conservative movement does not hate America and want to destroy it. Presumably conservative Protestants and parents groups that have fought against Whole Language teaching and homosexual indoctrination in the schools do not hate America and want to destroy it. Yet nowhere among these legions of mainstream conservatives and the organizations that represent them have there been any serious calls to reduce this immigration from the non-Western world and the inevitable cultural transformations it is bringing. Nor is the fear of political correctness an adequate explanation for this conservative surrender. Whatever the power of PC in our society, it cannot account for the fact that tens of millions of mainstream conservatives ranging from Rush Limbaugh fans to conservative evangelicals either support the current immigration policy or fail to speak up against it—even in the relative privacy and safety of their own organizations. We are thus left with a remarkable paradox: that the patriotic and Christian Right supports exactly the same immigration policy that is supported by the anti-American, atheistic left—an immigration policy, moreover, that spells the permanent eclipse of the Republican party and the victory of big government, since most of the recent immigrants vote Democratic. Indeed, our conservative Christian President, when he’s not busy embracing so-called “moderate” Muslim leaders who are allies of terrorists, wants to expand Third-World immigration even further. But that’s not all. Unlike Republicans in the past such as Ronald Reagan, who supported Third-World immigration on the hopeful if mistaken assumption that the immigrants were all assimilating, President Bush actively promotes the growth and development of foreign languages and unassimilated foreign cultures in this country. In a speech in Miami during the 2000 campaign, he celebrated the fact that American cities are becoming culturally and linguistically like Latin American cities: We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. As president, Mr. Bush has not only left in place Clinton’s executive order requiring government services to be provided in foreign languages, he has started his own presidential bilingual tradition, delivering a Spanish version of his weekly national radio address. Even the White House web site is now bilingual, with a link accompanying each of the president’s speeches that says “En Español” and points to a Spanish translation of the speech. Yet, with the exception of Mrs. Schlafly and one or two other conservative columnists, these steps toward the establishment of Spanish as a quasi-official public language in this country have been met with complete silence on the right, even though opposition to bilingualism used to command automatic agreement among conservatives. My own efforts to publish an article about the president’s Spanish language radio addresses were refused at the most prominent conservative web sites. Now if conservatives are no longer willing to utter a peep of protest in defense of something so fundamental to America as our national language, is there anything else about our historic culture that they will continue to defend, once it is has been abandoned by a Republican president? What all of this suggests is that mass immigration and the resulting multiculturalism are not—as many immigration restrictionists tend to believe—simply being imposed on us by the anti-American left. Rather, these destructive phenomena stem from mainstream beliefs that are shared by most Americans, particularly by conservatives. Of course economic and political forces, and the birthrate factor, are pushing this process in a variety of ways, but on the deepest level the cause is not material, it is philosophical and spiritual. The reason Americans cannot effectively oppose the transformation of our culture is that they subscribe to the belief system that has led to it. The credo that has left us defenseless What is that belief system? At its core, it is the quintessentially American notion that everyone is the same under the skin—that people should only be seen as individuals, with no reference to their historic culture, their ethnicity, their religion, their race. Now there is a great truth in the idea of a common human essence transcending our material differences. But if it is taken to be literally true in all circumstances and turned into an ideological dogma, it leads to the expectation that all people from every background and in whatever numbers can assimilate equally well into America. This explains why patriotic conservatives acquiesce in a policy that is so obviously dividing and weakening our nation. Since the end of World War II, and especially since the 1960s, conservatives have tended to define America not in terms of its historic civilization and peoplehood, but almost exclusively in terms of the individual—the individual under God and the individual as an economic actor. For modern conservatives, what makes America is not any inherited cultural tradition from our past, but our belief in the timeless, universal, God-granted right of all persons in the world to be free and to improve their own lives. Therefore conservatives don’t believe there can be any moral basis to make distinctions among prospective immigrants based on their culture. We cannot say, for example, that a shaman-following Laotian tribesman or a Pakistani who believes in forced marriage is less suited for membership in our society than an Italian Catholic or a Scots-Irish Presbyterian. And we can’t make such distinctions because, from the point of view of pure individualism, our inherited culture does not reflect any inherent or higher truth, and therefore cannot be the object of our love and protection. The only value that reflects higher truth and is deserving of our energetic defense is the freedom and sacredness of each individual. In practical terms this translates into the equal right of all individuals to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams, even if we are