VIDEO: Only a black person can tell this truth

"Some folks is black; some folks is jes' niggers." A black person I know told me that a long time ago. She was talking about the difference between, say, the black men portrayed by Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? or Bill Cosby playing Cliff Huxtable, and the black men you see in rap videos, and often later in the dock.

There's always some truth behind stereotypes. Unfortunately, you can't speak the truth about the differences between the two stereotypes any more, let alone use the ninth word of this post. Unless, that is, you're a person of colour, preferably of the female persuasion. Here's a black lady who isn't afraid to say the quiet part out loud. 

Don't be calling her comment racist. This isn't about racial differences. It's about the difference between those who have enough culture and class to act like civilized human beings, and those who don't. Period.

Canadian voters: Don't say you weren't warned!

Dear Canadian friends, please don't be snowed [Geddit? Ed.] by all the paid advertising -- 

and propagands from the lickspittle media, who are also bought and paid for -- about the new Dear Leader of the Liberal Party and unelected Prime Minister of Canada. 

His apologists are trying to paint him as a soft, sensible, middle-of-the-road statesman, an ultra-nice Canuck kid with no agenda other than saving the Great No-longer-white North from the evil Orange Man. Walt calls BS on all that!

The truth about Mr Carnage's plans to finish the job started by the Trudeaus (père et fils) and make Canada a part of the Davos gang's New World Order are to be found in his own words in his book Values.

Values reads like a sermon from a high priest of globalism... which, come to think of it, it is. It's "polished, preachy, and packed with ideas that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about Canada’s economy, especially Western energy producers.

"Writing as the former Bank of Canada governor and a darling of the Liberal elite, Carney pitches a vision of 'sustainable finance', net-zero absolutism, and heavy-handed regulation. To the National Citizens Coalition, it's clear: this isn't a roadmap to prosperity, it's a wrecking ball aimed at the heart of Canada’s resource sector and the West's economic lifeline."

Those quotes (and the graphic) are taken from "Carney's 'values' the wrong ones at the wrong time", posted on Blazing Cat Fur today. Opening the link will take  you to the original article by the National Citizens Council's Alexander Brown, which appeared in the Western Standard yesterday. Thanks to all concerned.

DEAR READERS, please pass this on! Click on the headline to make this post appear in a new tab. Then copy the URL and send it to all the Canadians you know. The rule of the loony Liberal globalists has to stop!

Canada's "new" WEF-backed Prime Minister

Walt was in Canada over the weekend for the coronation of Mark Canada as successor to Blackie McBlackface as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and therefore as Prime Minister of Canada. 

That's the way the parliamentary system works. If you lead the government party, you're the Prime Minister, regardless of the fact that you've never been elected to anything. A safe seat in the House of Commons can be opened up for you later. Worked (twice!) for William Lyon Mackenzie King, who "loved his mother like anything / kept her tied up with a piece of string" (very old skipping rhyme).

The Canadian Broadcorping Castration, the state-owned broadcaster, wasted nearly three hours of listeners' (Sid & Doris Bonkers, of Dildo NL) time with a series of talking heads trying unsuccessfully to create an air of suspense, followed by a 45-minute history of Canada recited by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was there for most of it. 

Then the final result of the leadership "contest" was announced. Mr Carney garnered a mere 85% of the votes cast by the party faithful. He promised to do better next time, his goal being to get 99%, as they do in socialist democracies. It wasn't a surprise. Everyone knew that the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England (successively) had the puck nailed to his stick by his friends in the global elite.

Mr Carney then attempted to deliver a "fighting speech", without revealing when the fight would start. His oration, part of which was delivered in halting French, consisted of platitudes and hockey metaphors -- "Elbows up!" -- but was devoid of any substance, such as a plan to get Canada out of the trade war.

There was no indication that Mr Carney intends to do anything other than stay the course with the globalist-environmentalist agenda outlined in his (?) book, Value(s) [sic], published in 2021, which has been praised by liberal, one-world eco-wienies across Canada and the European Disunion. One of them is seen here driving Mr Carney (in an EV, no doubt) to a meeting of the rulers of the New World Order.

One contrarian is terrified, not thrilled, by Mr Carney's agenda for Canada. That would be Dr Jordan Peterson, who, the day before the coronation, wrote "Mark Carney doesn't value a prosperous Canada", National Post, 8/3/25. Subtitle: "This would-be planetary saviour has no respect for free markets." It's a long article, worth reading in its entirety, but these excerpts will give you the gist of it. Dr Peterson's words are in purple, and those of Mr Carney (quotes from his book) are in bright Democrat blue. Any emphasis is Walt's.

It is most definitely the case — and this is a fundamental conservative or even classic liberal conviction — that free societies and markets operate within a broader framework of values. In the West, for better or worse (and certainly for comparative better) that framework is Judeo-Christian, religious and cultural in its essence — a framework that has established the principles of "self-evidence" referred to so famously by the authors and signatories of the American Declaration of Independence.

