China corrupting Chinese immigrants in Canada

[Argus]

China uses an organization called United Front to corrupt Canadian politicians, academics and industry, and uses its overseas diaspora to further its global agenda. And we let them.

The scene outside the offices of the Toronto public school board was raucous.

It was October 2014, and the board was planning to vote on a contract with the Confucius Institute, an organization affiliated with the education ministry of the government of China, which had offered its services to teach Mandarin to the city’s schoolchildren.

Critics decried the arrangement, calling the institute a propaganda or espionage arm of the Chinese state. But its supporters were out in force, scores of them, rallying noisily and waving Chinese flags in the heart of Canada’s biggest city.

“You are a damn traitor to China,” one of them shouted to an institute opponent of Chinese descent. “Down with traitors!”

Most of the Chinese-language media in Canada are now owned by businesses tied to Beijing, offering positive coverage of China, while Chinese-Canadian community groups have largely fallen under the sway of the “motherland,” Burton says.

In his own region, the Niagara Chinese Cultural Association was once dedicated to domestic causes and reaching out to the wider community, but now seems just as interested in cheering on a rising China, says Burton, a fluent Mandarin speaker. Both the Canadian and Chinese flags are raised at meetings today, and there was even discussion of adding the Chinese anthem, he says.

“An organization that once had another purpose has gradually been taken over to serve China’s national interest. Where United Front work becomes problematic is when it’s engaging persons of Chinese origin who have Canadian citizenship … to serve the interests of the motherland, when in fact the motherland should be Canada.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/how-china-uses-shadowy-united-front-as-magic-weapon-to-try-to-extend-its-influence-in-canada/wcm/46452d71-9fc0-4660-ba25-f1d3e71d32a4

 

[turningrite]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

China uses an organization called United Front to corrupt Canadian politicians, academics and industry, and uses its overseas diaspora to further its global agenda. And we let them.

The scene outside the offices of the Toronto public school board was raucous.

It was October 2014, and the board was planning to vote on a contract with the Confucius Institute, an organization affiliated with the education ministry of the government of China, which had offered its services to teach Mandarin to the city’s schoolchildren...

 

I've read about the Confucius Institute and the controversy it's created on some university and college campuses in both the U.S. and Canada. More broadly I suspect that most Canadians have little idea of the extent of Chinese influence in big urban regions like Toronto and Vancouver, where in each case hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants now reside. I'm not really sure how dangerous it is but it's bound to raise concerns about divided loyalties. Diaspora politics is always a minefield but is even more likely to be so if it's funded from abroad.

Speaking more generally, I recently read a fascinating NY Times column 'The West Has Gone Adrift' by Brett Stephens, who asserts that in becoming complacent about values and principles crucial to the Westernism both the left and right wings have lost moral authority in a world where dictators and despots offer more alluring alternatives. China's Xi, he notes, "has raised the banner of efficient authoritarianism as the preferred model of governance." While he criticizes both the left and right for complacency, Stephens, who is generally pro-immigration, comments: "Liberals were heedless when they embraced identity politics" and that while "immigration is a blessing; immigration without assimilation is a curse." Stephens speaks to the American and European experiences, but his analysis could as easily and perhaps even more accurately be applied to the Canadian experience.

Edited January 28, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

I don't know what you are going to say to the Chinese.   

"Post National State" translates to Mandarin as "Release Country".  

I don't think they will understand what it is your are supposedly upholding.

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

China uses an organization called United Front to corrupt Canadian politicians, academics and industry, and uses its overseas diaspora to further its global agenda. And we let them.

The scene outside the offices of the Toronto public school board was raucous.

It was October 2014, and the board was planning to vote on a contract with the Confucius Institute, an organization affiliated with the education ministry of the government of China, which had offered its services to teach Mandarin to the city’s schoolchildren.

Critics decried the arrangement, calling the institute a propaganda or espionage arm of the Chinese state. But its supporters were out in force, scores of them, rallying noisily and waving Chinese flags in the heart of Canada’s biggest city.

