The Quebecois are a nation

Posted by Matra on November 28, 2006, 02:04 AM | #

Michael Ignatieff’s civic nationalism was discussed by Mark Richardson earlier this year - http://tinyurl.com/yzq9oz

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 28, 2006, 02:49 AM | #

Well said Matra. Following many of Mr. Bo Sears comments, it is interesting to observe how French-Canada has been able to maintain the power to name themselves as the province evolved. Canadien, francophones, and more recently Quebecers all were eventually interpreted broadly. The terms included Anglos, Jews, Italians and more recently Muslims and Haitians. Yet Quebecois, at least in Canda, is widely recognised as pur laine [pure wool, the real McCoy, le Pepsi] white French of colonial origin. It has been a failing of English Canada.

As Alexander Muir’s song so proudly proclaimed, we were British, proud to be born Canadian under a British flag.

In Days of yore,
From Britain’s shore,
Wolfe the dauntless hero came
And planted firm Britannia’s flag
On Canada’s fair domain.
Here may it wave,
Our boast, our pride,
And join in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwined,
The Maple Leaf Forever

Our Britishness, after WWI, became reviled. The pounding was unrelenting; Quebec and conscription; Chinese head tax; Ukrainian, Japanese and Italian internment; rejection of Jewish refugees and Jewish immigration and finally the collapse of empire vanquished Anglo-Canucks to the back of the bus.

How about a contest to name the people of British origin in Canada? Something that distinguishes the people of British descent in Canada that is unique to the Canadian experience and then maybe write it up in Wiki.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 28, 2006, 03:41 AM | #

“Bring it on I say. Balkanisation is our friend.”  (—from the log entry)

Absolutely right, Matra!  I am so glad to see you agreeing with this principle, as did GW just today or yesterday in one of the threads, when he was referring to the British Isles and England getting its own parliament along with the Scots and the Welsh.  I haven’t got time to write a longer comment at the moment though I’d like to — it’s past two-thirty and I’m off to bed — but this is something very positive.  One of the punishments we must mete out to the forces who tried to murder our race, tried as hard as they could to extinguish our people — murder a people and a race, think of the crime! — is to extricate our people from the grasp, break free of the claw clutching at our neck.

Posted by karlmagnus on November 28, 2006, 09:02 AM | #

I’ve always been in favour of Quebec nationalism; it’s not us they want independence from, the ungrateful Canadians get independence from us in 1867. More than 20 years ago, I was the only London banker who went to the Province of Quebec financial offices and spoke French (damn difficult to understand the 16th century stuff coming back at me, I can tell you.) As a consequence I made my largest ever investment banking fee, though moderns would sneer at it since it was only 6 figures not 8.

Posted by JB on November 28, 2006, 10:28 AM | #

I can tell you the french elites are as antiwhite as those of english Canada, their brand of nationalism is an all-inclusive albophobic leftist gumbo. If you speak french you’re in their team, if you speak english, you’re in the opposing team. It’s nothing but linguistic and nobody would dare say it should be deeper than that. The leader of the so-called nationalist Bloc Québécois Gille Duceppe isn’t only a former maoist he’s on the record for saying that there’s no such thing as a “québécois de souche” anymore, a quebecois from ancestry or ethnicity, and he said that at a rally for one of his african candidates.

It’s no different from anywhere else, i.e. everybody is a canadian except canadians, everybody an american except americans, etc.

Posted by roy albrecht on November 28, 2006, 12:57 PM | #

It’s acknowledged among leading intellectuals, that the leaders within Canada, both Anglo and Francaphone (Garth Turnber excepted), are definitely pro Bankster/NWO/1WorldGov’t.
Presently, there is a general awakening among rank and file North Americans that the Zionist Mafia exercises inordinate control over our public and private institutions.
The debate is centred on where the Jewish Lobby are taking Western Nations w.r.t. Middle East policy (ie. who will destroy Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Lebanon for the Bankers in charge of Israel).
The Israeli Lobby is acutely aware of this trend and are desperatly trying to acomplish their agenda of Middle East conquest, using Western blood/wealth, before popular resistance puts and end not only to their murderous machinations, but to the entire usurious Banking system which underpins it.
To thwart this rising popular GLOBAL realization/rebellion, the tried and true method is to bombard the masses with one contentious diversionary issue after another. 
Canadians generally have no understanding of Zionist Supremacist tactics or motives, let alone dare acknowledge its very existance lest they be labeled (horror of all horrors! yawn…) “Anti-Semite”, so we lack the focus to deal with it.
Since the parliamentary resolution regarding Quebecois Nationalism has no legal implications and is more of a symbolic gesture, it stands to reason that judging by the amount of media attention the largely Jewish owned media is giving the issue, the issue must certainly be just another cannard.
Wake up people! 
Unless we focus on the World banking establishment and the institutions it fraudulently underpins, we in Canada will continue debating the self-evident reality that Quebecers are a culturally unique people within Canada (as are Anglos) and that the Jewish Lobby is meanwhile quietly having our bought politicians pass Laws that will destroy the fabric of our Nation so Israeli Bankers can exercise hegemony over the entire Middle East with China next on the agenda.
What’s the big deal?  Quebecers are a unique subgroup within Canada. 
So now can we ask why Canadians are involved in killing Afghanis so Israel can expand?
Why is a largely Jewish controlled mass media telling us falsely that 9-11 was the fault of the Taliban when there exists enough proof that it was just another of the many Judeo-Neo-Con False Flag ops designed to instill anger and lead to war?
I suspect the debate on Quebecois Nationhood will go out like the tide, but our murder for Israel and its Bankers will silently be blacked out of the Jew-tube and continue to be legislatively realized.

