The Western Path

The Western Path

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Eight Discourses on Canadian Islam

Islamist extremism will be to the 21st century what fascism and communism were to the 20th century.” -- Thomas Quiggin et al., Submission: The Danger of Political Islam to Canada.


Globalists such as Justin Trudeau would like to fill the West with people who will help to create a vast dictatorship, where the main population consists of uneducated people accustomed to autocracy, and where the dissidents are reduced in numbers, taught to be ashamed of their own culture, and brainwashed into a belief in what is euphemistically called multiculturalism. Ultimately this so-called multiculturalism means a world of no culture at all -- a world of no values, no pride, no self-respect, no past, and no future, only obedience.

Tens of thousands of “Syrian refugees” have already been brought into Canada by Trudeau, and many more will be coming. Most do not speak English, most are not employable, and most are Muslim. And why is no Muslim country willing to take these people?

Canada already has serious problems of unemployment and poverty, and our health-care system is rated 30th by the World Health Organization, yet Trudeau spends vast amounts of money on such questionable issues as his so-called humanitarianism -- more accurately referred to as “grabbing the ethnic vote.” The total expected cost of bringing in these Syrians is said to be about a billion dollars, though the real figure may be more like 3 billion. And of course Syrians are not the only Muslims coming into Canada.

Canada has the world’s highest overall rate of immigration. It also has the world’s fastest growing Muslim population. Yet most of Canada is barren land, not suitable for further growth in population of any sort.

Attacks by Muslims on the inhabitants of Western countries, including Canada, have been frequent and violent for years, and many innocent people have been murdered. The politicians and the news-media obscure the issues by referring to the attackers as “terrorists.” They are not just “terrorists,” they are, quite specifically, Muslims.

It is also highly misleading to say there are “good” Muslims and “bad” Muslims. Muslims have spent 14 centuries trying to conquer the West, as they were ordered to do by their prophet Mohammed. Much of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, is devoted to telling the faithful, in quite violent language, that they must conquer the “infidels.” Muslims are even cruel to one another: every year, about 20,000 Muslim women are victims of “honor killings” -- murdered by their own families.

I’ve read the Koran from cover to cover twice over the years. The biggest problem is the boredom factor -- how to stay awake through it all. Well, admittedly, and thank God (Allah), it’s quite a short book. But the violence and sheer nastiness of the book is something that people need to know about.

Islam has nearly always been “spread by the sword.” The slave trade, throughout the Middle East and Europe, was very much dominated by Muslims for centuries. Muslim treatment of women has always been atrocious. Individual Muslim empires, such as that of the Ottomans, were famous for their cruelty. And so on.

Disinformation is a fascinating but malignant form of psychological warfare. It is said to have been perfected by the KGB. Disinformation, as a political tactic, is now as common as tying one’s shoes. The basic process is to take a genuine fact, and then to tweak (twist) it, just a tiny bit, not too noticeably, but enough to produce the desire effect.

One thing I’ve noticed about most Canadians, unfortunately, is that they’ll talk for hours nonstop about all the ways we should change the world -- but as soon as you ask them to do something tangible, they give you a silly grin, then get red-faced and sweaty and tell you they’re going to be rather busy sorting out their socks and underwear.

Forming a political group of an appropriate sort would be a start -- a very small start. But it would have to be a group that actually sits down at a real table and drinks real coffee, instead of just sending email back and forth. One catch is that, except in big cities, we’re all so dispersed as Canadians -- across 10 million square kilometres. A bigger catch is that Canadians can never agree on anything.

As the darkness descends, the main liveable parts of Canada will be parts of the Prairies, parts of Ontario, and parts of the Maritimes. My favourite Maritime province is Newfoundland. It’s possible to drive there for hours without seeing another human being. I still might end up there. I may not see many humans, but perhaps not many Muslims as well. It’s unfortunate I got into a disagreement by email with the owners of a B&B over the entry of Muslims into Newfoundland, so that I might not be welcome anymore in that particular town.

I was shocked when, beginning in 2015, Angela Merkel started letting over a million Muslims into Germany. I had a German woman friend there, an accountant, and she couldn’t understand why Merkel bothered me. I finally realized that my friend was quite excited about the idea of a united (borderless) Europe and all the great business it would bring in. I still have German friends, but I crossed her off my list.

