Topic: “Media’s Willful Blindness about Islam”
Any red lines issued will have to be enforced. Aggressors such as Russia, China, Iran and the Islamic State will have to be warned to cease and desist or face pushback from far stronger U.S.-led coalitions. Just as Reagan’s return to normal U.S. foreign policy was considered radical after the Carter years, so too the next administration will be smeared as dangerously provocative after Obama’s recession from the world stage.
Events in Syria have shown that the notion that air power can somehow stop ISIS’s advance is a fantasy. More importantly, they have also illustrated that Washington’s policy of cooperation with Iran in a possible “grand bargain” to stabilize the region, while failing to take a firmer stance against the civilian-slaughtering Assad regime, is equally fruitless.
As the regime of Bashar Assad continues steadily to lose ground in Syria; and as Assad’s allies, Iran and Hezbollah, deploy in growing numbers to Syrian battlegrounds to try to stop the Assad regime’s collapse, the future of this war-torn, chaotic land looks set to be dominated by radical Sunni and Shi’ite forces.
A 22-year-old Mississauga man has been charged in connection with alleged hate crimes committed at St. Catherine of Siena Church and its neighbouring elementary school over the past two months.
Clearly the Catholic Church needs to ramp up the “dialogue” in Mississauga. That will fix this problem right up. Yes, that “dialogue” will make young Muslims like Iqbal Hessan forget all about the hadith in which Muhammad is depicted as saying, “Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it” (Sahih Muslim 969).
The Spring Issue 2015 of the Concordia University Magazine has an article, Immigration Nation, about professors at this institution dedicated to the socialization of Eurocanadians into accepting mass immigration and ensuring there is no dissent over its “benefits”. There is nothing unusual about this article; in all university flyers, magazines, and administrative statements, diversity is promoted ad nauseam. The subjects of the other articles in this issue, besides touting Concordia as the most vibrant university for students, are about LGBTQ, “importance of gay-straight alliances”, “countering discrimination”, “homophobic acts”.
In 1988, multiculturalism in Canada officially became government policy. This was the year the policy became entrenched in our constitution, thereby completing a seventeen yearlong transition from political ideology to legislated government policy.
Within Canadian society, this is fairly common knowledge. What may be less well known is that on an international scale, constitutionally-based multiculturalism is a rarity. In fact, only two nations in the world have such a policy—Canada and Australia. While many countries promote the concept of diversity, a mere one percent of the world’s nations are officially multicultural.
At present, Canada has the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world. In conjunction with legislated multiculturalism, the impact upon our nation has been profound— so profound, it is arguable the long-term result will be a complete reinvention of Canadian society.
For decades, Canadians have been informed by government that multiculturalism is equitable, and beneficial to all. Is this really the case? The answer— one which may surprise a great number of Canadians—is absolutely not.
The reason for this cannot be found simply by reading the statute’s content— though it does contain explicit wording which validates its negative impact— but rather, in the degree to which external circumstances surrounding the policy have changed.
One of the most relevant issues is the manner in which our society has defined the word “minority”—as in one of Canada’s minority communities. In 1988, the definition was relatively straight forward. The reasons for this are simple enough: in terms of overall population, these communities were clearly in the minority.
In this regard, however, things have obviously changed. Decades of large-scale immigration, particularly from Asia and the Middle East, have rendered the traditional meaning of the term irrelevant. Dozens of constituencies in Canada are majority non-white—for example Richmond, B.C. and Brampton, Ontario.
What is the difference between a country like the U.S., who promote “diversity”, and a country such as Canada, which has the official policy? The answer is money—as in monetary funding— as in the fact that multicultural policy mandates that our tax payer dollars—hundreds of millions of them— be given to ethnic and multicultural organizations to promote their specific culture and identity.
Is this necessarily unfair, or harmful? No— unless a situation were to develop whereby the so-called minority becomes the dominant population within the host community. In 2014, this was the case in twenty-six out of Canada’s 308 political ridings. A number of additional ridings will soon find themselves in a similar situation.
Let us consider the ramifications of this new reality. Canadians of European descent are now minorities within these twenty-six ridings— and yet hundreds of millions of dollars are still being funnelled to multicultural organizations to promote their cultural agendas—despite the fact they are no longer minorities at all. On the flip side, the freshly-minted Caucasian minorities receive nothing. Even more disconcerting is the fact that when citizens point out the inequality of the present system, the pro-multicultural forces play what is known as the “race card.”
