Contributors

Persons

Places

Terms

Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Monday, 2 December 2019

The Grotesque Hypocrisy of the Diversity Establishment: Four Case Examples

by Stephen Summani




​​​All of us who are regulars at the Council of European-Canadians are generally aware that the establishment in politics and media is terribly hypocritical and philosophically incoherent. In politics, hypocrisy is understandable. But in the case of media – especially the mainstream news media, which is supposed to serve the public interest, it is inexcusable, even though we have come to expect it by now.

I have decide to break down and distill for you a selection of four of these hypocrisies.

Systemic Racism in Canada vs Systemic Islamism in the Islamic World 


On the 29th of January, 2017, a young Quebecois male named Alexandre Bissonnette walked into a mosque in Quebec City and began shooting people at random. Twenty-five people were hit, and six died.

Following this attack, both establishment media and smaller media began churning out pieces, all of which can be found under such tags as “Islamophobia” and “systemic racism”. Most of these are still archived and can be viewed by any of the readers here who have the stomach to read such nonsense. The use of the term “Islamophobia” is a misnomer; there are no peer-reviewed psychology journals that I am aware of who have declared that “Islamophobia” is a phobia in the true sense. But this term isn’t what bothers me so much here as the term “systemic racism”. In the minds of some of these talking heads and the soft jihadists they think they speak for, this solitary shooting at one mosque in the second-largest country in the world is enough evidence for them to claim that Canada has a problem with “systemic racism”. The term is ridiculous in and of itself, being as how there is no Islamic race (look for example, at the tension in the United Arab Emirates between the Indo-Pakistani residents and the Arab citizens. The most commonly understood language in the UAE is no longer Arabic – it’s Urdu).

Alexandre Bissonnette" "Greatest Terrorist in Canadian History"

I introduce to you a term that you may pass around when the term “systemic racism” is shoved in your face by your pink-haired, piercing-obsessed feminist co-worker or your nu-male former friend who clings to you because he is in desperate need of masculine peers: “systemic Islamism”. What is systemic Islamism? Consider it a socio-cultural soil condition that gives maximum potential for fertile growth of the darkest and most hideous practices emanating from Islam.

For something like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to emerge is not even remotely akin to the likes of Alex Bissonnette, or a cross-burning on a black family’s lawn, or a mean handwritten note to an indigenous student in a university dorm. At its zenith, the number of armed troops serving IS was larger than the number of people living in many smaller cities in Canada. Add the number of non-combat supporters living in its controlled region, as well as the number of individuals and organisations around the world who have pledged allegiance to it, and what we have is essentially a loose federation.

The number of people who have such a warped mentality that they could come to willingly support an organisation like IS, even after seeing in-person what it is willing to do to not only its enemies but its own supporters, is evidence of a sick culture. It is not, as some of the talking heads who have not pretended to ignore the existence of IS and its fellow travellers may have stated or insinuated, some sort of tragic accident. It is not a case like the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, where an inexperienced trucker and a poorly-designed intersection aligned at the wrong time. It is not a case of a Harris & Klebold shooting up Columbine High School, where a pair of mentally-ill, sexually-frustrated and long-bullied teenagers decided to take revenge against the institution they believed had wronged them. To willingly go about planning and creating a state like ISIL takes individuals whose minds have been worn down to the most distorted shells of what they should be. In a way, the Quran could be lauded for being the best war machine creator in human history (if its results weren’t so gruesome and inhumane).

"It is Islamophobic to call these men terrorists!"

To take a young goatherder boy and invite him to trade his boring life for an adventure involving riding fast horses, pillaging treasure, raping exotic women, and killing the enemies of God, all while promising eternal life and endless sexual satisfaction if he dies in combat, is an alluring bait for his unenlightened mind. In the case of the Nigerian Islamist group, its name “Boko Haram” demonstrates this: its meaning translates approximately to “No Kaffir Education” or “Without Kaffir Ways”. A man (or worse, a woman!) who is formally a Muslim but receives an Enlightenment-style education in Beirut, Istanbul, or Cairo is for them a distinction from a kaffir without a difference. Keeping Quranic doctrine as the sole and only organising principle for life is essential for the likes of IS and Boko Haram (I believe Boko Haram has declared its fealty to IS) to maintain what I have termed here today “systemic Islamism”.