speaking of tens of millions of people from alien cultures whose exercise of their individual right to come to America will mean the destruction of our cultural goods. In theory, multiculturalism is the opposite of liberal individualism. In practice it is the direct result of pursuing liberal individualism to its logical extreme. The 1965 Immigration Act was not about multiculturalism. No lawmaker said in 1965: Hey, we need Third-World cultures, we need female genital mutilation in our country, we need Shi’ite Islam and Wahhabi Islam to fulfil the meaning of America. The 1965 legislators voted to open our borders to the world, not because of a belief in the equal value of all cultures, but because of a belief in the equal rights of all individuals. The single comment most frequently heard in the Congressional debate was that prospective immigrants should be chosen solely on the basis of their “individual worth.” But this noble-sounding sentiment was largely an illusion, because, in the real world, most of the people admitted into America under the new law did not come just as individuals. They came as part of the largest mass migration in history, consisting largely of family chain migration, and inevitably brought their cultures with them. Thus, in passing the 1965 Immigration Act, we did two fateful things. We announced that we had no culture of our own except for the principle of non-discrimination toward people of other cultures—and we began admitting millions of people from those other cultures. We started letting in all these other cultures at the very moment that we had defined our own culture out of existence. This delusional act led to the next stage of our self-undoing. In the late 1970s and 1980s, we began waking up to the fact that those other cultures were here, that they were very different from our own, and that they were demanding to be recognized and given rights as cultures. But by that point, what basis did we have to resist those demands? We had already said that the only thing that defines us as a people is non-discrimination toward other peoples; we thus had no justification for saying that maybe it’s not such a great idea to import people adhering to radical Islam or Mexican nationalism into the United States. Having cast aside our own culture, we had no choice but to yield, step by step, to the elevation of other cultures. This is how America, through an indiscriminate and unqualified belief in individualism, ended up surrendering to its opposite—to multiculturalism. Is immigration restriction immoral or un-Christian? I know that what I’ve said up to this point will offend many conservatives, particularly Christians. For one thing, the Christian church consists of people of every culture and race, so why can’t a nation? The answer is that the church is a heavenly organization, it is not responsible, as a nation is, for the defense and preservation of a particular earthly society. Mexico and Nigeria, for example, are largely Christian, but in cultural terms are radically different from the United States. To believe that all peoples on earth should join our country is the very idea that God rejected at the tower of Babel. God said he did not want all men to be united in one society, because that would glorify human power. If I may presume to say so, God had a more modest idea of human life on earth. He wanted men to live in distinct societies, each speaking its own tongue, developing its own culture, and expressing God in its own way. This is the true diversity of cultures that constitutes mankind, not the false diversity that results from eliminating borders and coercively mixing everyone together, which destroys each country’s distinctive character. Consider how today’s multicultural London has lost much of its Englishness, and increasingly resembles multicultural New York. So I would respectfully suggest that when Christians translate the spiritual idea of the unity of people under God into the political ideology that people from all cultures should be allowed to come en masse to America and other Western countries, that is not the traditional teaching of the Christian church, that is a modern liberal idea, that is the Religion of Man, which has been infused into the Christian church over the past 50 years. But if this is the case, how can we reconcile our potential spiritual unity as human beings under God with our actual cultural differences? The answer is that in individual and private relationships, people of different backgrounds can relate to each other as individuals, without discrimination of culture and ethnicity. But on the group level, on the level of entire peoples and nations and mass migrations, cultural differences do matter very much and cannot be safely ignored. Thinking and Acting Anew It would therefore be a tragic error to limit our thinking about immigration to technical matters such as law enforcement against illegal aliens and security measures against terrorists, as vitally important as those things are. Beyond the immediate threat of mass physical destruction, we face a more subtle but no less serious threat to the very survival of our civilization. As Daniel Pipes writes in a recent issue of Commentary: “To me, the current wave of militant Islamic violence against the United States, however dangerous, is ultimately less consequential than the non-violent effort to transform it through immigration, natural reproduction, and conversion.” Of course I agree with Mr. Pipes. But, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, we cannot hope to stop or significantly slow that immigration unless we abandon this contemporary idea that America is defined by nothing except individual freedom and opportunity—the idea that America has no particular culture of its own that is worth preserving. Rethinking these beliefs and rewriting our immigration laws accordingly will not be easy, but if we fail to make the attempt, we will simply continue sliding, slowly but surely, toward the dissolution of our culture and our country