“You are a damn traitor to China,” one of them shouted to an institute opponent of Chinese descent. “Down with traitors!”

Most of the Chinese-language media in Canada are now owned by businesses tied to Beijing, offering positive coverage of China, while Chinese-Canadian community groups have largely fallen under the sway of the “motherland,” Burton says.

In his own region, the Niagara Chinese Cultural Association was once dedicated to domestic causes and reaching out to the wider community, but now seems just as interested in cheering on a rising China, says Burton, a fluent Mandarin speaker. Both the Canadian and Chinese flags are raised at meetings today, and there was even discussion of adding the Chinese anthem, he says.

“An organization that once had another purpose has gradually been taken over to serve China’s national interest. Where United Front work becomes problematic is when it’s engaging persons of Chinese origin who have Canadian citizenship … to serve the interests of the motherland, when in fact the motherland should be Canada.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/how-china-uses-shadowy-united-front-as-magic-weapon-to-try-to-extend-its-influence-in-canada/wcm/46452d71-9fc0-4660-ba25-f1d3e71d32a4

 

...just an example of how our "Multiculturalism" works in practice. It encourages outsiders to infiltrate other territories by laws that permit segregation under the apparent banner of 'diversity'. To me this is no surprise and it will get worse, ...and not merely with any specific group such as the Chinese. I repeat....we need to abandon laws regarding specific cultural conservation as our "Multiculturalism" permits. 

The Chinese government is likely more disappointed when Canada acts in ways that go against the very constitutional culturalism they rely on us for over the United States given they by default go against this concept. Canada is the world's Nationalist's haven and serves as a convenient backdoor to the U.S. economy most effectively.

[Dougie93]

But Canada is fundamentally British, and the Hong Kong Chinese are fundamentally British, so even if you jettison "multiculturalism", culturally, the Chinese who come to Canada because Hong Kong has fallen, are still British.

Since 1763, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Africans, and Chinese, were culturally British.  Even communism is not Chinese culture, that came from France.

There is no Canadian culture but VRI, and Victoria our Queen and Empress ruled over many cultures, all of them becoming British in the process.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Scott Mayers]

I don't believe that the actual majority of any society favors specific cultural roots. But those who do favor cultural segregation speak very loud where those who naturally assimilate/integrate remain relatively isolated as individuals who lack the power of cohesion due to their unique differences and thus appear silent and insignificantly trivial. 

[Dougie93]

The British Crown is not an ethno-nationalist republic,  to be subject of the British Crown is to receive  enfranchisement by your own free will.

There is no particular cultural requirement, other than upholding Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy and the rule of law.  

Other than that, if you're not undertaken of oath as an official of the Crown, you can pretty much say and do as you please on public property, so long as you're not in breach of the Queen's Peace.

Otherwise known as a Free Country, for which Her Majesty defends the right.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I don't believe that the actual majority of any society favors specific cultural roots. But those who do favor cultural segregation speak very loud where those who naturally assimilate/integrate remain relatively isolated as individuals who lack the power of cohesion due to their unique differences and thus appear silent and insignificantly trivial. 

In ethno-racially defined societies, which overwhelmingly represent the places from which Canada now receives immigrants, tribalism remains a predominant cultural and political principle. The major Immigrant receiving post-colonial countries, like the U.S., Canada and Australia, however, function according to a different principle, which, for lack of a better term, is assimilation. Those who assimilate do not "lack power of cohesion" as you argue, but instead become empowered as fully engaged participants in their adopted societies. It is those who don't assimilate and remain attached only to their tribal roots and diaspora communities who become insignificantly trivial and marginalized within the general population.