The talking heads who decry the non-existence “systemic racism” in Canada but ignore the systemic Islamism that gives rise to the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIL are what I have termed in my book the Appeasers. I use the term to describe all those under the umbrella of giving cover to and even collaborating with the Islamisation of this country and to our ancestral continent across the Atlantic.

“Canadians of all races served” vs MMIW 


While we are on the topic of “systemic racism”, I am, as most of you probably are, angered (although not surprised) by the termination of Don Cherry’s employment as the unrivalled commentator on hockey that he is from Sportsnet, due to his recent insinuation that “New Canadians” do not wear poppies for Remembrance Day because they had no stake in fighting for Canada in wars past. The left-wing talking heads have been feasting on this one, finally seeing an opportunity to not simply denigrate Don Cherry but to completely declare a philosophical war on him and dare everybody who supports him to stand up. This response to Cherry included even Peter Mansbridge:


Now, it has been some time since the multiracialist advertising has penetrated into the officially non-partisan and solemn recollection of the number of troops this country has, for the greater good or for folly, sent to their deaths. The most amusing of these is the portrayal of black women in military uniforms in promos for the Legion or for Forces recruitment - not even black men, who have at least a minor history of excellence in military service – but black women! I give all of you an iron-clad guarantee that the service of black women in the Canadian armed forces is statistically irrelevant.

Meanwhile, to return to the more recent responses to Don Cherry’s statements on the wearing of poppies, what shameful hubris the talking heads have to make such pithy statements all amounting to “not all of Canada’s war dead were white men”. Statistically, this is factual. (I would then hope against hope that the people espousing such things would be supportive of the anonymous ‘It’s Okay to Be White’ poster campaign of last year) But it misses the point as to who has largely shouldered the burden.

I am of the mind that war is, in a way, rather misandrist. It takes young men in the prime of their lives and sends them out to die, often in horrible ways, as a means to an end for the enrichment of wealth and power of a small elite. In my studies, I have rarely come across a war in which it really was a featurefilmesque good vs evil conflict. I do not even necessarily think Canada was always on the right side of every conflict. I retroactively support the Afrikaner side in the Boer War, seeing much the same story reflected today here in Canada, with the oppression of the Prairie provinces by Laurentian elites in Ottawa. I believe that it might have been better for the Central Powers to have won the First World War (whatever that might have amounted to), on the basis that if Germany had not lost that war, there would have been no NSDAP; and if there had been no NSDAP, there would have been no Second World War (thus saving millions of white lives); and if there had been no Second World War, there would have been no Cold War. But I digress.

The fact of the matter remains that, since Confederation was founded in 1867, the majority of those who have served in our armed forces have been men of European origin, and the overwhelming majority of those who died from wounds sustained in combat are of the same. For a lifelong civilian to get on some sort of high horse and attempt to elevate the position of the tiny minority of non-Europeans who died in service to the Canadian armed forces is utterly tasteless.


Contrast this with the acronym movement MMIW. 


Although it has quieted down somewhat now, most of you probably recall MMIW (Missing and Murdered IndigenousWomen). It is basically a soft populist movement within the indigenous communities that revolves around agitating for greater state concern and investigation into the reasons why indigenous women are so disproportionately represented in the statistics of missing and murdered people in Canada.

I am of the mind that the death of any woman before her time is unfortunate. I do not begrudge natives, of either sex, for advocating for an end to the violence towards and disappearance of indigenous women.

I invite the reader to examine either or both of the following websites:


As you can see, there are certainly a very large number of missing persons who appear to be indigenous women.

What the MMIW movement excludes from their advocacy are all of the other faces you see – namely, disadvantaged white women and hard-beaten blue-collar white men. These faces are not relevant to MMIW or to the talking heads who give MMIW air time in order to perpetuate, once again, their discussion of “systemic racism” in Canada. What the official inquiries into MMIW will not reveal to us is what we already generally believe: that the majority of the murderers of indigenous women are indigenous men; that the depression and chronic unemployment suffered by native peoples in Canada is a result of a combination of alcoholism, fetal alcohol syndrome, and being situated on reserves a long way from centres of employment.