But at least Germany has PEGIDA, the Identitarian Movement and Alternative für Deutschland, in spite of all the strict “anti-Nazi” laws, so I don’t know what to say about my fellow Canadians. Canada may well be the one nation that will welcome the dissolution of its historical identity, coupled with Islamization, without a fight other than grumblings by white Canadians about how bad things are getting.


It’s insulting to be living in a country where one can be charged with an infringement of multicultural rights, or religious rights, or any of the other nonsense that’s been incorporated into law since 1971 -- that’s the date when Justin’s daddy was starting to foist all that stuff onto the Canadian public. -- And almost nobody realized then what monsters Pierre was letting loose, what an insult it all was in terms of common law.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are two who got hauled in front of tribunals. So the question is always: Is anyone free from this kind of treatment? Offhand, I can’t think of a single MP who would lift a finger to help, except in the disingenuous manner displayed by a few politicians I could name.

I wonder, however, whether it might not be better to deal with all this nonsense in a more direct manner. In other words, just say no to all the Iqra Khalids, instead of trying to engage them in an ivory-tower discussion, debating legalistic minutiae that they themselves don’t take seriously.

At the same time, I rather despair that there are any democratic solutions. To fight the Liberals, there is no party worthy of the name, not even some little “survivalist” type of gang off in the hills somewhere. All we have as our defenders are the Conservatives, utterly devoid of principles or even ideas.

I often get the feeling I’m caught in a strange dream world. I recall the TV program The Prisoner, starring Patrick McGoohan, back in the 60s. He was always trying to escape from the island, but giant beach-balls always brought him back, after he’d get tired of being silly.

But there are many other parallels -- situations in which one is being slowly driven insane by one’s custodians. Alice in Wonderland. The Stasi in East Germany. Kafka, The Trial. The movie The Matrix. I mean situations where, in order to win (or just survive?) you have to tell yourself, every morning, that you yourself are sane, and it’s your tormentors who are insane. I mean, how can anyone look at pictures of Justin Trudeau’s face and honestly say that he is really the prime minister of this country, in the sense that the title was used for the last 150 years? It’s all total madness.


Bush’s war in Iraq created ISIS.”

The problem with this statement (which I hear often), is that it becomes a device for “disinformation” (vs “misinformation”) -- i.e. it is a partial truth that is then twisted so that if becomes interpreted in a form which is in fact very much an “un-truth.”

In other words, someone (gullible enough) listening to the statement, “Bush’s war in Iraq created ISIS,” then assumes that it means, “There is nothing inherently cruel in Muslim life, there is only the cruelty that dates from Bush’s war in Iraq.”

But of course this is quite false. Muslim cruelty dates back 14 centuries, right to its beginnings. Islam has nearly always been “spread by the sword.” The slave trade, throughout the Middle East and Europe, was very much dominated by Muslims for centuries. Muslim treatment of women has always been atrocious. Individual Muslim empires, such as that of the Ottomans, were famous for their cruelty. And so on. All of this was long before the intervention of Americans.

Television news reporting uses disinformation constantly: “Police brutally assaulted and killed an innocent [whatever] . . . ,” omitting the fact that the “innocent” person in question was committing an act of violence and then tried shooting his way out of the arrest.

Psychological warfare does not take place always during a state of “war” in the usual sense. Every day, there is a war on the human mind, and the aggressor is often a government acting against its own citizens.


Justin Trudeau, unlike his father, is primarily a Muslim, not a Marxist. Most political parties and politicians in the Western world are clearly favoring the mass immigration of Muslims, even though the result is the devastation of the country that is being invaded. Canada, of course, has the world’s fastest-growing Muslim population, and I hate to imagine the fate of today’s children if Shirley Temple (sorry, Iqra Khalid) and her friends are not stopped. Neither of our two major parties is willing to say a word, since any form of opposition would be suicide -- political or otherwise.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a (truly regrettable) part of our Western legacy, but as an ideology it is fading almost everywhere. As for the form known as cultural Marxism, although I have studied it myself, I’m willing to consider what the deniers often say, that it’s such an obscure entity that demonstrating its very existence is somewhat problematic, depending largely on how one shuffles the evidence -- there’s too much cherry-picking of a few rather fading documents.

Islam has been waiting 1,400 years for this final capitulation.