[Dougie93]

The only thing anyone is bound to assimilate to is the law, the rule of law is the only stipulated culture, it is folly to try to impose any further assimilation, because you will discover that you do not have the Crown behind you.   If you kick up a ruckus about it, you will be in breach of the Queen's Peace.  If you persist, the riot act shall be read, and then the Crown bops you upside the head.  If that doesn't work, the penitentiary then.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I've read about the Confucius Institute and the controversy it's created on some university and college campuses in both the U.S. and Canada. More broadly I suspect that most Canadians have little idea of the extent of Chinese influence in big urban regions like Toronto and Vancouver, where in each case hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants now reside. I'm not really sure how dangerous it is but it's bound to raise concerns about divided loyalties. Diaspora politics is always a minefield but is even more likely to be so if it's funded from abroad.

Nothing stirs shit up better than a conservative racist though.

 

Quote

Speaking more generally, I recently read a fascinating NY Times column 'The West Has Gone Adrift' by Brett Stephens, who asserts that in becoming complacent about values and principles crucial to the Westernism both the left and right wings have lost moral authority in a world where dictators and despots offer more alluring alternatives. China's Xi, he notes, "has raised the banner of efficient authoritarianism as the preferred model of governance." While he criticizes both the left and right for complacency, Stephens, who is generally pro-immigration, comments: "Liberals were heedless when they embraced identity politics" and that while "immigration is a blessing; immigration without assimilation is a curse." Stephens speaks to the American and European experiences, but his analysis could as easily and perhaps even more accurately be applied to the Canadian experience.

I think Bret Stephens is pretty much full of himself but he did say something I've been pointing at for some time around here.

 

Quote

Conservatives (again, like me) were heedless when we downplayed the significance of the populism and scaremongering infecting the movement via talk radio and Fox News.

Bret Stephens

This really got its start with assholes like Limbaugh and Coulter and it was when conservatives began treating the left the way racists treat a race that the West really started drifting sideways.

There's no reason for the shitstorm raging way up in the clouds between Trump. Xi and Trudeau to rain down on ordinary people like us on the ground but here we are and conservatives can't help but stir it up...

Just stay the fuck away from my grandkids.

Edited January 28, 2019 by eyeball

[turningrite]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1.) Nothing stirs shit up better than a conservative racist though.

I think Bret Stephens is pretty much full of himself but he did say something I've been pointing at for some time around here.

2.) This really got its start with assholes like Limbaugh and Coulter and it was when conservatives began treating the left the way racists treat a race that the West really started drifting sideways.

3.) There's no reason for the shitstorm raging way up in the clouds between Trump. Xi and Trudeau to rain down on ordinary people like us on the ground but here we are and conservatives can't help but stir it up...

4.) Just stay the fuck away from my grandkids.

Wow, you're rude and disgruntled.

1.) Are you accusing Stephens of being a conservative racist? Really? The guy is pro-immigration but simply thinks that immigration only works well when combined with integration and (gasp!) assimilation. History would seem to substantiate his perspective on this. Please name some countries that have encouraged widespread immigrant tribalism and have prospered and functioned peacefully.

2.) Modern, politically correct, tribal multiculturalism in the major immigrant receiving post-colonial societies emerged before people like Limbaugh and Coulter had any impact. They are part of the response. You really need to brush up on the "chicken and egg" analogy because it appears your lack of perspective has led you to an inaccurate conclusion.

3.) Huh? What does that mean? Please make concise comments if you want to be taken seriously.

4.) Huh? What the f*** does that mean? I think you need to get some help. Seriously. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

I'm about as nutjob as a right wing nutjob can be, but I've never heard of Bret Stephens. 

Probably because he works for the New York Times, and what conservative is bothering the read that commie rag anymore?

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Wow, you're a rude and disgruntled.

I usually am with issues like this. 

Quote

1.) Are you accusing Stephens of being a conservative racist? Really? The guy is pro-immigration but simply thinks that immigration only works well when combined with integration and (gasp!) assimilation. History would seem to substantiate his perspective on this. Please name some countries that have encouraged immigrant tribalism and have prospered and functioned peacefully.

No I'm accusing conservatives for a general attitude that's more befitting a racist.  Immigrant tribalism is just some stupid term you made up.