Who else voted for Pat Buchanan. I would have put Ron Paul second, and Alan Keyes third. Pat Buchanan's views are probably shared by a large portion of Americans, if they are explained. I think Pat Buchanan believes that America is going down the wrong path on social issues with regards to American culture.

Pellaken I thought you turned right. And did'nt you say that racial qouta's were unfair, because a friend of yours tried to get into the RCMP, and was dumped just because he was a white male. So now you support politically correct racism.

I voted for Pat Buchanan [www.amconmag.com] [www.theamericancause.org]

I voted for Stephen Harper, speaks fench, extremely intelligent, and I believe that he will run an impressive election campeign, after all he saved the Alliance from total destruction.

**post deleted by Admin** See below

I'm not surprised by Aidan Prydes views, he probably believes sept 11 was a right wing conspiracy, many Aidans beliefs are -Christians are evil people, thus Martin Luter King jr was evil -100,000 Canadian soldiers who died were all atheists, none were christian. - Aidan I'd like to see you be a police officer for a day, people always piss on you when your a police officer, and if their were no police officers then what would happen, somebody could murder you, rape your family, etc. So Aidan next time a person in your family gets raped dont call the police since you hate them so much you commie.

Moderate, you obviously dont listen, or read into the news. In Edmonton a police officer was nearly run down, then they guy that did it got off on a 1000$ bail, then tried running down another police officer. In the city of Edmonton the murder rate is up. An RCMP car was hijacked by a criminal who then ran over two RCMP officers, who luckily only recieved minor injuries. A police officer was nearly killed in Calgary, how could you not hear about that. When a police officer is attacked, people constantly blame the officer for protecting himself, people in Calgary are complaining about that police officer who had to shoot the guy who tried to kill him. Mod, you obviously dont seem to have any grasp of what police officer's do, try being a police officer for a day, the media will jump on any story in order to demonize a police officer. Police officer's dont get any respect from the youth of this country, most kids seem to think that police officers are pigs, who are just trying to cause trouble. Most of the youth also seem to buy into what some of their role models say about police officers, Tupac Shakur depicted police officers as "EVIL PIGS WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP BLACK KIDS IN THE GUTTER", 50 cent in his DVD mocks police officers in the LAPD, and NYPD also, he also grabs for a police officers pistol, and then blatantly calls the police officer a pig. Boy kids have great role models these days. You are probably asking why police officers deserve respect, their putting their lives on the line, every day making sure this society as safe, and that your children are protected from predators so show some respect.

Canadian's need to wake up to the fact that this is'nt the same country it used to be. The reason why Canada has made such a huge turn left is because the past generation, and this generation will never have to sacrifice anything. In world war 1, world war 2, and the Korean war, Canadians had to sacrifice their lives, and work hard to build, and protect this country from totalitarian threats whether communist, or facist. Then Trudeau who was a communist/nazi, sympathizer got in, and brought in soviet style government policies, funny, the same policies Canadians fought against in the Korean war.

Actually Moderate ask any police officer and they'll say violence has gone up. In the city of Edmonton, a police officer gets attacked once a week. Violence against police is tolerated now, one person who tried killing a police officer got 1000$ bail, and then attacked another police officer. In Calgary the media is making a big story about the police officer who killed a man who tried killing him. The media has already started to grow sympathy for the man who tried killing a police officer. It's quite unbelievable actaully, my brother whom is a firefighter, [i want to become an RCMP officer] said that police officers deserve five times more respect than they actually get. But the media, will do anything it can to demonize police officers.

I have a question is Canada to socially liberal. I mean really. Lets look at the trend. Canada was once one of the most right wing countries in the world before Trudeau, Pearson, and Chretien, got a hold of it. Canada used to be built on the values of family, free markets, strong military, and strong communities, [wow the politically correct Canadians must think that Canada was once facist] So what happened to Canada, well I would say Canada is basically dead, atleast the Canada which 100,000 Canadians died for is dead. It has been replaced by a society which does not value human life, democracy, or the family. If you ever looked at a newspaper during world war 2, they would continuosly ask for Canadian's to prayer for our brave soldiers in Europe, now if a newspaper did that they would probably get a human rights complaint. Canada could possibly make a turn around, however I believe it would be extremely hard to do so. Lets look at what a socially liberal country has cost us, - Massive increase in date rapes, and sexual abuse - More Violence in our country today - Gay pride, has now turned into HIV pride, and children as young as 7, are now learning about the joys of homosexuality. - One counsellor was fired, for questioning some reading material in a school which talked about anal sex, and had perverted pictures in it. - 100,000 abortions per year - a limit of freedom of speech, and expression - a deteriotation in our military - child pornography being considered art - 65% of Canadian's said this country is not worth fighting for - Canada's greatest hero, is Pierre Trudeau, who mocked Canadian's who volunteered to fight the nazi's in World War 2, Trudeau also supported brutal communist regimes. I doubt that was the type of country that 100,000 Canadian's died for. Sure we have become a socially liberal paradise, but at what cost? Most social liberal's point out that seniors are the only ones against gay marriage, and many of these socially liberal initiatives, and social liberals even gloat about how they will die off soon. Strange social liberals want war veterans, and those who worked extremely hard to build this country to die off as soon as possible, after all WAR VETERANS WERE THE ONES WHO FOUGHT FOR THAT BRUTAL NAZI REGIME CALLED CANADA.