To find who is really “oppressing white people,” we don’t need to look at cultural Marxism, or the One World Order. We need to look in the mirror. White people have degenerated, and they have no one to blame but themselves. They are physically, emotionally, and morally inferior to their ancestors. They excel only in such things as obesity, alcoholism, and divorce. White men today would be unable to defend themselves or their families in any serious confict. Everything that white people have is therefore ripe for the picking.


One day in Oman I received phone call asking me to come downstairs and talk to a young Dutch woman named Alison, who had arrived in the country a few days before. She had come to Oman to meet her “boyfriend,” an Omani soldier. She had some rather vague questions about “safety.” She also had some reservations about this man she was about to meet. I tried to explain the need for caution, but I didn’t want to be guilty of fear-mongering. I tried to answer her questions without either terrifying her, so that she would just shut out whatever I said, or toning down the facts so much that she learned nothing, remaining as naive as her parents raised her to be.

The next day, she was taken out to a wadi (dry riverbed) by her “boyfriend,” his brother, and a third man. They spent several hours gang-raping her in every possible way. I spent most of the following day trying in my clumsy fashion to counsel her. Whenever I wanted to break off the conversation, which merely went around in circles, she whispered that she didn’t want to be left alone. I tried to explain to her, without drifting into academic nonsense, that this was a patriarchal culture, essentially a “warrior” culture, still a world of warfare among bands and villages. This was a culture that had stopped evolving many centuries ago, and its view of women as cattle or chattel was fixed.

I also tried to explain to Alison that Oman was a culture devoid of love in the Western sense. One of the strands of Christianity was the “invention” of the concept of love, as in “faith, hope, and charity,” with “charity” a translation of caritas, which in turn is a Latin translation of the Greek term agape (versus eros).

In Oman it’s not easy to deal with the police, but I managed to communicate with them through intermediaries. Over the next few days, I made some enquiries, but I discovered that the police weren’t interested. Their basic message was that she wasn’t a Muslim, she hadn’t had her head covered, and she hadn’t been with a male relative. End of story.

I realized later that the police would certainly have done nothing, and there had been no point even in asking them. A “devil-worshiper” foreign woman can never expect much help. Western women in taxis were sometimes groped by the drivers, but whenever I had tried to warn them they generally thought I was exaggerating.


Democracy will not save the West. Struggling to win battles within mainstream political parties is a waste of breath. Whatever we may believe, they aren’t our friends, and they don’t want us playing golf with them.

The alternative to playing the democracy game, therefore, is separatism. This has a long history, and there is plenty to study. If we don’t mind observing the enemy, we can read Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare, which is more suited to a largely peasant agricultural society but does have some gems of wisdom regarding such matters as how a David can defeat a Goliath. We should also consider the fact that everything Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong did involved separating from the established parties, whether or not we agree with their morality or their goals. We can also consider the separatist movement in Quebec. Or we can look at the history of the Doukhobors in western Canada.

Revolution,” legal or otherwise, although a great fantasy, cannot readily be initiated in the modern world, at least not without a few intermediate steps. It’s like a flea trying to have sex with an elephant. The Suidlanders’ idea (in South Africa) is much better. Their plan, in a sense, is to “make” their own country -- to carve out a part of South Africa and make it an independent (or basically independent) country. It’s an excellent idea, and they’ve already made progress. But their approach is not at all like that of California rich kids, trying to impress one another with cool jargon about “virtue signalling” and other pathetic verbal crap. The Suidlanders’ approach is “survival.” Learn how to stay alive. Learn how to defend yourself. Learn how to communicate. Learn how to bring friends and families together.


The bad guys will try to get you through Google. When your computer starts playing funny tricks, it won’t be quite as funny as you think. Remember that the main function of “social media” is to get you to waste your energy in blowing off hot air. Remember that computers were invented by the Devil. But take courage: the use of electricity worldwide rises faster than the production of energy, which means there will be massive blackouts in the years to come.

If you were never a member of the Scouts, or you’ve scrubbed that portion of your brain for what you thought were more practical uses, you probably don’t know how to tie a few basic knots, or how to light a campfire with one match on a rainy day. Learn.

The Kingston Manifesto

The corrosion of Western civilization can be seen in a group of integrated political events, as exemplified in my own country, Canada: Islam, multiculturalism, and globalism (“open borders,” the dissolution of nations), my concerns especially since the period of 2008 to 2011, when I was in the Middle East and saw these things from a perspective not possible for the average Canadian.