What is this curious phrase all about? In basic terms, playing the race card occurs when multicultural leaders accuse those who question the funding, or any other aspect of multicultural or immigration policy, of behaving in a racist manner. Lacking a sound, logical rebuttal, they deliver the only tool they have in their arsenal- the race card. Thus far, it has proven to protect their interests successfully. The positive news is, however, the general public are beginning to understand the insidious world of what can most appropriately be called “Multicult” Canada.
To comprehend the full scope of the Multicult’s influence upon our society, we must first realize that the agenda is not served up on a platter for all to understand. It is very much a hidden operation— and not intended for general public understanding. For instance, is the public aware of multiculturalism’s influence within our institutions of higher learning? They certainly should be. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being provided to our largest universities for the purpose of promoting non-democratic political ideology to Canadian-born students. That is, the few of them still walking the halls of University of Toronto, McGill, or University of British Columbia. UBC’s own data tells us the percentage of Canadian-born students on campus is eroding at a rapid pace, largely due to the fact that foreign students pay double, and even triple, the tuition fees of Canadian students.
As with our multicultural organizations, communism on campus is largely paid for by Canadian tax payers. Less commonly understood is the fact that a significant portion of the funding comes directly from China’s Ministry of Education. Bottom line? Canadian tax payers, along with the government of China, have paid for the establishment of “Asian Studies” departments throughout our university system. The most conspicuous example is our half-dozen branches of China’s Confucius Institute. There used to be more, however due to accusations that the organization is little more than a propaganda arm of China’s government, a number of universities have formally severed ties with the organization.
Throughout our business community, multiculturalism, or “diversity” as the banking industry prefers to call it, is trumpeted within the board rooms of all major Canadian corporations. They can dress it up with a fancy word, but they cannot take away the fact that in reality, diversity means hiring a person based on their ethnicity, rather than their job qualifications. Even under these circumstances, pro-Multicult leaders and academics continue to bash white Canadians for having the nerve to be better qualified for jobs, or for having a full command of one of our official languages.
Clearly, the situation is serious business. The fact of the matter is that multicultural policy in Canada has led to a situation whereby the Canadian public are funding the demise of their own culture. Over half a billion dollars has been taken from tax payers and delivered to a relatively small collection of multicultural organizations, ostensibly for purposes of ethnic “cultural promotion.” At least, promoting their ethnicity is what they used to do. Today, the use of the money goes well beyond promotion, and is presently being utilized to undermine traditional Canadian identity, culture and religion, as well as our official languages.
It all sounds rather ominous. However, upon close inspection of the activities of organizations such as Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, SUCCESS Immigrant Services, Mosaic, and Canada-China Business Council— often in tandem with our real estate or banking industries— a tangible pattern of cultural erosion can be detected.
All the while, Canadians go about their daily business, the majority of whom are simply unaware of the multicultural power game playing out within their nation. There have been, however, some promising signs of change. Several articles which recently appeared in mainstream news publications have helped expose the nation of China’s influence upon Canada’s real estate market. In Vancouver, a petition to regulate foreign real estate investment has gathered over 24,000 signatures. Most recently, a public rally took place to protest a growing lack of home affordability. Even Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, an absolute champion of all-things-China, issued a public statement on the need for “something to be done” to help with home affordability for lower and middle income residents.
In short, Canadians are beginning to push back against enforced multiculturalism and immigration— both of which were implemented without public input, or approval. Frankly, it is about time. The fact is, if the status quo is maintained for much longer, traditional Canadian culture, heritage and identity will become fully marginalized, and eventually eliminated. Multiculturalism in Canada— what was once a policy is today an industry, and if permitted, this industry will eradicate the very meaning of what it means to be Canadian.
Many people are confused by jihad. If Islam is a religion of peace, why is there a persistent problem of radicalism in the Muslim world? If Islam is the problem, why are there so many peaceful Muslims? In this video, David Wood explains that jihad isn’t the product of a single factor, but of three factors: belief, knowledge, and obedience. These three factors come together in what we’ll call “The Jihad Triangle.”
“I hate it when open borders advocates and activists get away with this inflammatory language, that somehow those of us who believe in the rule of law wanna throw every last illegal alien into some cattle car. This is the most generous country in the world, sir. We issue one million green cards every single year; seventy thousand permits to people who apply for asylum; 500,000 student visa foreign student visas; 700,000 work permits for both skilled and unskilled labor.
This is the most generous country in the world and I’m sick and tired of hearing Obama and all of his acolytes, including you, raise this specter that somehow we’ve built all of these wire fences and nobody is getting in and what a terrible humanitarian tragedy it is.