These include the propositions that all people have intrinsic worth, made as they are in the image of God; that each person owes all others the due that such worth necessitates, including the responsibility to trade in goods, ideas, cooperation and competition, honestly and fairly, and with an eye to mutual success; and that all of us, our leaders included (and perhaps first and foremost) must pay obeisance to what is truly transcendent and divine.

This is the framework that Carney purports to replace, even though it is not clear that he understands this, or that he has developed any understanding whatsoever of the culture he wants to reshape from first principles.

What are his suggestions, regarding such replacement? This is where the rubber hits the road or, more accurately, where the train flies off the track ... Carney betrays his alliance with the worst particularized ideas of the last twenty or thirty years, and the even worse generally radical intellectual presumptions of the last century.

“Our goal has been to put in place the information, tools and markets so that every financial decision takes climate change into account — to create a financial system in which a company’s contributions to climate change and climate solution are fundamental determinants of its value. So that value reflects values. 

"At COP26 in Glasgow, we delivered twenty-four major reforms to transform the information, tools and markets at the heart of finance. These include climate stress testing, net-zero transition plans and clear, comparable and decision-useful climate disclosure so that financial markets can manage risks and seize opportunities in the climate transition."

The consortium has stated that there "must be an average 28 per cent reduction in the number of flights across C40 cities." How might that be enforced? No more flights for the ordinary person (an overstatement: the C40 nature-worshippers will allow the peasants one short-haul flight every three years). They also mention "reducing and eventually nearly eliminating the need for car ownership." 

Ever wonder where the electricity for your soon-to-be mandatory electric car will come from, given the woeful inadequacy in that regard of the current grid, and the impossibility of rectifying that, before gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles are banned? No matter! There is no reason to presume, as you have so far, that you are entitled to a vehicle of your very own. Problem solved! 

And even if you are one of the fortunate few with a car — serious limitations will be imposed on the number of miles your peasant hide is allowed to travel, with equally serious restraints on velocity and road access.

Make no mistake about it, people. Those who promise, like Carney, to save the planet, while waving evidence of its forthcoming demise over your heads like the sword of Damocles, will use the purported seriousness of the crisis to rule over every conceivable aspect of your life — for the moral reasons of “value” that cannot be properly computed, in Carney’s estimation, by the flawed free market system. 

 A radical decrease in the availability of meat and dairy — preferably a complete turn to a plant and even perhaps insect-based diet, as mused by the WEF. Three new articles of clothing a year, maximum.

There is virtually no bad idea recently promoted by the top-down globalists (as alluded to earlier) that Carney has not championed — worse; not merely championed, as an acolyte or ally, as in the case of the hapless narcissist he is attempting to replace, our very own Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau was little more than a globalist shill, shiny and attractive though he may have been. Carney is no such mean thing; no mere WEF infiltrator. He is instead a veritable globalist author, master-planner and leader, as he says (insists upon) himself:

Value(s) is, in truth, one of the shallowest books I have ever read, and I have read many, both shallow and deep. It contains no original ideas whatsoever, while the ideas it does contain, however few in number they may admittedly be, are literally the worst that have been formulated by the worst of thinkers in the last few generations; even in the last century or two.

Mark Carney has failed, therefore — and dismally; spectacularly — in his attempts as a thinker, as well as an international leader. His practical multinational ventures have been recently revealed as the empty vessels they most truly are. 

In closing, a warning to Canadians, hoodwinked into believing that Carney’s much-vaunted international experience makes him capable; makes him someone able, even less convincingly, to stand up to our erratic American compatriots to the south. Mark Carney, formerly of the Bank of England, has the patina of foreign-bestowed competence. In truth, however, he is a man with all the flaws of Trudeau, and that’s saying something. 

However, in his admitted networking, managerial and administrative prowess he presents far more danger. Our hapless previous Dear Leader was at least hamstrung in his pretension by his incompetence. Carney is as addled in his values as his predecessor, but much more efficient and unwavering in his implementation.

If you don’t want Canada to be a self-immolating martyr-state, subject to the whims of an economic order increasingly dominated by the coal-burning titans of India, China and the rest of the BRICS; if you don’t want your every move and every decision evaluated by the top-down tyrants of the new global order — then you bloody well better think twice about who you are going to vote for when push comes to shove for Canadians in the next six months. 

Whatever Canada’s values might be, they best not be the shibboleths of false virtue, intellectual pretension, and well-camouflaged oh-so-virtuous totalizing tyranny put forth by the newly coronated dear leader of the appalling Liberal party.

Québec to force "newcomers" to adopt "common culture"

What follows is excerpted from a report in the Groan & Wail, Canada's national snoozepaper.

Québec’s immigration minister says newcomers to the province need to embrace the “common culture,” as the government looks to put Québec identity back at the forefront of the political agenda. 