Most Westerners live in a world of illusion. They might spend their time “catching the news” on a TV set or a computer, but they are unaware that the main news-media are owned by gigantic corporations, which have a hidden globalist agenda. Most people do not often read books, and so they have little access to genuine information. If you push them far enough, they will only say, “Well, I believe. . . .”

What do Canadians think they are learning by having their eyes glued to a TV set? They believe that since Canada has 10 million km2 of land, it can keep bringing in more immigrants for eternity, even though most of the land is uninhabitable, and that with sufficient goodwill one can have infinite growth on a finite planet.

They believe that people of European descent, who have composed more than 80 percent of Canada until recent times, are guilty of centuries of rather uncertain crimes, perhaps including the alphabet, education, democracy, modern medicine, and science. They believe the world should be controlled by a benevolent dictatorship, with all history, nationality, parenthood, and even gender (!) scrubbed out of people’s brains.

The most important question is not some vague issue of “ethnicity” but rather that of the political motive for these developments. “Multiculturalism” really means no culture at all, no values, no past, no goals, no hopes, no future. The ultimate message is that Earth should become a densely crowded but profitable Slave Planet, and that resistance is futile.

Globalism and Western Decline

Around 4000 B.C. there arose a people, probably living north of the Black Sea, to whom we now refer as the early Indo-Europeans. They were the first people to use iron (versus bronze) weapons, and also the first to use horse-drawn chariots – perhaps indeed the first to domesticate horses for any purpose. After about 1000 B.C. there arose a division between the eastern (Persian) and western Indo-Europeans (Greeks), or, in other words, between the Asians and the Europeans. The Indo-Europeans in Persia were a minority in a sea of Asians and as a result ended up assimilating Asian customs. But the Indo-Europeans in Greece were a majority and thus managed to impose their aristocratic libertarian culture, the idea that the leader cannot be a despot but is first among aristocratic equals. This the world of the Iliad. Herodotus indicates the split in his frequent distinctions between the Persians and the Greeks. He claims that the Persian world was characterized by despotism, while the Westerners, the Greeks, were a people of relative freedom, aristocratic equality, and eventually democracy for all free men, including property-owning farmers.

The people who have that Western legacy, however, are now disappearing from much of Europe and North America. Instead, we have “multiculturalism,” which really means the dismantling of “culture,” the decline of the West. In our schools, young people are now taught to be ashamed of their legacy, and any courses in the social sciences are perverted to show the “guilt” of those who spent thousands of years developing Western civilization. How did these regrettable changes come about?

To answer this question, one must first note that in most Western countries there is no longer a real democracy, but rather a barely disguised one-party system. The elite of the supposed left and right spend their time together – the same restaurants, the same marriages, the same golf courses. For a change of pace they switch to journalism – and so much for freedom of the press. During an election, it would be possible to make a list of all the slogans, mix up those items, and then ask someone to match the slogans with the parties. But it would turn out that the matching could not be done.
Actually there is only one slogan: “Bodies are good for business.” So the population must be kept expanding forever. The price we pay for overpopulation and over-immigration, however, is high unemployment, environmental degradation, inadequate housing, traffic congestion, overloaded social services, high crime-rates, losses of water and farmland, and declining natural resources of all kinds. Overcrowding also leads to mental illness: in an urban environment, our nerves are often like wires that have been tightened to a point where their molecules will no longer hold.

The stage for decline was set by the lowering of intellectual capacity. Most people, unfortunately, don’t react to much of anything anymore. One of the main reasons for this decline is that people don’t really become adults. We have created a world of cultural neoteny – prolonged childish behavior, a milieu of “dumbing down” that stretches from birth to death. “Neoteny” is a biological term referring to remaining juvenile for a long period after birth. Obviously humans do this anyway – it takes years for an infant to turn into an adult. But a great deal of modern political sloganeering has the effect, consciously or otherwise, of keeping people silly and childish for life. Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House was an early look into that, at least in terms of women. Predictions of cultural neoteny can also be seen in Huxley’s Brave New World and in a somewhat grimmer form in Orwell’s 1984. This neoteny is pervasive, but it can be seen in such forms as the decline in literacy and the decline in education.