Posted by roy albrecht on November 28, 2006, 01:10 PM | #

correction to the above post:

Garth “Turner” not Garth Turn"b"er.

PS. If you want to stop this march to self-slaughter vote Garth Turner for Prime Minister of Canada!

Posted by Matra on November 29, 2006, 01:58 AM | #

How about a contest to name the people of British origin in Canada?

Why not just stick with English-Canadians? The old British American label sounds too colonial and patronising so would British-Canadians. But English-Canadians is a term that has been used for decades by both the Quebecois and Anglophones (a word I’ve only ever heard in Canada). More importantly it is unlikely the Jamaicans, Chinese, Arabs, and the ethnically conscious Europeans would ever embrace it given what “English” means to them. Of course we’d still be left with the problem that English-Canadians don’t see themselves as a particular ethnic nation, unlike the Quebecois.

vote Garth Turner for Prime Minister of Canada!

Garth’s fine for financial advice but he’s an old diversity-loving PCer who is flirting with the very pro-multiculturalist Green Party. If you put up the same post at his blog he would take it down as he’s done for other posts he deems racist.

I can tell you the french elites are as antiwhite as those of english Canada

Perhaps the more urban Quebec elites but not in rural Quebec. Though even with those multiculturalist “sovereigntist” politicians they are probably more interested in appealing to so-called soft nationalist Quebecois than they are in actually promoting diversity. Also, like the two sides in Northern Ireland the Quebecois are still focused on their old adversary and not too concerned (yet) about non-whites whom they have virtually no contact with. Unless things have changed radically in the past ten years few areas outside of Greater Montreal can be described as diverse. So they pay lip service to diversity not thinking it’ll ever be a problem but they continue to live every day life as a particular people with their own ways confident that they are a nation - unlike in identity torn English Canada.

Posted by Al Ross on November 29, 2006, 03:06 AM | #

Matra, not only are they “not too concerned (yet) about Non-Whites”, they are, in an attempt to bolster Francophone numbers, abusing the immigration control devolved to them through Quebec’s unique asymmetical federalist position by importing Africans from French-speaking countries.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 29, 2006, 03:18 PM | #

Why not just stick with English-Canadians?

It apears you answered your own question.

...we’d still be left with the problem that English-Canadians don’t see themselves as a particular ethnic nation, unlike the Quebecois.

Which is my experience as well.

Andy at I, Ectomorph writes,

In my faint recollections, the English Canada of the 1960s—of Frye, McLuhan, Vincent Massey, Robertson Davies, Richler, Grant et al.—was confidently on its way to becoming something genuinely “British North American”. Can we get back, after all this time, to building what ought, absent Trudeau’s obsession, to have been our true nation, our own distinct society?

There was a hint in that first sentence about where he was really going, however, a little push on the envelope seemed light a fun idea.

Me;

The first step is naming your people. Canadian, Anglophone or even English-Canada is too broad a definition. Québécois de souche is much more definitive. Angelcynn, people of the Anglo-Saxon race, may be an option. Resisting defamation is also necessary. English Canadians have been defamed since WWI. Conscription, Head Tax, internment, None is Too Many, are but examples of a constant barage mounted, largely in unison, with the intent of diminishing the pride Anglo-Saxons should have in their people.

Andy;

I certainly don’t envisage English Canada as ethnocentric in that way.

How the hell else can you be ethnocentric?

And again the site of the post-modernist conservative Andrew Coyne an alternative message was delivered;

Me;

Master Chong is funny. He does not believe in Canada. He just opposes ethnic nationalism. This “is nothing else but the recognition of ethnic nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism, or it does not refer to the geographic entity, but to a group of people.”