“Systemic racism” has nothing to do with it. Canada is not experiencing armed bands of white males out hunting down and causing forced disappearances of indigenous women. Indigenous women disappear because they are raped, murdered, and dumped in remote locations by mentally ill indigenous men, or, because they get very drunk and walk into remote areas during the winter and succumb to exposure. It’s as simple as that, yet nobody outside the CEC will call it like it is. The indigenous peoples of Canada can never achieve self-government if they never take self-responsibility and stop blaming their own inability to care for their own people on “systemic racism”.

Trump Fascism vs Quebec Fascism 


I am sure that most of us are by now inured to Donald Trump and those who support him being called “fascists”. Never mind the fact that he has created many policies to support black American workers (while his Democratic predecessors created economic conditions that put blacks into unemployment); or the fact that he has a Jewish son-in-law; or that he has at the end of many of his rallies described the USA as having “defeated fascism”.

Fascism was not “defeated” because it is inherently flawed; it was defeated because it emerged as a response to an incipient globalism (initially in the form of communism, which now has largely been supplanted by corporatism), and its ethos of isolationism or semi-isolationism and self-dependency is antithetical to the desires of globalist profiteers. Proto-fascism, as envisioned by Mussolini and his National Fascist Party, was not as much geared towards proselytising, Mussolini believing that fascism was a uniquely-Italian response to the growth of the global communist movement. Mosley, however, thought otherwise, and in his pamphlet “Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered” described many problems and fascism’s solutions to them that were facing contemporary Britain. Many of these answers, I believe, Donald Trump would be in favour of, and to a degree he has even pursued some of these, I believe (although not being a Washington insider, I cannot say for sure).


In any case, the U.S. and Canadian media’s opinion writers, all over the spectrum, nowadays have a tendency to use the word “fascism” as a slur, rather than as an accurate description of a socio-political orientation. They use the term to describe things like Trump promoting a secure southern border with Mexico; such as Trump calling Central American gangs “animals”; such as Trump wanting to increase the power of the U.S. military (in a world where the only countries that seem to be actually downsizing their militaries are in the European Union). The U.S. media, for all their hypocrisies and biases, are entitled to comment on the politics of their own country. It becomes more silly when Canadian media outlets take away time from Canadian issues to decry Trumpian “fascism”.

But what then, would they term the nativism, statism, self-centredness, and nationalism that is a regular part of life in Quebec?

Quebec collects all income tax itself. It regulates the use of languages besides French, up to and including at hospitals (a place where one would hope that human life is more important than what language they use), to the point where English-speakers in Quebec have actually fled to the U.S. in order to find warmer peer groups. Quebec works with Ottawa to decide which immigrants are allowed to settle there. A Quebec MNA was recently excoriated and prohibited from entering the Assembly because she was wearing a hoodie instead of professional attire (I do not sympathise with her, to be honest). Both the positive and negative aspects of racial nationalism (the latter including bullying of innocent people) are more commonly noticeable and reported in the media in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.

I feel I have enough evidence to declare Quebec a semi-autonomous fascist state within the Canadian Confederation. There is no amount of facts that can outweigh the supporting evidence for me to make this statement.

Now, unlike more than 99% of people who use the word “fascist”, I do not say this in condescension. As one who considers himself a protégé a number of times removed from Benito Mussolini and Oswald Mosley, I am not opposed to fascism in and of itself. However, when Mussolini originally founded the National Fascist Party, his ideal was to have a united and independent Italy, without the foreign rule of the various empires that had carved through Italy in the previous centuries, most recently the Austro-Hungarian Empire. At no point did Mussolini ever seek to elect members of Parliament to a House of Commons in Vienna, taking away influence from more marginalised regions of the above-mentioned empire, such as Slovakia. Yet, that is precisely what Quebec is doing to Canada. A province that is for most intents and purposes already independent robs places like the Maritimes and the Prairies of electoral power in the House of Commons while not actually caring about the federal government beyond what it can siphon from its membership in Confederation. At the present, seventy-eight seats out of 338 in the House of Commons go to Quebec. That comes out to 23% - nearly a quarter! – of the entire House. If Quebec’s seats were removed, that would leave 260 seats. In that scenario, the Prairie provinces’ representation in the House would be 24% - as opposed to the current situation, in which their representation is only 18%.