Quote

 

2.) Politically correct multiculturalism in the immigrant receiving post-colonial societies emerged before people like Limbaugh and Coulter had any impact. They are part of the response. You really need to brush up on the "chicken and egg" analogy because it appears you're lack of perspective has led you to an inaccurate conclusion.

 

There it is...the left turned us into a bunch assholes.  This says a lot more about what conservatives were always made of.

Quote

 

3.) Huh? What does that mean? Please make concise comments if you want to be taken seriously.

 

Is it just me or is "Huh?" the default position of lick-spittles everywhere?  We're in a ridiculous trade war that was started by an idiot on some distant global stage and you people are all poised to take it to the streets.

Quote

 

4.) Huh? What the f*** does that mean? I think you need to get some help. Seriously. 

 

What the fuck do you think it means?  The last time conservatives, populists and racists got a head full of themselves in a society as seriously adrift as our's horrible violence was the result.

Edited January 28, 2019 by eyeball

[turningrite]

29 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm about as nutjob as a right wing nutjob can be, but I've never heard of Bret Stephens. 

Probably because he works for the New York Times, and what conservative is bothering the read that commie rag anymore?

Stephens' columns often appear in the NY Times and like many of its writers and contributors I'd characterize him as a moderate, even if conservative, writer. His work is respected enough that he's won a Pulitzer Prize. His centrist credentials are illustrated by the fact that he was part of the conservative 'Stop Trump' movement in 2016.

I try to read commentaries from all points on the political/ideological spectrum. I think it's the only way to arrive at an objective view of the world. Why eyeball apparently thinks Stephens is some right-wing hack is a mystery to me when the NY Times has a reputation of being moderately progressive. It seldom projects a hard right perspective. But we've become all too used to those on the left reacting to any opinion (or fact) they don't like with accusations of racism, a term that's been debased due to overuse and misuse. Below is an excellent article from CNN's site (another reputedly progressive MSM outlet) about the inappropriate overuse of accusations like 'racism' and 'white supremacy, noting the anti-intellectual and antidemocratic aspects entailed in this trend.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/21/opinions/richard-spencer-liberal-protestors-mcwhorter-opinion/index.html

Edited January 28, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

It is the left who has started the trade war, the trade war is on behalf of the industrial unionists in the Blue States.  Moreover, the Democrats also favour trade war.

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I usually am with issues like this. 

No I'm accusing conservatives for a general attitude that's more befitting a racist.

There it is...the left turned us into a bunch assholes.  This says a lot more about what conservatives were always made of.

Is it just me or is "Huh?" the default position of lick-spittles everywhere?  We're in a ridiculous trade war that was started by an idiot on some distant global stage and you people are all poised to take it to the streets.

What the fuck do you think it means?  The last time conservatives, populists and racists got a head full of themselves in a society as seriously adrift as our's horrible violence was the result.

I'll let you rant. There's no point in responding further as it appears you're not interested in rational debate, as you've demonstrated.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

Stephens' columns often appear in the NY Times and like many of its writers and contributors I'd characterize him as a moderate conservative. His work is respected enough that he's won a Pulitzer Prize. His centrist credentials are illustrated by the fact that he was part of the conservative 'Stop Trump' movement in 2016.

 

We have a word for him then; Cuck.   And I wipe my ass with the Pulitzer Prize, and there are no "credentials" for being a conservative, so far as I no there is no membership fee neither.

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

We have a word for him then; Cuck.   And I wipe my ass with the Pulitzer Prize, and there are no "credentials" for being a conservative, so far as I no there is no membership fee neither.