Why can’t Chong support it? He’s a product of miscegenation. He has no people. Thus those who wish to preserve their ethnic genetic interest are not welcomed in Mikie’s world. Like the recent publication by Alon Ziv, “Breeding Between the Lines: Why Interracial People are Healthier and More Attractive”, Mikie tries to convince us to commit genocide.

And the response;

DJ:

“Why can’t Chong support it? He’s a product of miscegenation. He has no people.”

Whah?

Mr. Chong does have a people, albeit not one strictly constrained by race. His people are the Canadian people and his opposition to this motion does, in point of fact, give credence to his belief in Canada. More specifically, it is a principled stand for a civic nation in which all citizens ought to be granted equal status regardless of ethnic heritage.

While I support the free exchange of ideas, even those that might be deemed controversial, your unsupported link of Mr. Chong’s resignation to a covert agenda of interracial breeding represents an affront to what, despite greatly differing opinions, is often a collegial atmosphere of open debate.

For the record, I have no problem with the preservation of cultural traditions within the francophonic communities (both within Quebec and without). Much like Mr. Chong, however, I am strongly opposed to any motion that would seek to make legal distinctions between fellow Canadians based on ethnic heritage. I would just as strongly oppose a bill that looked to create a distinct legal category for those, such as myself, who can trace their ethnic heritage to Great Britain (and are pressganged into watching the Queen’s Address every 25th of December).

Another collegial Lemming.

This despite the fact that a quick read of Chong’s website tells us he does not favour a defence of EGI.

My children are going to be of Chinese, Dutch, Scottish and English decent. To speak of these children in hyphenated terms is absurd. They will simply be Canadian.

We need to speak about a common Canadian identity and move beyond emphasising our differences. As Canada becomes increasingly racially mixed and diverse, we need to transcend the politics of ethnicity and start articulating our identity in pan-Canadian terms.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2006, 03:55 PM | #

I think I have offended you in the past, Desmond, when I have suggested that our European homelands, our real redoubts, is where we shall make our stand.  Canada cannot be saved for its founding people because they - not just its elites - do not understand that it should be saved.  The virus is powerful and the body’s defences cannot be summoned.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 29, 2006, 04:39 PM | #

No offence taken GW.

My Dad told me that a long, long time ago.

However, this is where my family resides and my people are buried
so I figure I’d be letting the side down if I did not at least attempt to turn the tide.

Cheers,

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 29, 2006, 07:40 PM | #

Another mad mongrel moans for Canada.

Quito,

http://quitomaggi.blogspot.com/2006/11/nation-within-nation-within-nation.html

who last week defamed Michael at Hogtownfront for questioning the value of Tamil immigration…

This guy is a jackass and a racist. Anybody who would link the word “refugee” to an article about how a refugee committed a crime or link the word “Tamil Canadian” to an article about a Tamil who committed a crime is definitely a twisted individual.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the blog, this guy posts articles from the MSM or other publicly available documents and then links specific words to other posts that are always derogatory. Why such hate literature is allowed to be available online by Blogger or any other free blog site is beyond me. Just because he doesn’t come out and say “all Tamils are criminals” or “all refugees are criminals”, and instead uses links to imply this, it doesn’t make it any less palpable.

I wonder what sort of petty, insignificant, impotent, idiotic, little man you would have to be to do something so childish and moronic. Get the picture.

[Yeah, we get the pictue]

...is mighty upset about this nation in a nation stuff.

As some background, I should say that I was born in Montreal in 1970, so I am a Quebecer. My family moved to Toronto in 1977 as did many families between 1976 and 1980. I am the son of immigrants from Argentina who were descendants of Italians who had immigrated to Argentina. My wife’s father is Jewish and her mother is half black and half Micmaw indian, her family has been in Canada longer than most white Canadians, part of a community that settled just outside of Halifax.

Our 4 year old son, middle name is Elliott after PET, [Pierre Elliot Trudeau] represents a rainbow of cultures and races and languages, but he is Canadian.

Fuck whitey, save the rainbow, got it.

A funny thing is though, that his hero, our PET, had very different views as a young Jesuit educated product of a Quebecois society.

In the years before the end of the Second World War, the rumours were shouting, the father of our constitution was a proto-fascist, an anti-Semitic separatist busily plotting ways to take Quebec out of Canada and out of the anti-Fascist alliance fighting Nazi Germany.

How the world turns.

http://www.dooneyscafe.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=520

Oh and our palpably pleasant Tamils, what are they up to?