The Québec government will table a new bill Thursday on the integration of immigrants, which will require newcomers to adhere to Québec values like gender equality and secularism. 

"We will be pretty clear. We are a nation, we have a culture, we have democratic values," Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge told reporters in Québec City as the provincial legislature resumed Tuesday following the holiday break. "And people coming here must accept that." (Walt's emphasis.)

M Roberge said the bill aims to prevent "ghettoization" of immigrant communities by defining a social contract that will emphasize French as the official language of Québec. He said Québec has never accepted the concept of Canadian multiculturalism, first outlined in a 1971 policy to promote cultural diversity and enshrined in law in 1988. 

Canada has not defined a common culture for the country, the minister said, and Québec prefers the idea of interculturalism, focused on integrating immigrants into Québec culture. Newcomers have a "moral duty" to adhere to Québec culture, M Roberge said, adding that there will be obligations laid out in the bill – mechanisms to ensure its principles are upheld, though he offered no details.

Walt doubts that most Québécois would equate "gender equality" and "secularism" with traditional Québec values. Obviously M Roberge has in mind the new, woke, "progressive" values which have been imported from the US of A -- the ones he refers to as "democratic values". There should be a capital D there.

Nevertheless, Walt thinks making "newcomers" -- presumably including the bogus refugees and asylum-seekers which Québec is trying to push into other provinces -- adapt to the values and customs of their unwilling hosts, rather than the other way around, is a good idea. Many people in the rest of Canuckistan will wish their governments had the cojones to follow this course. 

Note from Ed.: I had a hard time finding an appropriate illustration of "Québec values". That tells you all ye know and all ye need to know about this subject.

VIDEO: J.D. Vance: from rags to next Vice-President of the USA!

As expected, Donald J. Trump, once and future President of the United States, has selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate in the 2024 election. I can't think of a more worthy candidate -- a real person, not a political hack. Senator Vance has pulled himself up by the bootstraps, rising out of the grinding poverty of Appalachia to the heights of power and responsibility. Only in America!

Senator Vance tells his own story (up to his graduation from Yale Law School) in Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (Harper Press, 2016), which I read, even before Mr Vance entered the political arena, for its sociological value. It's a memoir about the Appalachian values of Mr Vance's Kentucky family and the social and socioeconomic problems of his hometown of Middletown, Ohio, where his mother's parents moved when they were young. 

In 2020, Hillbilly Elegy was adapted into a film directed by Ron Howard, starring Glenn Close and Amy Adams. The synopsis: An urgent phone call pulls a Yale Law student back to his Ohio hometown, where he reflects on three generations of family history and his own future. We have a trailer for you.

 

The film got mixed reviews. Even though it was directed by a leading Hollywood progressive, the liberals and their lickspittle media dumped on it for its super-realistic depiction of poor whites and its "far right" overtones. This was in 2020, remember, the year the Democrats stole the election.

The acting by Glenn Close and Amy Adams is excellent, but Hillbilly Elegy is a hard movie to watch -- hard because it's honest. Like The Grapes of Wrath, it's a depiction a struggle many poor American families experience. Liberals like to call these people hillbillies, rednecks, or white trash. Although those words are pejorative, the people are not all bad. Some, like Mr Vance's mother and mamaw persevere against all odds. Some, like Mr Vance, can rise far above their "station in life" by sticking to the values that once made America great.

American Conservative contributor and blogger Rod Dreher expressed admiration for Hillbilly Elegy, saying that the author "draws conclusions... that may be hard for some people to take. But Vance has earned the right to make those judgments. This was his life. He speaks with authority that has been extremely hard won."

A key reason for the book's widespread popularity following its publication in 2016 was its role in explaining Donald Trump's rise to the top of the Republican Party. In particular, it purported to explain why white working class voters became attracted to Mr Trump as a political leader. Although the book doesn't mention Mr Trump by name, the author later commented that it provides perspective on why a voter from the "hillbilly demographic" would support the former POTUS.

Both the book and the movie raise questions about the responsibility of Mr Vance's family and people for their misfortune. He blames hillbilly culture and its supposed encouragement of social rot. He suggests that economic insecurity plays a lesser role. As proof, the author relies on personal experience.

As a grocery store checkout cashier, he watched welfare recipients talk on cell phones, although the working Vance could not afford one. His resentment of those who seemed to profit from poor behaviour while he struggled, combined with his values of personal responsibility and tough love, is presented as a microcosm of the reason for Appalachia's overall political swing from strong Democratic to strong Republican.

This week, Senator Vance will share the platform with President Trump. Read the book and see the movie and be assured that if (God forbid) some terrorist, domestic or foreign, should take out President Trump, Vice-President Vance will be a worthy and capable successor. President Trump couldn't have picked a better running mate, not just to win the election, but to Make America Great Again!

At last: new law prohibiting abortion, extra-marital sex, and more!