By the way after you vote put who you would support most, to who you would support least. 1. Mike Harris- A proven leader, was able to unite all of the conservative factions in Ontario under the PC banner. Swept to power. Even after being told to soften his stances he stayed firm, and was elected to a second mandate. Proven leadership. 2. Jim Flahrety- Proven cabinet minister, took strong principled stances in Ontario, and has appeal to social, and fiscal conservatives. However he has not been a leader. 3. Stephen Harper- He has impressed me as leader of the CA, and takes principled stances on issues. However many would consider his leadership as simply another CA party. 4. Preston Manning- most people would write off his leadership as another offspring of the reform movement 5. Tom Long- Pretty impressive during the CA leadership campeign, was successful as Harris strategist 6. Stockwell Day- I kind of liked him, but I think that most Canadians would write him off. 7. Jim Prentice- Dont mind him, not proven, not even an MP, or in any elected office 8. Tony Clement- not an impressing leadership campeign 9. Peter Mackay- not impressed with leadership thus far 10. Scott Brison- to left wing on social issues

Pornography should be allowed. To tell you the truth pornography has been around forever. The only difference was that nobody openly talked about looking at playboy, or a soft-core porn. Now it is being introduced as mainstream. As for sodomy, adultery, and the rest of it. It should be allowed, for it should be a little bit harder to get a divorce, or else marriage will turn into a joke. As for homosexuality, do whatever you want in your bedroom, but dont have a parade in my town.

I am against banning pornography, sodomy, or anything to that nature. I feel what you do in your own home is your own business. However I draw the line when people try to force their lifestyles on other people. I am against gay rights, gay marriage, and a pride TV. I am also dead set against sex ed programs, due to the fact that its the parents business to talk to thier kids about sex. One more point to make is that most teens have viewed pornography, online, or have bought a magazine like Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, etc.

Say, the people at Babble, probably believe that Sept. 11, was a right wing conspiracy. Those people should be sent off to Cuba, and live in their socialist paradise.