Michael reports:

A large group of young men beat and hacked a 21-year-old man to death with baseball bats and machetes in front of a Toronto high school in what may have been a case of mistaken identity, a prosecutor says.

They drove up slowly in three cars to the front of Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute, near Finch Ave. E. and Brimley Rd., shortly after 8:15 p.m. on Oct. 8, 2003, where Janakan Sivalingam was drinking, smoking and watching girls with his friends, Crown prosecutor Megan Petrie told a jury in her opening submission yesterday.

The Crown alleges that Gobianath Suntharalingam, 25, Sujenth Ulaganathan, 23, and Karmugan Palarajah, 23, were among the men in the cars. They have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2006/11/man-was-beaten-and-hacked-to-death.html

Posted by Matra on November 29, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

The “Master Chong” Desmond refers to is the resigning cabinet member I briefly referred to in the second point in the intro.

While I support the free exchange of ideas, even those that might be deemed controversial, your unsupported link of Mr. Chong’s resignation to a covert agenda of interracial breeding represents an affront to what, despite greatly differing opinions, is often a collegial atmosphere of open debate.

That there are intelligent people who think Chong’s ethnic background is irrelevant to his decision to resign is an example of how powerful the virus is. No one had even heard of Chong until he resigned explicitly stating that the recognition of ethnic nationalism threatens Canada’s Holy Trinity of civic nationalism, bilingualism, and multiculturalism. His opposition to the recognition of ethnic identity is about the only thing he is known for. Here he is in the Toronto Star:

For hundreds of years almost every Canadian was of either British or French descent and we had two ethnic nationalisms reflective of that ... But by the 1960s Canada was no longer made up entirely of people of French and British stock and we decided to reject those dual ethnic nationalisms for a new tripartite approach. This approach adopted civic nationalism, bilingualism and official multiculturalism as a basis of a new vision of citizenship. The civic nationalism recognized that all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin or their birth, regardless of whether or not they had been here for four or 400 years, regardless of whether or not they were of French or English origin or of African or Asian origin, that all these groups were recognized through the official policies.

There is nothing “covert” about his agenda. He told Peter Mansbridge on The National about his Dutch mother and Chinese father. Chong said Canada’s one of the few places in the world where they could prosper and not feel like outsiders. It’s pathetic how virtually the whole country seems to be lauding his “eloquent” and, no doubt, principled stand.

More from Master Chong:

I want to emphasize that I believe in the uniqueness of the French fact, the uniqueness of the French fact in Canada. I also believe that we must not only ensure its survival but also its flourishing.

But I believe that this is best done through the policies of official bilingualism and multiculturalism and above all that it is not done by retreating into our solitudes but rather by engaging each other through our common civic nationalism. ...

Translation: Let us use the “French fact” to bolster multiculturalism. We can then co-opt them and then on the sly we can mold them so they will be loyal to, perhaps dependent on, the Canadian state. The “French fact” has long been used by the feds to weaken English-Canada but it is not allowed to pursue its own destiny.

Posted by Matra on November 29, 2006, 08:02 PM | #

where Janakan Sivalingam was drinking, smoking and watching girls with his friends

We definitely cannot do without these immigrants. As the economists say the country would grind to a halt without them.

Posted by Matra on November 29, 2006, 08:21 PM | #

Matra - Why not just stick with English-Canadians?

Desmond - It apears you answered your own question.

Matra - ...we’d still be left with the problem that English-Canadians don’t see themselves as a particular ethnic nation, unlike the Quebecois.

Then I’m not sure why you asked for a name for those of British origins. As I said I pick “English-Canadians” because it separates those of British origin along with full integrated Europeans from the rest of the population - ie., non-whites, Francophones, and non-integrated European ethnics such as Italians in Woodbridge and St Clair West.

In the ideal future we will see English-Canadians realising that “Canadian” means not just them but Tamil terrorists, Jane Creba’s killers, and Michael Chong, whereas “English-Canada” means Don Cherry, wearing a poppy in November, and kinship with European-Americans.

Posted by Al Ross on November 29, 2006, 08:43 PM | #

Any country that accepts Tamil immigrants has a death wish. These low average IQ Dravidian aborigines were foisted on the indigenous people of 19th Century Malaya by the British colonial masters who required cheap indentured plantation labour.

In modern Malaysia, the Tamil community is the poorest, least well-educated and most criminality-prone group.

More than a few Malays have told me that the answer to the question, “If you are walking through the ‘ulu’ (jungle) and you come across a cobra and a Tamil, which one do you kill first”, is “the Tamil”.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 29, 2006, 09:48 PM | #

The reason for asking Matra, is because English Canada is too often broadened to English-speaking Canada which, as you suggest encompasses a whole multitude of others.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 29, 2006, 10:18 PM | #

Another interesting outgrowth of the Chinese angle, IMO, is how the Committee for the Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act was instrumental in the 1946 Citizen Act reform. Before ‘46 English Canadians were British subjects and obtaining subject status for non-empire non-whites was an involved process.