Who'd have thought we'd see the day when a legislature would pass laws to reverse society's slide into immorality... or, worse, amorality. But it's going to happen! Not in the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain, Canada), which are not Christian even in name these days, but in... wait for it... mostly Muslim Indonesia. 

Although it's not officially an "Islamic republic" like, say, Iran, Indonesia is the world's biggest country, by  population, in which Muslims are the majority, with Hindus and Christians tiny minorities. Reuters reports that Indonesia's government is introducing a new criminal code which, according to Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, deputy justice minister, will be "in line with Indonesian values."

The  new code will ban sex outside marriage. It also carries stiff penalties for abortion, “black magic” and insulting the president. The punishment for extramarital sex is up to one year in jail. And that's  just the punishment in this world, never mind the next.

The usual suspects have long warned the new law, which has been decades in the making, would violate the rights of women, minorities, and the alphabet people, as well as undermine freedom of speech. And, they say, it will be bad for business too! The law applies to foreigners as well as Indonesians, so there'll be no more going to Indonesia for a dirty weekend!

Bali, in particular, has traditionally been a top holiday destination, attracting millions of tourists every year. A spokesthingy for Indonesia's Employers' Association told Reuters the morality clauses of the new criminal code would "do more harm than good," especially for businesses engaged in tourism and hospitality. "For the business sector," she said, "the implementation of this law will create legal uncertainty and make investors reconsider investing in Indonesia."

The legislation also bans expressing any views contrary to Indonesia's state ideology -- that would be Islam -- and criminalizes abortion, with the exception of rape victims. Insulting the president, a charge that can only be reported by the president, carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison. [Don't tell Brandon or Trudeau about this! Ed.]

The draft,which looks set to be passed into law next week, has the support of many conservative Islamic groups, whose influence is growing across the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation. Indonesians who feel that their right to be immoral is being infringed are advised to move to any of the aforementioned AABC countries, where that right is enshrined in law.

Further reading: "Indonesia ranks among most religious countries in Pew study", Jakarta Post, 30/7/20.

VIDEO: Michael Matt: Time to talk about reality - a country in chaos

Much as I admire and agree with Dr Taylor Marshall's call to not give up, to stand up and fight -- see our last post yesterday -- I think it's time to take a long hard look at things in the cold light of dawn. As I write -- the sun has not yet come up -- it seems as if Still-President Trump needs to win Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina (where mail-in ballot fraud threatens to overturn his narrow lead) and one of Nevada or Arizona.

The lamestream media declared Arizona for Old Joe just past midnight November 4th, even though hundreds of thousands of ballots hadn't been counted and there were long lines of Trump supporters waiting to vote. That shows you what a tough fight this has been and will be.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that Vice-President Biden gets to delete the "vice" from his title -- leave the vice to his minions -- and moves into the White House on January 21st. Is it the end of the world? No. The Republicans still control the Senate, and there is a conservative/originalist majority on the Supreme Court, so there will be checks on the socialist, one-world, secular humanist craziness of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and the Squad. Thank God for that.

But we can't stop fighting and leave the protection of Christian values and Western freedoms to the Senate and SCOTUS. Dr Taylor was not wrong to say we must go on fighting, not just until the theft of the election is confirmed, but for at least the next four years, until the American people see their mistake and get a chance to rectify it at the polls.

In this video, streamed late last night, Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper, reflects on what happened and what comes next.

 

VIDEOS: Conservatives! Vote for truly conservative candidates!

How I wish Canadian conservatives would figure out how to unite the right! Canada doesn't have a two-party system, like the Excited States of America.

Since the Dirty Thirties it has had third and fourth parties of the (somewhat) left (the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and it successor, the No-longer-new Democrats) and the right (Social Credit). More recently the federal Parliament has seen members elected from the Parti Québécois, which then became the Bloc Québécois, and the self-styled Green Party, both of them left (and really left) of centre.

Canada's quasi-conservatives, who after WWII styled themselves "Progressive Conservatives" -- an oxymoron if there ever was one -- saw the more conservative of their number split away from the "Red Tories" to form the Reform Party, which then merged with what was left of the PCs to form the Canadian Alliance which then restyled itself the Conservative Party. Got it?

But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more. In their 2017 leadership contest, the Conservatives rejected the truly conservative candidate, Maxime Bernier, and chose a nebbish named Andrew Scheer. "Mad Max" went off in a huff (or a minute-and-a-huff) and formed his own People's Party of Canada, who drew off just enough votes from the Conservatives to rob them of what should have been an easy victory against Mr Socks' ultra-Liberals.

One of the leading lights of the People's Party of Canada was (note past tense) Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, a very personable and dynamic woman who has been seen speaking up for conservative Christian values in a number of videos posted here on WWW. (Click on the tag to see those posts.) Just this Sunday, in my post about Twitter's censorship of Republican Senate hopeful Lauren Witzke, I asked if anyone else noticed the resemblance between Ms Witzke and Ms Thompson. And noooo, it's not that I can't tell one attractive blonde lady from another. Lauren and Laura-Lynn are saying the same things! 