It’s curious to note, however, that there is a definite substratum of the public that disagrees with official policies. On-line news articles that allow comments from viewers get deluged with people expressing heretical views. Then the comments are shut off, and it’s back to Business as Usual – literally. These dissident members of the general public have rarely been brought together, and each person is largely unaware that there are many others holding the same views. The politically orthodox may be enforcing the rules for most daily conversation, but the disquiet never entirely disappears.
If civilization is defined by the presence of writing, then the decline of Western civilization might be defined by the disappearance of interest in serious texts – from the Iliad onward. People don’t read books as much as they used to. No one seems to feel guilty for the fact that instead of reading a book called X they have merely watched a movie called X, based on the book. Yes, it’s true that a movie sometimes has advantages over print, but in general to make a movie out of a book one has to reduce it to action and dialogue, and all the exposition and analysis has to be removed. The time frame of a movie also means that a great deal of detail will be cut out. Not much meaningful discussion can take place when the person to whom one is speaking is convinced that books and movies are simply different “media” providing the same educational service.

A similar decline can be found in formal education. There was a time when the purpose of a university education was to allow young people to explore the outer regions of space and time. Now it’s just training in how to use a cash register. The lowest clerk in the huge building labeled “administration” has a more pleasant job, and much greater job security, than the average instructor. It’s money that keeps the university churning, apparently, not some vague and pretentious search for wisdom. Teachers are day-laborers, easily replaced, and it takes no great skill to deal with the reading materials supplied by the corporations for their future slaves.

Education” of the new sort is more form than substance: teachers are so afraid of being accused of heresy that the students are given little real information. The average young person in the modern world spends about twenty thousand hours doing school work, yet nearly all of that is a waste of time, because a job at the end of that road does not require the ability to think in any Platonic or Aristotelian sense. Modern education involves little real learning, and far more time is spent on mere indoctrination.

Any form of “nationalism,” any statement of pride in one’s country, was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed. Western culture in general was denigrated, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that “all cultures are equal.”

By propagating an “underdog” mentality among Westerners, totalitarians have encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. There is now a strong sense of “wrong,” but especially when these victims look at themselves. They hate their own culture and their own heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame, they suffer from self-loathing. They feel a need for self-abasement. They have low self-confidence, low self-assurance, low self-esteem.

Confirmed underdogs have self-destructive attitudes about sexuality, marriage, and the family. To them, a stable marriage, heterosexual and monogamous, is anathema. What better way to prevent the growth of what used to be called a “real man” than to suggest to a young boy that, deep down, he might not be a boy but a girl? (The same in reverse would apply to girls.) And so we create (or imagine) multiple “genders,” “bi-” this and “poly-” that, psychologically disturbed mutations who have no chance of standing up against the totalitarian state. (How odd that no other species of mammal has more than two genders!)

But above all, to be accepted in modern society one must now proclaim that Western culture is guilty of some nameless crime, making it necessary to give preferential treatment to any and all other cultures. Of course, that is a belief with which those “other cultures” are always happy to agree. And once that “guilt” has become established as “fact,” every piece of writing that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs.

All “respectable” political or religious groups shuffling for power now try to portray themselves as holier, more pious, than the others, but really they all have the same goal: to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves.

One Ring to Bind Them All

Muslims repeatedly kill and wound large numbers of people. Basically quite simple. But then I find a large number of questions floating around. For one thing, the politicians and the mainstream news-media are all saying that such attacks are perpetrated by “terrorists,” not specifically by “Muslims.” So this raises the large issue of disinformation (versus misinformation). The KGB, during the Cold War, were quite instrumental in developing this. One of the main tricks is not to tell a lie exactly, because it’s possible to get caught, but simply to tweak the facts a tiny bit, even if the final effect is not so tiny. Now politicians do it all the time. By saying “terrorists” rather than “Muslims,” the average television-viewer can wipe the sweat from his forehead and say, “Oh, thank God. Terrorists. I was afraid it was Muslims.” Then he can go to bed, sleep like a baby, and snore all night long.

Somebody once asked me: Why would people deliberately blow themselves up? To a modern Westerner this seems incomprehensible. The answer is that these people think they’ll go straight to heaven if they perform these acts of martyrdom. And how could people believe such a thing? Because they have such faith in their God. Islam was created fourteen centuries ago, and it has hardly changed since then. In order to understand Islam one can study the history of Europe at that same time, the early Middle Ages. Consider the fact that even the Christian monks spent centuries burning other monks at the stake over minor issues of theological doctrine. And for Muslims nowadays, violence on that level is all part of the grand tradition.