Here's the link to the website http://www.enterstageright.com/

Uniting the Right…? While Almost Half (46%) of Canadians say it’s Likely they’d Vote for a Merged Progressive Conservative/Canadian Alliance Party in the Next Federal Election… In a Head to Head Vote, Federal Liberals Led by Paul Martin (51%) would Trump a New United Conservative Party (32%)… As Federal Liberals Continue to Lead Today with 47% of the National Decided Vote Category: Federal Politics Location: Canada © Ipsos-Reid Public Release Date: October 5, 2003 Printer Friendly Version PDF Document : Release PDF Document : Detailed Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toronto, ON – According to a new Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV survey, nearly half (46%) of Canadians say it is likely (20% “very likely,” 27% “somewhat likely”) that they would vote for a merged Progressive Conservative/Canadian Alliance party in the next Federal election. A similar proportion (49%) say it is unlikely (32% “not likely at all”, 17% “not very likely”) that they would vote for the merged party, and 5% say they “don’t know.” But, in a head to head vote, half (51%) of Canadians say they would vote for “the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin” and one-third (32%) say they would vote for “a united conservative type party.” The remaining 17% say they “don’t know.” And, if a federal election were to be held tomorrow, the Liberals would win with 47% of the vote (45% in June). Fourteen percent (14%) say they would vote Progressive Conservative (15% in June), 13% say they would vote Canadian Alliance (14% in June), 12% say they would vote for the New Democratic Party (11% in June), 9% say they would vote Bloc Quebecois (unchanged), and 4% say they would vote for the Green Party (5% in June). These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail/CTV poll conducted between September 30th and October 2nd. The poll is based on a randomly selected sample of 1057 adult Canadians. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled. The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to the 2001 Census data. Asked “if the federal Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance Party merged and became a single party, how likely would you be vote for them in the next federal election?” nearly half (46%) of Canadians say it is likely (20% “very likely,” 27% “somewhat likely”) that they would vote for a merged Progressive Conservative/Canadian Alliance party in the next Federal election. A similar proportion (49%) say it is unlikely (32% “not likely at all”, 17% “not very likely”) that they would vote for the merged party, and 5% say they “don’t know.” Those Canadians most likely to vote for a united conservative-type party are decided Alliance voters (91%) followed by PC voters (80%). Decided Bloc Quebecois voters (29%), Green Party voters (30%), NDP voters (33%), and Liberal voters (36%) are less likely to do so. Residents of Alberta (70%) are most likely to vote for a united conservative-type party, followed by residents of British Columbia (55%), and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (54%). Residents of Quebec (29%), Atlantic Canada (44%), and Ontario (48%) are less likely to do so. Men (50%) are more likely than women (43%) to vote for a united conservative-type party. Canadians without a university degree (50%) are more likely than those with (37%) to vote for a united conservative-type party. Canadians with an annual household income of $30,000-$60,000 (51%) are more likely than those with less (41%) or more (46%) to vote for a united conservative-type party. Asked if they had “a choice of voting for [a united conservative type party] and for [the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin] which would they choose to vote for,” half (51%) say they would vote for “the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin” and one-third (32%) say they would vote for “a united conservative type party.” The remaining 17% say they “don’t know.” Those Canadians most likely to vote for a united conservative-type party are decided Alliance voters (79%) followed by PC voters (68%). Decided Liberal voters (11%), NDP voters (29%), Green Party voters (32%), and Bloc Quebecois voters (37%) are less likely to do so. Residents of Alberta (51%) and British Columbia (45%) are most likely to vote for ”a united conservative-type party.” Residents of Quebec (62%), Ontario (55%), Atlantic Canada (45%), and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (42%) are most likely to vote for “the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin.” Canadians age 18-34 (59%) are more likely than their elders (48%) to vote for “the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin,” while Canadians 35 or older (36%) are more likely than younger Canadians (24%) to vote for ”a united conservative-type party.” Men (38%) are more likely than women (27%) to vote for ”a united conservative-type party.” Canadians with a university degree (60%) are more likely than those without (48%) to vote for the federal Liberal party lead by Paul Martin.” If a federal election were to be held tomorrow, the Liberals would win with 47% of the vote (45% in June). Fourteen percent (14%) say they would vote Progressive Conservative (15% in June), 13% say they would vote Canadian Alliance (14% in June), 12% say they would vote for the New Democratic Party (11% in June), 9% say they would vote Bloc Quebecois (unchanged), and 4% say they would vote for the Green Party (5% in June). Residents of Ontario (57%), Quebec (51%), and Atlantic Canada (48%) are most likely to vote Liberal; residents of Atlantic Canada (26%), Alberta (25%), Ontario (17%), and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (17%) are most likely to vote PC; residents of Alberta (40%), British Columbia (26%), and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (19%) are most likely to vote Alliance; residents of Atlantic Canada (21%), Saskatchewan/Manitoba (19%), British Columbia (18%), Alberta (12%), and Ontario (12%) are most likely to vote NDP; 38% of Quebecers say they would vote Bloc Quebecois; and residents of British Columbia (9%) are most likely to vote for the Green Party in the next federal election. Canadians 35 and older (16%) are more likely than younger adults (9%) to vote PC in the next federal election; Canadians 55 and older (17%) are more likely than those 18-34 (9%) or 35-54 (12%) to vote Alliance. Men (15%) are more likely than women (11%) to vote Alliance. Canadians with a university degree (56%) are more likely than those without (42%) to vote Liberal. Canadians with an annual household income less than $30,000 (17%) are more likely than others (10%) to vote NDP in the next federal election or Bloc Quebecois (14% vs. 8%); Canadians with an annual household income of $30,000-$60,000 (15%) are more likely than those with less (9%) or more (11%) to vote Alliance. Please open the attached PDF files to view the release and detailed tables.