Imagine my surprise then when, just today, I discovered this video in which Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson identifies herself as leader the the Christian Heritage Party of British Columbia!

   

There will be a provincial election in Canada's Lalaland any day now, and Ms Thompson is standing for election in the riding of Abbotsford South. If she succeeds, she will be the first member of the Christian Heritage Party ever elected to any Canadian legislature, let alone the House of Commons. Here's a longer video in which she talks about why she's running, and about racism and "white privilege". Listen up, Americans! This applies to you... in spades!

 

I wish Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson well and encourage British Columbians to vote for her (in Abbotsford South) or other Christian Heritage Party candidates in the rest of the province. Right now, the CHP is the only conservative party in BC. 

And that's the problem in the Great No-longer-white North. There is no truly conservative party in the Parliament of Canuckistan. As Max Bernier says in "Is there any hope for conservatives in Canada?" (WWW 2/9/20), The NDP and the Greens prop up the corrupt Liberal government in Ottawa. The leftists are united in everything but name, while the conservatives attack each other. 

It's high time that Canadians [and Americans! Ed.] who cherish the values on which their country was built got together behind one truly conservative party.

Aux canadiens "pure laine", BONNE FÊTE NATIONALE

C'est aujourd'hui la Fête nationale du Québec (known originally and still as la Fête Saint-Jean-Baptiste / Saint-John-the-Baptist Day). Throughout la Belle Province and in many communities across Canada, "Canadiens de souche" (old stock francophone Canadians) gather to mark the feast day of the patron of French Canada, and celebrate francophone culture with public events including concerts, parades, and firework displays. Families and neighbourhoods also get together to hold their own smaller celebrations -- picnics, bonfires and barbecues -- for la Saint-Jean.

Walt and (especially) Poor Len Canayen, [and Ed.! Ed.]

wish all our French-Canadian friends and readers

BONNE FÊTE NATIONALE!

Walt explains the link between events in Hong Kong and Québec

The events of yesterday and today on two opposite sides of the world say something (to those who are paying attention) about the natural desire of "nations" (in the French sense of the word) to protect their culture and identity when threatened with submersion in a larger multicultural society.

At 0400 EDT on Sunday, Québec's National Assembly -- note the term -- passed, not without opposition, Bill 9, which sets out the framework for a Québec values test that all immigrant wannabes will need to pass in order to become permanent residents of la Belle Province. The new law allows the government to cancel some 18,000 applications to immigrate.

The opposition Liberals complained that since putting Bill 9 on the table in February, the Québec government has provided "no credible explanation" for doing that, but the province's Immigration Minister argued that "We are changing the immigration system in the public interest, because we have to make sure that we have an immigration tied to the needs of the labour market."

What does that mean? The opposition whines that the new test will discriminates against prospective immigrants from Third World shitholes, who don't speak French and don't have the European/American work ethic or experience. Being a truck driver in the Punjab or a street vendor in the Congo won't count for much, it seems. Nor will wanting time off to observe religious holy day.

Which brings us to another proposed law, Bill 21, which will come to a vote later today or tomorrow, since closure has been invoked to end any further argy-bargy over what has been nicknamed "the Secularism Bill" or, more tellingly, "the anti-Muslim Bill". Bill 21 is a proposed ban on the display of religious symbols in the public service, included in the proposesd Charter of Québec Values, which Québeckers have been fighting for (or against) for donkey's years.

Under the new law, anyone giving or receiving public-sector services must not display any headgear or other accessories or symbols of any religion. That includes Jewish and Christian symbols like the kippah and the crucifix, but critics whine that the clear target is Muslim women who wear the hijab, niqab or burqa. (If you're not sure what these things are, see "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.)

Last Wednesday, the National Assembly spent more than an hour going over just one phrase — "in fact and in appearance" — in the religious symbols bill. Minority groups, legal experts, SJWs, multiculti types and (of course) United Nations human rights monitors have expressed concern that Bill 21 will institutionalize discrimination and... wait for it... racism. Be that as it may, the new régime was one of the main planks of the CAQ election platform, and Québécois voted for it, overwhelmingly, last fall. Now they're going to get what they voted for. Imagine that!

Meanwhile, in "Fragrant Harbour" (aka Hong Kong) today, hundreds of thousands took to the streets again today as the Umbrella Revolution (v.2) continues. On Saturday (local time) it appeared that the pro-Beijing puppet government of the former British colony had caved, as Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that an extradition bill that would allow some suspects to be sent for trial in mainland China had been "suspended indefinitely". But, the pro-democracy demonstrators say, that's not the same as "withdrawn altogether and forever".

Tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents, mostly clad in black, jammed the city's streets Sunday in a vehement show of opposition to proposed legislation that has stoked fears of expanding control from Beijing. They carried signs reading "Hong Kong is not China!", and that is precisely the issue. When the perfidious British handed the colony over to the Communist Chinese in 1997, the Reds pledged that Hong Kong's "special status" would allow it to keep the Western legal, electoral and social systems and values which had been in place for over a century. Yeah... sure...

The marchers, who numbered over a million earlier last week, are demanding that Hong Kong's leader first scrap the proposed extradition law, then resign. Last week the peaceful protests degenerated into violent clashes with the police, who fired rubber bullets and teargas at the unarmed (except for umbrellas) demonstrators. Several protesters were injured and scores were arrested, in the toughest test of the territory's special status since the Communists took control.

The link between these events is that both betoken the determination of citizens of a part of a larger whole to assert their autonomy, especially when it comes to "values". "Hong Kong is not China!", its people cry, and Québécois said (in French, of course) in last October's election "Québec is not Canada!" They are both examples of a "distinct society", a loaded phrase which carries with it -- if the larger society, China or Canada, denies the special status and rights of the smaller one -- the threat of separation, perhaps even peaceful or not-so-peaceful revolution.

Teddy Roosevelt on screening immigrants for American values

Donald Trump is the only candidate for the presidency calling for the screening of potential immigrants for willingness to accept and adapt to American values. In the din of the yelling about racism and Islamophobia, let's not forget that the notion that those who want to immigrate should be prepared to assimilate has been around for well over a century. Here's a quote from a letter written by US President Theodore Roosevelt to the American Defense Society in 1909.

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American....

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.... We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Source: "Taking Back America", the last chapter in War on the Middle Class, by Lou Dobbs (Viking Penguin, 2006). Read the entire book, if you can. In the decade since Mr Dobbs wrote, things have become even worse, but it's not yet too late to stop or even reverse the Islamization of the West.

Why do they keep saying "Trump could still lose"?

Ed. here. Walt is a little tired and emotional after the exertions of yesterday. We had a long conversation around midnight. It was difficult to hear him above the cheering, clinking of glasses and other celebratory noises, but I have transcribed the snatches of rant that I could understand.

What is it with the [expletive deleted] lamestream press anyway? Those [orifices] just can't bring themselves to admit that millions of Americans want Trump! I'm listening to a couple of the bastards now running their mouths about how he could still lose! Can you imagine? He's got something like 89 of 95 New York delegates in today's bag and the bastards are still hoping for a brokered convention! I think one of the analysts is gonna get down on his knees and start praying. On... no... liberals don't pray in public...

A brokered convention.... What makes them think Trump couldn't win one of those? Hey, he's the king of the [expletive deleted] deal, isn't he? All he has to do is get somebody mainstream to join him on the ticket, and Cruz is done like dinner! Did you hear what Ryan said a couple of days ago? He's definitely not gonna throw his hat in the ring... for President! And he won't accept a draft. They all say that. But he never said he'd turn down being Veep, did he! Now that would be a great ticket, the classic bad cop good cop tag team. I love it!

Watching the Democrats' results now. Looks like Hillary has swept the ghettos. Sanders always was the darling of the white liberal elites. Not to mention the Jews who run the New York and Washington media, the [expletive deleted] "Trump could still lose" crowd. So it looks like voters are gonna get a clear choice between the Donald's New York values and Hellery's New York values. Hell's Kitchen or Park Avenue. Staten Island or the Bronx. What a hoot.

And you listen to me. Don't listen to those other guys. If that's the choice in November -- Trump or Clinton -- it's not even gonna be close. [Two seconds inaudible here due to crash of crockery or something] can't lose! I'm ready to bet now. Call [name deleted for reasons of privacy] the Barber and see what odds you can get. Hello? Did you get all that down? I think I'm gonna [Six seconds inaudible; line goes dead.]

VIDEO: Bill Maher calls BS on "shared values" with Muslims

Chrystia Freeland is your archtypical limousine liberal. She is the daughter of privilege, a member of Canada's elite, the Member of Parliament for one of Toronto's wealthiest areas. A darling of the Canuck lamestream media, she was recruited by Justin Trudeau and promised a seat at the cabinet table if his Liberal Party won last fall's election. Which they did. And now she's Canada's Minister of Trade.

As such, she gets to swan around the world preaching the benefits of globalization, free trade agreements and (of course) helping all the poor people of the Third World. Canadians learned only today that Ms Freeloader was in Manila on November 19th, just two weeks after the new government was sworn in, while it was pushing for the resettlement of 25,000 refugees in the Great Not-so-white North. She had a government Challenger -- excellent planes, by the way -- standing by to take her home, but instead booked herself through LAX, charging Canuck taxpayers nearly C$20,000 ($15,600 in real money) for a to Hollywood.