The credit for fathering the project that gave legal recognition to the term “Canadian citizen” goes to the Liberal Cabinet Minister Paul Martin Sr. [Surprise, surprise]

“For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country it is felt to be of utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us are able to say with pride and say with meaning: “I am a Canadian citizen.”

Paul Senior took credit, however, who was behind the new wave of egalitarianism in the old restrictive Canada?

“For the most part the crcia [Committee for the Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act] was almost entirely made up of representatives from Christian churches and church-affiliated bodies. However, the coalition was also joined [disproportionaly] by the Jewish community, with members such as Rabbi Feinberg, Ben Kayfetz, and Irving Himel. Rabbi Abraham Feinberg of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto was also chair of the Joint Public Relations Committee (jprc), of which, in 1947, Ben Kayfetz became executive director. As noted above, the jprc was a joint initiative of the Canadian Jewish Congress (cjc), the main association for Canadian Jewry, and B’nai B’rith, a Jewish service organization.

[...]

These notable representatives of the Jewish community became involved in the crcia, along with other human rights causes, because they recognized that if they could obtain change by promoting the rights of Canadians, [non-English Canadians] then the rights of Jews would automatically be covered. For these Jewish activists, anti-Semitism was merely reflective of the larger problem of racial and religious prejudice. In an effort to avoid the perception of ‘pushy Jews’ pursuing their own self-interests, some Jewish organizations, such as the cjc and, by extension, Himel, Feinberg, and Kayfetz, sought legislative reform in the areas of employment discrimination and restrictive covenants. In their view, the best strategy was not to press for sweeping change all at once, but to argue selectively for specific laws against discrimination. In other words, they saw incrementalism as the most desirable approach to reform.

http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/843/843_bangarth.html

Posted by desi la desi on November 30, 2006, 10:54 AM | #

“Any country that accepts Tamil immigrants has a death wish. “

Al, does your low opinion if Tamils include, for example, Tamil Brahmin imigrants from India to the USA?

And what of, for example, the American-born son of such immigrants?

Posted by Al Ross on November 30, 2006, 07:01 PM | #

Tamil Brahmins are, of course, a small section (around 2%) of the overall Tamil population and almost entirely absent from the diaspora in Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

If the admirable middle-class mindset of the Tamil Brahmins were replicated throughout the community, it still wouldnt validate the race-replacement of Whites in Canada.

The last thing any Canadian wants is to witness a mass of body-skewered, ‘kavadi’-carrying Tamil devotees processing down Toronto’s Bay Street to the site of a Thaipusam celebration.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2006, 08:45 PM | #

“The last thing any Canadian wants is to witness a mass of body-skewered, ‘kavadi’-carrying Tamil devotees processing down Toronto’s Bay Street to the site of a Thaipusam celebration.”  (—Al)

This is not it, Al.  You may not be getting it.  The name of the game if you’re a Canadian yuppie is to show off how socio-economically superior you are (whether you actually are or not, the main thing is to give off an air of being) and since for yuppies nothing exudes an air of “socio-economic superiority” like insouciance about inferior races, the yuppies strive to put on airs of such insouciance — but that’s hard to do convincingly unless there are plenty of ... guess what? ... around?  You guessed it!  Plenty of inferior races!  Exactly!  Now we’re getting somewhere!  So the Canadian yuppies positively welcome Tamils parading around Toronto, damn right they do — thanks to those Tamils the yuppies can really kick ass in the “showing how racially insouciant they are” competition — which is exactly the same as the “showing how socio-economically superior they are” competition!  See?  Since, as Napoleon said, “Women have no rank,” women yuppies view these competitions as especially important, as it’s through them that they establish, as they see it, their status level.