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington notes that “wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peacefully with their neighbors.” A few decades ago, Charles de Gaulle had the bright idea of importing Muslims from his defunct North African empire, in order to form a union of Europeans and Muslims (called Eurabia by Bat Ye’or) that might even compete with the U.S. as a world power. And now France, among many other countries, is paying the price, but the politicians deny all responsibility.

For Westerners, part of the disturbing news these days is that Muslim attacks are often right in the heart of Europe. So the unspoken fear is that jihad (religious warfare) is moving even further west. What will happen next in Germany, for example?

Then there’s the great stumbling block of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. After all that we know of the Muslim assault on the West, why would she have allowed a vast crowd of Muslim invaders from three different continents – sorry, “Syrian refugees” – to swarm into Germany and destroy whatever was left of German self-esteem?

The goal is always the same: to wipe out all the independence-loving particular countries that are now in place. That is why the news media always hammer out the message that one must never use the words “white,” “race,” “ethnic,” or “nationalist” in any positive sense. When those “rebels” (us) have been crushed, it will be possible for the One Worlders to set up their massive government that will have its fingers on all the buttons.

The European Union is not much different from the Soviet Union, and no better. The goal is to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves. All such ideologies have always been quite opposed to democracy. The biggest step, though, is to crush any sense of pride in one’s own country, and to do that the opposite to nationalism must be instituted: “multiculturalism.” And what better way to make a country “multicultural” than to bring in a few million families from places where people don’t even believe in birth control? If a few suicide bombers get a little out of hand, then – well, it’s a small price to pay. And, yes, it’s true that too many massacres could put a dent in the One Worlders’ plans. Never mind. As Tolkien said: “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, / One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. . . .”

Canada Is Not Vacant Land

It is a common misconception that Canada has vast amounts of land that could support large numbers of immigrants. Much of this belief is due to a failure to understand Canada’s unique but rather daunting geography. About half of the country is bare (or, at best, spruce-covered), uninhabitable rock, namely the famous Canadian Shield. But bare rock is never “underpopulated.”

It is the border strip, 150 km wide, which is demographically the most significant part of the country: 80 percent of the population lives in this area. In contrast, Canada’s largely uninhabited 5 million km2 of bare rock, the enormous area north of that border strip, has winters of unearthly cold stretching out over the better part of the year, with snow reaching to the rooftops, and the remainder of the year is characterized by dense clouds of mosquitoes and blackflies. The general impression is that Canada is an “empty” land, just waiting to get filled up. In reality, at 36 million the population is now nearly three times greater than in 1950.

Because only a certain amount of the country is livable, Canada is already well populated. There is simply no need to continue our mad rush to fill the country. Thanks to dishonest politicians over the years, Canada is tied only with Australia in having the highest immigration rate of all major industrialized countries. Canada also has many economic problems and is unable to provide adequate employment or other support for the people who already live here. A large increase in population is not a solution. In fact, in a world that now has a total population of well over 7 billion, an increase in population is never a solution to anything. Yet, unlike many other countries, Canada has no political party that will take a firm stand against excessive immigration.

Canadian multiculturalism is a policy announced to Parliament by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on October 8, 1971, leading in 1988 to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The policy, is harmful partly because it fails to include strategies for integration, such as a requirement of proficiency in an official language before citizenship is granted. Multiculturalism as we see it today – measured in terms of the quantity of bodies – simply results in enclaves, ghettos, gang warfare. Each culture fights every other one. About 85 percent of recent immigrants have neither English nor French as their first language.

Multiculturalism also leads to cultural relativism. Canadians of European extraction are now taught to believe that there is no such thing as barbarism, only “cultural differences.” We forget that there was actually a point to the long centuries of struggle in the West that fostered democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. Yet we bow to medieval mentality on the assumption that we are otherwise “racists.”

Immigrants displace Canadian citizens in the job market, even though unemployment these days is already very high. They also add greatly to the costs of “free” medicine, education, legal advice, and all the other perquisites of the welfare state. In part this is because the immigrants of modern times often lack both language and education.