Why? So she could appear on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher! During Question Period in the Canadaian House of Commons today, Conservative MP Blane Calkins called her appearance "a vanity interview". She took part, along with Senator Angus King Jr (Ind., Maine), in a discussion on how liberals rush to defend Syrian refugees and Muslims without acknowledging that many embrace a value set that is not shared with most Americans. In Mr. Maher's opinion, "This idea that somehow we do share values, that all religions are alike, is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit." Check it out...

Paris jihadist attacks result of suicidal stupidity

Let me ask you a question. If a man (or woman) dressed in black, with his (or her) face covered by a mask (or burqa), knocked on your front door and shouted, "Let me in!"... would you do so?

That's what the French did, following the dismemberment of their empire and the loss of their colonies in the Middle East and North Africa, notably Algeria in 1962. It was in the post-colonial spirit of redressing the many evils visited on the poor Arabs and Africans and by the white, Christian (French)man that the liberals who succeeded de Gaulle opened the borders to every Lebanese, Syrian, Tunisian, Moroccan and Algerian who claimed that they were French at heart. Then came the ideals and rules of the European Union, which say that no-one should be refused entry to Europe because of race, colour or creed.

Today, France is full of Muslims of Middle Eastern and African descent. And today, just as Charles de Gaulle predicted in 1959, France is no longer France. See "Muslim 'no-go' zones in France -- the failure of multicult" (WWW 25/10/13 -- includes video)

In that post I wrote "Don't say you weren't warned!" A little more than a year later, France started experiencing "lone wolf" attacks. See "Meanwhile in France... another Muslim 'lone wolf'". (WWW 21/12/14) Then came Charlie Hebdo. And now a number of "co-ordinated attacks" across Paris, which, as I write, have taken at least four dozen lives.

As I write, I am trying to get through to my agent in Paris -- I do have one -- to get a line on what the French media are saying. The North American lamestream meeja have used the words "terrorists", but have refrained from using the M-word or the I-word. Mustn't stir up Islamophobia, you know, or jeopardize the good will being showing to the hundreds of thousands of, errr, Muslims who are this very moment making their way into Europe.

The Prez has just made a televised statement in which he called "liberté, égalité and [sic] fraternité" "universal values", meaning values shared by everyone. He is wrong. The values of liberty, equality and fraternity -- the brotherhood of man and all that -- may still be espoused in the post-Christian, secular humanist West, but they are alien to Islam and to the Muslims who are flooding into our countries.

Are these aliens -- for that's what they are -- going to adapt themselves to our values? No! They are going to make us adapt ourselves to their values! Is anyone -- any Western government -- going to do anything to remedy the suicidal stupidity of our immigration and "human rights" policies and restore the rights of the majority? Will the French government lead the way? Don't bet on it.

Footnote: In that last paragraph, I speak of the socialist government of François Hollande. Therefore I speak of the immediate future -- like tomorrow -- because if today's events don't guarantee the election of Marine Le Pen and the Front National the next time around, nothing will! Lifetime pct .982.

Don't mention the Muslims!

One has to wonder -- perhaps not for very long -- at the reluctance of the lamestream press in the USA and Canada to identify murderers, hostage-takers, assassins and terrorists as Muslims. Could it have anything to do with political correctness, or fear of being prosecuted for fomenting Islamophobia? Errr, quite possibly. Cases in point....

Item: In the Philippines, four hostages -- two Canadians, a Norwegian, and a Filipina -- appear in a video released by their captors, appealing to authorities to stop military operations in the Philippines and to negotiate for their freedom with the Islamist militants who hold them. For details of the story, see "ISIS in Philippines: New video shows kidnapped Canadian, Norwegian hostages pleading for life", on the International Business Times website. [Funny that IBT didn't mention the Filipina. Ed.]

The video can be found on YouTube, but, curiously, is not being shown on either the Canuck government's CBC-TV or the main independent network CTV. Why would that be? The voice-over identifies the kidnappers as being linked to Al-Qaeda. ISIS flags appear behind the captives. Looks like the work of Islamic extremists, wouldn't you say? But neither CBC or CTV wants to mention that fact, in the week preceding an election in which the wearing of niqabs (headgear worn by religious Muslim women) has become a hot button, with over 80% of Canadians against the "accommodation" of the Muslim minority.

Item: Remember the Shafias? They're the Muslim man, his No. 2 wife and son -- all immigrants to Canada -- who murdered No. 1 wife and her three daughters in an honour killing which Shafia père blamed on the girls' sinful desires to wear western clothing, and date boys, just like Canadian girls. See "GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY in Shafia honour killings" (WWW 29/1/12).

The honour killings -- that's what they were -- took place on 30 June 2009, when the four women were locked in a car which was then pushed into the Rideau Canal. Convictions were registered in January 2012, and the three Muslim miscreants were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, which is the maximum provided for in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Now, 45 months after their conviction, the killers have filed a 110-page factum with the Ontario Court of Appeal arguing for a new trial. On what grounds, you may well ask. Why, they were victims of "cultural stereotyping", of course! They say the trial judge should have intervened when the Crown presented arguments that they believe improperly swayed jurors in their decision-making.