It's my understanding that the rather crude term "Cuck" is contemptuously applied by the some on the right to servile men who espouse mainly moderate or progressive views. I've heard Trudeau described as such but have never seen or heard a conservative, moderate or otherwise, described as such.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I try to read commentaries from all points on the political/ideological spectrum. I think it's the only way to arrive at an objective view of the world. Why eyeball apparently thinks Stephens is some right-wing hack is a mystery to me

Stephen's opening statement completely ignored how the West also didn't work in HW Bush and Thatcher's hands. While driving Hussein out of Kuwait Bush clearly encouraged Iraqi's to rise up against their dictator and just as clearly signalled that America would have their back.  The West didn't work the way it was supposed to at all. 

 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's my understanding that the rather crude term "Cuck" is contemptuously applied by the some on the right to servile men who espouse mainly moderate or progressive views. I've heard Trudeau described as such but have never seen or heard a conservative, moderate or otherwise, described as such.

Nah, Trudeau is not a Cuck, because he does not deny that he is a Liberal.  Loud and proud liberal courage of convictions cannot be a Cuckservative, by definition.

And you can express radical "progressive" views as you like, just don't piss up my leg and tell me its raining conservatism.

[turningrite]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Nah, Trudeau is not a Cuck, because he does not deny that he is a Liberal.  Loud and proud liberal courage of convictions cannot be a Cuckservative, by definition.

And you can express radical "progressive" views as you like, just don't piss up my leg and tell me its raining conservatism.

I didn't say I call Trudeau that but I have heard others do so. I call him a useful idiot in the service of the interests of economic globalism.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

I didn't say I call Trudeau that but I have heard others do so. I call him a useful idiot in the service of the interests of economic globalism.

As a conservative, I respect any who have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to kill and die for them as necessary.

Even if you're Stalinist, we may not see eye to eye, but if you were KGB Spetsgruppa Alfa, you still had my respect as an adversary.

Even Koba has my respect, Stalin did at least wipe the Bolsheviks out for us, nobody in the history of the world has killed more commies than Koba.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The British Crown is not an ethno-nationalist republic,  to be subject of the British Crown is to receive  enfranchisement by your own free will.

There is no particular cultural requirement, other than upholding Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy and the rule of law.  

Other than that, if you're not undertaken of oath as an official of the Crown, you can pretty much say and do as you please on public property, so long as you're not in breach of the Queen's Peace.

Otherwise known as a Free Country, for which Her Majesty defends the right.

Yes but will Argus stop eating Chinese food that is the question. May I suggest Hakka, which is technically Chinese in India combining for an excellent fusion of approaches to chile chicken. 

By the time this forum and Trudeau is done we will have to hold in detention all Chinese, Muslims, and I would think people from Kyrgyzstan.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Rue

[Dougie93]

My wife and I tend to lean towards "Chinese Food", which is not from China, but rather the American West.  Unless I'm right down in Chinatown, it's hard to find any actually Chinese food.

Tho I actually prefer Vietnamese to Chinese given the option.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The British Crown is not an ethno-nationalist republic,  to be subject of the British Crown is to receive  enfranchisement by your own free will.

There is no particular cultural requirement, other than upholding Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy and the rule of law.  

Other than that, if you're not undertaken of oath as an official of the Crown, you can pretty much say and do as you please on public property, so long as you're not in breach of the Queen's Peace.

Otherwise known as a Free Country, for which Her Majesty defends the right.

First off, it is not a 'republic' as in 'by the people & for the people'. We are ethno-nationalists though and why we conserve special privilege within the constitution for three major ethno-centric groups: the British-found 'catholic' Anglicans (loyal to assumed supremacy of  kings and queens and the belief they are rightful benefactors of god), the French loyalists of the old French non-republican Roman-catholics (loyal to Popes, and similar beliefs in right of birth favored by gods), and the overall belief that the original North American people (ab-original) are supremely tied to some genetic link to the land because they were here first.

The 'cultural requirement' we have by force to accept select favoritism to the select cults by these arrogant inheritors of power. ONLY if we don't infringe against these people's right to special laws to the rest of us 'commoners' are we allowed relative freedoms. Our freedoms beyond the privileged groups these power define as 'right' versus 'wrong' only allow us to think what we want about what is right or wrong (freedom of 'conscience' )