Posted by Al Ross on November 30, 2006, 08:58 PM | #

I must admit, Fred, that I had not considered the matter in such sophisticated terms. However, I’m sure that you are correct.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 30, 2006, 11:52 PM | #

And it costs so little! It’s not as if these DINKs [double income no kids] are actually living in Tamil neighbourhoods.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2006, 12:57 AM | #

They can’t put on airs of being superior without the proper tools for the job, the right props.  That’s where Negroes come in:  they’re to be the tools, they’re to function as the props, which the yuppies need in order to demonstrate — in their view, at least — their superior socio-economic status:  “upper-class people don’t care about race-replacement,” is how they see it, so if you want to appear upper class, a simple and sure-fire way to do it is merely to affect not to care about race-replacement.  Let’s say Canada had no Negroes, and the Canadian prime minister’s wife had seen how Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush just across the border had made themselves look (in her yuppified view, at any rate) socio-economically superior by not caring about the U.S.‘s race-replacement.  She probably turned green with envy at how socio-economically superior Hillary and Laura managed to make themselves look with that.  She might start pestering her husband the prime minister to begin filling Canada up with Negroes so that she, too, could show how socio-economically superior she was by not caring about race-replacement.  Now, if the prime minister wanted to keep getting good sex he’d do exactly as she asked, and start filling Canada up with Negroes so she could do the Hillary and Laura thing before the cameras and look socio-economically superior (upper-class, in other words) and he could keep getting good sex.  That’s exactly how a lot of these things get done.

Posted by Top on December 01, 2006, 01:14 AM | #

Excellent points Fred.  And I want to add - the whole socio-economic competition that the yuppies engage in is based on certain assumptions, one of them being what I term the fallacy of invincibility.  The yuppies who import the ‘noble savages’ from every corner of the world just to show off how moral they are, don’t really view them as any sort of threat.  Their whole competition is based within the white world of the socio-economical status ladder.  In the end they don’t see the third world new-comers as real human beings that have real aspirations, desires, ambitions and abilities.  To the socially tuned-in yuppies they might as well be cardboard characters.  They don’t even bother project demographics into the future, after-all, how can cartoon characters ever hurt our social climbing heroes? 

The yuppies think they are invincible in this respect!  It’s arrogance at it’s worst.  That’s why it comes to them as a shock – SHOCK – when the darkies kick them out of every country they take over - a la South Africa.  Good thing for those running yuppies that there are still other white countries to play the game thing!  And who pays the price in the end?  The common man of course!  First the lower classes, then the middle class.  The yuppies will be the last ones left, preaching from their fortified neighborhoods.  It will be moral speeches ‘till the end. 

We will get nowhere until our yuppies understand that their destiny is tied to the destiny of the greater Euro-people.

Posted by James Bowery on December 01, 2006, 01:32 AM | #

I think you misanalyze the feminine component here.  There is a status component to be sure but the more important component is a misdirected “lets you and him fight” instinct that is part of sexual reproduction within virtually all vertebrate species.

In a natural setting gene flow rates are limited by the degree of fair, single combat, fighting.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2006, 01:43 AM | #

I think James Bowery makes an excellent point.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2006, 01:44 AM | #

Top as well, of course.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 01, 2006, 02:20 AM | #

Jared Taylor writes, in his battle with Steve Sailer;

White liberals [or Yuppies as Fred so eloquently suggests] are openly, breathtakingly hypocritical. The appearance of racial rectitude is perhaps America’s [even more so Canada’s] most highly-regarded virtue, but it comes at essentially no cost.

You don’t have to have black friends, you don’t have to have Mexican [or South Asian] neighbors, you don’t have to send your children to schools where no one speaks English, and you don’t have to invite Hmong [or Tamil] refugees to your dinner parties. You can be racially respectable without doing anything. Just gush about the things you, yourself, carefully avoid: integration, multi-culturalism, and diversity.

Posted by JB on December 13, 2006, 10:01 PM | #

is there a hebrew word for irony or hypocrisy ?

http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=10794

Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein was angry because the Jewish leadership has not spoken out against the Harper government motion recognizing the Québécois people as a nation, and because all Jewish MPs voted for it. He believes that the term “Québécois” includes only those of French origin, and that type of ethnic nationalism should be anathema to Jews.

Posted by Matra on January 16, 2007, 10:14 PM | #

More good news from Quebec. The CBC reports:

Fifty-nine per cent of Quebecers admit to being racist to some degree, according to a Léger Marketing survey published Monday in Le Journal de Montréal.

In comparison, only 47 per cent of those outside Quebec say they are racist to some degree.

Among Quebecers, most (43 per cent) said they were only mildly racist, while 15 per cent said they were moderately racist and only one per cent responded that they were very racist.

The findings stunned Jean Dorion of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

“I do not perceive the Quebec society as being racist,” he told Le Journal de Montréal.

The findings come from three surveys in late December and early January. The first two surveys were conducted over the internet, with 2,228 Quebecers taking part, while the third survey interviewed 3,092 people across Canada.

The survey looked at Quebecers’ views of a variety of cultural groups.