Pierre Trudeau’s invention is destroying the country, and to speak against it is regarded as sheer heresy. The Chinese are by far the biggest immigrant group, and Vancouver is now an Asian city. But it is not only numbers of people that matter, because there are other ways of changing the country. Money from Saudi Arabia has insidious effects, and Muslim obsessions with sharia (Muslim law) corrode basic Canadian values. According to the highly respected journalist Robert Fisk (“The Crimewave That Shames the World”), about twenty thousand Muslim women every year are the victims of “honor killings” by their own families, but when Canadians hear such accounts they fail to believe them: if such a story did not appear on last night’s television it cannot be true. Yet I spent three years living in the Middle East, and I know that much of the world is far uglier than is imagined by most Westerners.

As an English teacher back in Canada, I would sometimes have to advise immigrant students against infractions of Canadian laws, including those regarding assault, but my students’ rationale for any moral or legal infractions was always the phrase “in my culture” (or “in my country”). Who, specifically, is teaching newcomers such expressions? Politicians are quite aware that “culture” is not a valid catch-all term, but they don’t seem to care. After all, a higher rate of immigration means more votes, and more customers, and more sweatshops.

Until the creation of multiculturalism, freedom of speech and the press was an age-old right. Now, however, it is a crime to say anything that offends any group of people, because one is said to be attacking “human rights.” A charge of this sort is a circular argument: what is offensive is defined in terms of the claim of the other party to feel offended. It’s like a charge of witchcraft: whatever you say, your statement can be turned around to “prove” you are guilty. The similarity between the twisted logic of Trudeauism and that of Stalinism (not to mention the Patriot Act and subsequent American legislation) is curious, but Orwell described such “thought crimes” long ago in 1984.

It’s easy to understand why the inhabitants of the less-pleasant parts of the world have their eyes on Canada. The most significant result of Communist policy in China was famine, and the worst famine in all of world history was that of Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” 1958-61, when about 30 million people died. Now hunger is again looming in that country. China’s arable land is in decline, and about 600 km2 of land in China turns to desert each year. China has once more outgrown its food supply: the ratio of people to arable land in China is more than twice that of the world average, which is already too high to prevent hunger.

China is the world’s leader in the mining or processing of quite a number of natural resources: aluminum, coal, gold, iron, magnesium, phosphate, zinc, and rare-earth minerals, for example. Yet basic energy reserves are in short supply. Although China has about 20 percent of the world’s population, it produces only about 5 percent of the world’s oil, it uses up coal so quickly that its reserves will not last beyond 2030, and the country’s pollution problems are terrible. And China’s “booming economy” is based on devalued currency, counterfeiting, and what is virtually slave labor.

The “fossil” (deep) aquifer of the North China Plain is being depleted, although fossil aquifers cannot be renewed. Yet this aquifer maintains half of China’s wheat production and a third of its corn. As a result of the depletion of water, annual grain production has been in decline since 1998.

China now imports most of its soybeans, and conversely most of the world’s soybean exports go to China. But China may soon need to import most of its grain as well. How will that amount compare with their soybean imports? No one knows for sure, but if China were to import only 20 percent of its grain it would be about the same amount that the U.S. now exports to all countries.

Immigrants from Muslim countries are another large group entering Canada, and according to the Pew Research Center the Muslim population of Canada is expected to rise much faster than the general population. Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of “education,” and many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries. Mosques are springing up everywhere in the West, yet in Saudi Arabia the building of a Christian church incurs an automatic death sentence. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” versus “radical Islam”: Islam comes in only one form, the one that was invented in the seventh century.

The misunderstanding of the vast difference between Muslims and Christians might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts. In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed: for Muslims, therefore, there is no possibility of a “dialog” among various religions. The second and more important reason why it may not be entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing “at the point of a sword,” but that has always been more true of Islam. The term jihad (“religious warfare”) is not a metaphor.

The general public in Canada has become accustomed to submission and therefore remains mute. Unlike other people, most Canadians are never satisfied until they are feeling guilty about something. There is a constant undertone of “moral inferiority” being applied in Canada to people of a Western heritage. One must never mention Christmas, although one must portray a false joy toward the festivities of any other culture. One must constantly mumble and fumble in an attempt to find correct terms for various ethnic groups. Even the terms “B.C.” and “A.D.” must be rewritten as “BCE” and “CE.” All of this is absolute nonsense. To be convinced of one’s own inferiority is nothing more than to accept that some other person is superior – which is exactly what manipulative politicians are planning. It is time to wake up. Those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others.