Like what? Well, the Shafias say, the Crown was so politically incorrect as to suggest that their religion had something to do with their motivation for killing over half of their immediate family. And not only that! The document also questions the testimony of University of Toronto Professor Shahrzad Mojab -- himself a Muslim -- an "honour killing" expert who testified on for the prosecution. His expert evidence, they say, might have turned the jury against them. "Even assuming that the jury may have legitimately been assisted by evidence about Afghan cultural norms or concepts of honour, the way in which Dr. Mojab's evidence was presented exceeded that purpose and created enormous prejudice."

Item: The "progressive" parties -- Liberals and NDP -- opposing Steve Harper's Conservatives in next week's Canadian election are making a meal of the Harper government's introduction, in the last parliament, of the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which proscribes honour killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriages and the like, even though most of those BCPs were already covered in the Criminal Code. What they don't mention, in their scathing criticisms, is that such practices do exist in Canada, mainly within the Muslim communities.

Allah forbid that anyone should suggest that the values and customs of the followers of the Prophet Mohammed are somehow different from those of the society into which they desire to insinuate themselves. Doing so would suggest that our Western Christian (?) ways are superior to theirs, which we know -- or the politicians and media would have us believe -- is untrue.

Stop shaming parents who balk at sex education in schools

Ed. here. Parents As First Educators (PAFE) has sent us an excellent piece by a self-described secular humanist, Luisa D'Amato, which appeared recently in the Waterloo (ON) Record. Ms D'Amato is in favour of Ontario's new "dirty" sex education curriculum, about which Walt has written before. (Enter "sex education" in the search window, and you'll see 33 previous posts.)

Ms D'Amato feels, however, that it's unfair for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her sidekick Lez Sandals to demonize those who oppose the curriculum's immoral, pro-queer agenda as religious fanatics or stick-in-the-mud prudes. Here's what Ms D'Amato has to say. We think readers all over North America will find it relevant.

We have long been proud of our multicultural Canadian society. Now we have to do the hard work to actually be good at it. Too many people, inside and outside the teaching profession, are acting in a condescending, know-it-all manner toward families who are legitimately concerned by some of the content of Ontario's new sexual education curriculum.

The religious or cultural beliefs of these families, many of them Asian or Muslim background, sets them apart from the secular, liberal mainstream in the province. And that's a problem for everyone, because the minorities risk feeling isolated when disagreements arise.

The new sex education curriculum is embedded in a variety of other topics about health, including physical movement, social inclusion and healthy eating. The sexual information children will receive is frank and explicit. Children will learn correct names for body parts, including genitalia, by the end of Grade 1. They'll learn about same-sex couples and gender identity by the end of Grade 3. Ahead lay [sic] discussions about puberty, consent, masturbation and contraception.

As a secular, liberal parent myself, I think this is a great development. But there are plenty of caring, thoughtful parents whose cultural background is different. For them, these topics are being introduced in the wrong context, or at much too early an age. That doesn't make them bad parents.

I have the greatest respect for my Record colleague Joel Rubinoff, who wrote a strong defence of the new sex-ed curriculum a few days ago. But I don't think his characterization of these parents' concerns, which he called "a new mantra of fear and paranoia" was reasonable.

Nor was his comment: "It's time for the media to stop giving a platform to a misguided vocal minority whose energy would be better spent searching for a portal back to the 14th century." That's unfair. Make no mistake: the parents who are protesting have their reasons. The sex education curriculum...is not only teaching facts, but also values. [My emphasis. Ed.]

Even the age at which some topics are introduced is a value judgment. In Grade 4, for example, the curriculum has a sample discussion on puberty that suggests students discuss their intense feelings of "liking" or "wanting to be more than just friends" with someone. That's not going to sit well with many parents who don't think their children should date until they have graduated high school.

Some parents have been adamant in their protests. One Toronto-area school is half empty as families pulled their children. [See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" Ed.] In Waterloo Region, a few families have defected to a private elementary school.

Locally, the public board has handled parental misgivings carefully and respectfully, on a case-by-case basis.
Families were encouraged to discuss concerns, first with the teacher and next with the principal. "Each conversation may be very different," said Graham Shantz, superintendent of student achievement and well-being. So far, he said, no family has moved to the next step, which would be using the board's procedure on faith and religious accommodation to have a child excused from certain classes or otherwise accommodated.

We live in strange times. Too often, highly educated liberal elites are busily telling everyone else how to think, instead of valuing dissent and tolerance. [My emphasis, again. Ed.] In a diverse, multicultural society, we have to do better than that. We must find a way to treat everyone's concerns with sensitivity and respect while also moving forward as a group. It's not easy. But it is absolutely necessary.