It found 36 per cent of Quebecers have a bad opinion of Jewish people, while 27 per cent have a poor opinion of blacks. Fifty per cent have a bad opinion of Muslims.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 17, 2007, 12:44 AM | #

Fifty-nine per cent of Quebecers admit to being racist to some degree [...].  In comparison, only 47 per cent of those outside Quebec say they are racist to some degree.  The findings stunned Jean Dorion of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.  “I do not perceive the Quebec society as being racist,” he told Le Journal de Montréal.  (—quoted by Matra, just above)

Looks like Monsieur Dorion is another prime candidate for a one-way ticket to Soweto and for being fitted on arrival with an explosive collar that blows up if you try to leave the place (as in that Schwarzenegger movie, “Running Man”). 

In the States they call that “putting your money where your mouth is,” Monsieur.  But don’t worry, if you’re not a nauseating hypocrite you’ll absolutely love it there — y’ll think you’ve died and gone to Race-Replacement Heaven! ...

Posted by Matra on March 28, 2007, 09:39 AM | #

A quick update on Quebec.

On Monday Quebecers voted in a provincial election.

The ruling Liberal Party lost their majority government but still won more than any other single party. They needed 63 seats for a majority government but only got 48. That’s a loss of 26.

The “sovereigntist” or separatist Parti Quebecois was hammered by the electorate. They’re now the third party in Quebec - apparently their worst showing in nearly 40 years. This has led English Canadian commentators to say Quebec separatism is dead - again. The media keep saying that the Quebec public didn’t take to PQ leader André Boisclair but they never say why. Could it be because he’s a homosexual and a former cokehead? If so it must be a tremendous blow to leftist English Canadians who constantly praise Quebec for its social progressivism whilst blasting Anglophone North America for being socially reactionary.

However, from an MR viewpoint the most interesting story was the Action Democratique (ADQ). They jumped from 5 seats to 41 and are now the second biggest party in Quebec. I’ve been out of the country a lot lately and so haven’t followed Canadian politics as closely as usual, however I’m confident enough to say the rise of the ADQ was largely due to identity questions - though being Canada healthcare and daycare were also issues.

Resentment towards religious minorities - Muslims and Jews - seemed to play a big part in their sudden success. They jumped from just over 10% in the polls before Christmas to 31% on election day. I laughed when I read in the non-sectarian Belfast Telegraph that ADQ leader Mario Dumont was the “Quebec Le Pen” especially as he’s a former Liberal. But he has talked about Quebec’s Christian-based values and has referred to Quebec beginning from “European stock”. In PC Canada that’s enough to get him the “Le Peniste” label.

Also, Dumont supported the “Oui” side in the 1995 sovereignty referendum and supports more autonomy for Quebec. So I wouldn’t say separtism is dead even though he (at present) opposes a referendum on it.

As bad as Stephen Harper is he is also politically astute.  Harper should end his love affair with Quebec Liberals and form closer relations with the ADQ. For decades English Canadians have been told their parties must move leftward to ensure success in Quebec. It’s probably too much to hope that a Quebec backlash against multiculturalism will lead to a similar shift from the the national Conservatives and Liberals. Given the political lethargy of English Canada I’m afraid we will have to depend on the Quebecois nation beginning the fight against multiculturalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 28, 2007, 11:00 AM | #

That’s interesting, Matra.  Thanks.

I had never heard of the ADQ until the media carried the story of their success.  I couldn’t see anything specifically non-suicidalist about them, and kind of assumed that the same, surprising centrist shift one sees with François Bayrou in France was happening in Quebec.

I am not too sure, given the recent Canadian history of electoral earthquakes, whether the ADQ’s jump from 5 to 41 seats is as significant as it seems.  But anything that shakes up the liberal concensus even a little is a positive.

Of course, if that kind of shift was visited upon the BNP ...

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 28, 2007, 09:54 PM | #

Konrad Yakabuski from the Globe;

No Quebec election campaign has focused so viscerally on identity — on what it means to be Québécois — since the watershed 1976 vote that first brought René Lévesque and the sovereigntists to office.

Enter Mario and the debate over reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Charest, the kind of risk-averse politician who would never resort to action when inaction would do, chose to ignore the issue. Men banned from prenatal classes to avoid offending Muslim women? The windows at the YMCA frosted over to shield the eyes of pubescent Hasidic Jewish boys from the girls in step class? An isolated village council bans burkas, except on Halloween? The Premier’s silence was deafening.

[. . .]

Mr. Dumont’s position: “We can’t defend the Québécois identity with mushy words that no one understands. We can’t defend the Québécois identity with one knee on the ground.”

That was in November when the ADQ was at 12 per cent in the polls. The rest, as they say, is history. And history is what happened last night.