Vive L'Alberta Libre! An interview with Bruce Hutton of the Separation Party of Alberta By Pete Vere web posted October 6, 2003 Over the past year, much has been written in the Canadian press concerning Western alienation. Nowhere is this sentiment more strongly felt than in Alberta – whose wealth and natural resources, many Albertans argue, has been plundered by central Canada since the time of confederation. As many Albertans have begun to discuss separation from Canada, the rest of Canada is finally taking notice. Recently, I had the opportunity to catch up with Bruce Hutton. Bruce is a proud Albertan who is currently organizing a founding convention of the Separation Party of Alberta for later this month. Vere: To begin, why an Alberta separatist party? Hutton: We cannot facilitate change under the current political system. For example, we've tried since 1874 to facilitate change with senate reform with no success. History dictates that there is just no chance for meaningful or successful change within the Canadian political system. The West has made nineteen attempts at senate reform in the last hundred years with not a single solitary change to show for it. More importantly, confederation is an economic drain on Alberta. Ottawa continues to syphon off our excess revenues on oil and gas. What scares me as an Albertan is that these are non-renewable resources. If we don't use excess oil and gas revenue to diversify Alberta's economy today, then we will become a have-not province tomorrow. Vere: How does Western alienation factor into this? Hutton: Western alienation is a pretty large factor in all this. It brings a lot of separatists to the table. If we cannot facilitate change from within, then the only intelligent thing for us to do is get out. We've been trying to get into confederation for over a hundred years. It isn't working. Central Canada and Ottawa just don't want us. Vere: So they want Alberta's resources, but not Alberta's citizens? Hutton: Yes. This has been the history of the West – not just Alberta – since North America was discovered. We've been the hewers of wood and packers of water. Vere: But given the presence of the Alberta Tories and the Alberta Alliance, isn't there a danger of splitting the conservative vote in Alberta? Hutton: The right is always split. Yet none of these fractions offer a viable alternative. They are singing the same tune in that they all call for change, but there is no plan on how to actually bring about change when central Canada is so hostile to it. Vere: How strong is separation sentiment among Albertans? Hutton: There's been a few polls. One said 24 per cent of Albertans want to seriously consider it; another said 44 per cent want to discuss it. That's a huge voting bloc. Vere: Does your party advocate a constitutional monarchy, a republic or some other form of replacement government? Hutton: We haven't made any formal decisions yet. I imagine this will be decided at our upcoming founding convention. It may be a republic, a canton system or a constitutional democracy. These are alternatives being bandied about right now. However, I don't think it will be another monarchy. Vere: Why not just hook up with the United States? Hutton: Because it makes no difference whether we give our money to Ottawa or to Washington; we're just jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. We need to use our money to diversify Alberta's economy before we become a have-not province. We have no end use manufacturing in Alberta right now. When the oil and gas are gone, we immediately become a have-not province. And there's no question that oil and gas will either become obsolete or completely depleted in the future. Alberta has carried the have-not provinces, of which there are currently eight, for some time now without any return on our investment. Last year we gave 9.98 billion dollars more than we took in. It cost Albertans nearly 10 billion dollars to remain Canadian last year. That's five hundred dollars for every foot of the Trans-Canada highway. It simply isn't worth it, especially when the West remains politically locked out of confederation. Vere: Have you received much interest concerning your upcoming founding convention? Hutton: There's interest. As one former Alberta premier said: "if Albertans haven't suffered enough, they have a God given right to suffer more." Personally, I feel that Albertans haven't suffered enough. In other words, life is good right now, but we don't truly understand the long-term negative consequences of remaining within confederation. Vere: Were do you stand on social conservative issues? Hutton: Our message is not left, right or center. There is room for diversity within the party, although we are right of center. Our message is economic. Quite frankly, there are currently no parties with any political conviction. They lead by looking over their shoulders to see what direction the public is going. Vere: We certainly appreciate you taking the time to answer a few questions. On a concluding note, how does one find out more about the Separation Party of Alberta? How would an interested Albertan become more involved? Hutton: The easiest way to get a basic understanding of the party is to visit our website at www.SeparationAlberta.com. Our founding convention is also coming up at the end of October and we're looking for concerned Albertans to attend and share their input as to what direction we need to take. Please visit our website for more information on the convention, or you can email us at [email protected]. Vere: Thank-you very much for taking the time to answer our questions. Hutton: You're welcome. Pete Vere, JCL is a canon lawyer and a Catholic social and religious commentator from Sudbury, Ontario. He now writes from Florida, where he and his family enjoy no state income tax along with life within walking distance of the Gulf of Mexico. His work has been published in numerous Canadian and American Catholic publications.

I think that Harper just announced that he is willing to compromise on leadership selection in order for a merger to happen. I am dissapointed however, because I strongly believe in the process of one member, one vote. Ah well. I'm surprised that Gugsy is actaully considering throwing away his membership. -The Alliance is currently running pre-election ads in Atlantic Canada.