If western federalists are so adamant about getting us in the West a better deal within a united Canada, one of the first steps to achieving this would be to support Quebec independence, even if those same independantistes are filled with loathing for us.

Alberta oil companies’ interests vs. Ontario and Quebec industrial unions’ interests 


While we are on the topic of Quebec, we may contrast the difference – not just in the media, but also in the way the federal party leaders discuss – the workers and their employees of the hydrocarbon industry in the West, as opposed to the way they treat workers and their employees of the heavy industries of Ontario and Quebec.

I come from a small town in Alberta. I have seen more pumpjacks in my life than I can remember. (If you don’t know what a pump-jack is, you probably aren’t from the plains) I have spent most of my life either adjacent to or a short drive from nature. Rarely have I spent time in large industrial areas. The first time as a teenager that I passed through such an area with heavy industrial activity while I was on a family vacation, my jaw dropped. I had never seen such enormity of man-made structure or distortion of the natural environment. I do not say this as some sort of Luddite; I simply was not accustomed to such an imprint on the landscape around me.

Sarnia’s Chemical Valley, Ontario

I spend an inordinate amount of time reading news and opinion pieces, taking the pulse on what various media outlets, writers, and region think about what issues. Yet, in spite of the gargantuan industrial development in parts of Ontario and Quebec (e.g. the nuclear power plant at Bruce; the auto factories in various steel towns situated in the ring around Toronto; the Bombardier aircraft factory near Montreal, etc.), I have never heard one unkind word from any party towards these factories or industries. Not once have I ever read the term “carbon footprint” to describe eastern Canadian industrial activity. Once in a while, I have read or heard some combative words towards the employers of the workers in these industries – namely around them not receiving enough pay or benefits.

The hypocrisy that really gets me is the way characters like Jagmeet Singh behave towards things such as Ontario auto factories, as opposed to how they behave towards the Alberta oilsands. I have watched a number of NDP candidates make campaign stops inside or out in front of Ontario auto factories, and not once was ecology or environment a topic of discussion. It is incredible how blind (willfully or otherwise) to the ecological damage these factories cause in their local environments. I am not suggesting, when I mention this, that these factories should be shut down; industrial development is necessary for our modern day way of life. But for a party that is supposedly greatly concerned about the planet’s ecosystem, ignoring the huge factory, its hunger for electricity, and the huge parking lots filled with private vehicles belonging to its employees surrounding the building, it is hypocrisy on the highest level.

Meanwhile, a visit to the oilsands at Fort McMurray shows no such ecological destruction. The drilling sites and work camps are very much outweighed by the millions of trees surrounding the area – even after the forest fires that devastated the area a couple summers ago. Even better, the oil and NG drilling sites on the Prairies are so ecologically harmonious that they leave almost no negative impact – except once in a while when a train carrying crude oil to a refinery derails, because there are not enough oleducts to transfer oil more economically and ecologically, so the railroads are worn thin trying to carry this vital resource.

Figures in media and politics who are subject to such a chiaroscuro level of hypocrisy are the reason for the emergence and growth in popularity of the Wexit movement. Whether it is malice or plain stupidity, such figures will deserve to be known by historians of posterity as nation-breakers.

Sound Philosophy, Not Partisan Hypocrisy, Must Be Escorted to Victory 


I won’t get started on the hypocrisy between those calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump while ignoring the Hunter Biden affair; or those who call the Alberta oilsands an ecological disaster while ignoring coal use in China; or the blindness of Jess Allen to her own apparent hatred of white male hockey players when discussing Don Cherry’s comments on who isn’t wearing poppies for Remembrance Day; other writers have already well documented these hypocrisies. But hopefully now all of you having read this article will now be better equipped to defend our views when faced with people who are part of the problem in feeding these hypocrisies.

Thank-you for reading. Ad virtù.

Summani is the author of ‘Minister of Civilisation & The Second Enlightenment’.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Facebook Our Twitter Our Gab Our Youtube Our RSS feed