Mr. Dumont is no Jean-Marie Le Pen, despite being smeared as a xenophobe by his Liberal adversaries. Still, he told Quebeckers again and again during this campaign that they need not ask anyone’s permission to show what it means to be Québécois. That they could assert their identity “without being afraid of passing for racists.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2007, 10:11 PM | #

Vive Mario Dumont!!!

Posted by Count Sudoku on March 29, 2007, 12:44 AM | #

This is a partial clip of an article from one of Canada’s major newspapers lamenting some Quebecers resistance to slow genocide.

Of rednecks and the rural-urban solitudes

JOHN IBBITSON

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

If there’s one thing that yesterday’s Quebec election proved, it’s that intolerance remains a force in Canadian politics. To their everlasting disgrace, too many urban intellectuals have chosen to reinforce it. In small-town Ontario, right up until the 1960s, some citizens refused to vote for a Catholic. These Anglo-Saxon Protestants were good people, by and large: God-fearing, neighbour-loving, honest and charitable.

The full text of this article has 640 words.

Posted by Desmond jones on March 29, 2007, 01:58 AM | #

Ibbitson is gay and firmly believes that discrimination is indivisible. For him diversity is strength because in a diverse culture alliances are difficult. A potential fundamentalist Islamic and Christian alliance against gay rights is muted because they are only two, among many, special interest groups pushing their agenda.

It’s the non-Arab-semite strategy.

Posted by Matra on March 29, 2007, 01:53 PM | #

Of rednecks and the rural-urban solitudes

JOHN IBBITSON

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

I read that article. In it Ibbitson said that the most “dynamic”  areas of Canada are the places where immigrants go. His contempt for traditional Canada (presumably where he’s from) isn’t disguised. Small inward-looking towns and regions will just lose out or die altogether if they remain Anglo-Saxon or pur laine Quebecois and that’s just too bad for them.  The most interesting thing he said was that pur laine Quebec towns are just a few decades behind WASP Canada when it comes to diversification but they would have to undergo the same changes.

I’ve been telling Quebecers for a decade and a half now that if they don’t get out of Canada they will have their identity destroyed by the same forces that have demoralised and perhaps destroyed English Canada. Ibbitson clearly believes it’s Quebec’s turn.

One of the most notable characteristics of minorities in English Canada - Jews, Italians, blacks, Chinese - is that they all want Quebec to remain in Canada and generally side with Quebec against English Canada in almost all disputes. Yet in francophone Quebec itself those same minorities are anti-separatist and “pro-Canada”. Undermining the majority in each area is what it’s all about. Separation from Canada would mean a French Quebec without the constraints of the rainbow coalition federal government. In English Canada politicians would once again be electable without the need to placate minorities. That’s not a welcome scenario for multiculturalists.

Posted by Matra on March 29, 2007, 02:00 PM | #

The Ibbitson column also claimed that once upon a time English Canadians used horrible words like “bohunk” (and some word for Italians I forget) but thankfully, he says, those days are long gone. I guess he’s not familiar with one Desmond Jones!

Posted by Count Sudoku on March 29, 2007, 03:03 PM | #

Here’s some more.

Thu, March 29, 2007, The Ottawa Sun www.ottawasun.com

Intolerance is where you find it
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

If Mario Dumont wants to know what his Action democratique du Quebec party is in for from the national media, he should read John Ibbitson’s column in Tuesday’s Globe.

Typically, Ibbitson is my second read out of Ottawa after Sun Media’s Greg Weston, because he’s usually a thoughtful indicator of the “small-l” liberal view of Canada, with gusts up to “Big-L,” that dominates the thinking of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

But on Tuesday, Ibbitson seemed beside himself over the very idea that rural, francophone Quebecers would dare to elect the ADQ, or as he called them, “a party of intolerance,” to the official Opposition.

He said it proves “intolerance remains a force in Canadian politics” and that “to their everlasting disgrace, too many urban intellectuals have chosen to reinforce it.”

Headlined “Of rednecks and the rural-urban solitudes,” Ibbitson proclaimed Dumont’s breakthrough showed “Canada’s rural regions continue to harbour obnoxious attitudes” and “although (Dumont) is not half so objectionable as Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Action democratique du Quebec is tapping the same vein of intolerance in Quebec that the National Front courts in France.” Whew!

Posted by Count Sudoku on March 29, 2007, 03:08 PM | #

Ironically in Quebec the PQ sepratists now for the most part are queer loving, athiest, multiculturalists who love bringing in all sorts of french speaking non-whites (including muslims) who’ll vote 90%+ to stay in Canada.

Posted by Andy Wooster on March 29, 2007, 03:19 PM | #

One of the most notable characteristics of minorities in English Canada - Jews, Italians, blacks, Chinese