Tag Archives: Canada

Ancestral Journeys: The Black Loyalists, Canada, and the Specter of Racism

Following the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 (Treaty of Paris) some 40,000+ British Loyalists withdrew from the newly formed United States of America to settle in various parts of the British Province of Quebec and the Colony of Nova Scotia.

Among their numbers were some 3,000 Afro-American Loyalists.

These settled primarily in Nova Scotia.

You might have heard of them within the context of the modern political narrative; of their unfair and/or inadequate treatment by the Crown; of the race riots that took place in Nova Scotia between the Loyalists; and of their subsequent petitioning of a rough third of those black Loyalists to the Crown for resettlement in some more hospitable climes. This petition was acknowledged and granted, resulting in the founding of Freetown, Sierra Leone in West Africa.

We hear much less of course of the stress, the hardships, the suffering and frustration, that all of the Loyalists were under those first couple of years; already disheartened (to say the least) at having come up on the losing side of the war. And thus being forced to abandon the lands of their birth and upbringing, along with most if not all of their worldly possessions. And then to be effectively dropped in the middle of the vast North American wilderness, to watch one’s loved ones go hungry when the promised rations did not come in, and then to meet with typical government ineptitude and inefficiency in the surveying and assigning of land.

Naturally, people were a little bit stressed. And so things got out a little out of hand. At least here and there.  And on an occasion or two. With both sub-groups of Loyalists giving and receiving their collective lumps.

These things can happen among men; who can afterwards be men about it.

See the source image

We also don’t hear too much today about how the 2,000 odd Afro-American Loyalists that remained in British North America fared after the departure of the fellows for Sierra Leone. You know, once order was brought to the chaos, foundation established, and folks settled into the patterns of their new lives and homelands. On this point the site blackloyalist.com states,

Economically, the Black Community’s position showed improvement within the decade. Many Blacks completed their indenture terms and more Blacks working as apprentices began to qualify for trades. By 1812, employers could not find enough Blacks to fill available work and wages rose accordingly. During the war of 1812, Blacks volunteered in militia and formed three separate Black Corps.

Now, as a descendant of the District of Mecklenburg Loyalists, I was a little taken aback by some of the complaints made, by people today I must assume, regarding the treatment of the black Loyalists. After all, we white Loyalists were also settled along ethnic and religious lines. We also starved the first few years. Some of us also left. We were also sent essential equipment that was entirely inadequate. In the case of some of us, receiving hatchets rather than proper axes as part of our initial supplies, with land needing clearing, cabins needing building, and winter quite literally coming. We also had to wait on surveys and deal with bungles, while the officers got better and more land. Some of us got lots (of land) that were basically useless. And we were also, particularly us Bay of Quinte folk, about as far as you could get outside of the established supply chain and still be considered part of it, ie. up two weeks (wilderness) travel, round trip.

We all had it hard.

But what really struck me from the quote above was the mention of trades, employers, and wages!

Seriously???

We didn’t have those things in 1812 Hastings county.

Maybe they had them in Kingston.

In fact, many of us fell into illiteracy for a generation or two, as we put our nose to the grind of simple survival and working toward the kind of prosperity that, in due time, ushers in things like trades, jobs, wages, and literacy. We bartered in labour with our neighbours and newcomers, and being so inconveniently situated in the supply chain, we were regularly low-balled by the merchants when we brought our produce to market; which is something I hear we made up for during the War of 1812.

But the point is that once we made it through the hard years, that were hard on all of us Loyalists, those that remained got our feet on the ground, settled and prospered.

While Afro-Americans are a rare sight in the historical records of the Bay of Quinte region (aka the District of Mecklenburg), they do appear here and there, and in much the same manner and capacity as most any other person in the region; being named in the censuses, being baptized, getting married, etc. As for Afro-American slaves, they simply were not a significant thing, as such, among us. It is said that Major Vanalstine brought some up with him after the war, but by 1793 the Act Against Slavery was passed in the second legislative assembly of Upper Canada, effectively Anglo-Canada, which prohibited the introduction of any more slaves into the colony, required that any existing offspring born to a slave woman be released upon reaching the age of 25 years, and even forbade voluntary submission to the state of slavery. And of course by 1834 the British parliament passed its Slavery Abolition Act which effectively brought an end to the institution within the British Empire.

And note here that slavery was a default institution found in all human societies; European, Asian, African, American, no matter. And it was the English that abolished it. Not the Coast Salish or Bantu peoples. Not the Jews or the Arabs or the Chinese. And for that matter, not the Greeks or the French or the Germans. Or even the Danes.

The English abolished slavery.

Everyone followed in our footsteps. Or in the case of the Arabs and of modern Africans themselves, they didn’t follow in our footsteps and slavery is still practiced in those regions today.

And I say this all with the grudging addition that the decision was inspired in no small part by Christian principles and long-standing Christian tradition; though we were hardly the only nation in the world to have been Christian at the time. Or Germanic for that matter!

And moreover, it came at monumental expense to us. And not simply in economic terms, but in pure flesh and blood human terms as well.

And from there, it was all downhill, with Canada’s Afro-American communities growing strong, stable, and self-sufficient, able to boast their own achievers and achievements, on through Confederation and into the 20th century. And this has left the authors of racial division having to stray off into immigration policy by this point  in order to build even the semblance of an argument for “Canadian racism” and all the word “racist” implies (or at least used to) to your average Anglo-Canadian of the 20th and 21st centuries.

While a 1911 declaration by Wilfred Laurier placed the immigration of any “negros” into the country on moratorium, this was largely because the Eastern Europeans, as a result of native climate, culture, and associated breeding, were deemed more fit to the task of developing the cold, windswept lands of the Canadian prairies. And of course within a decade a wave of “negro” immigration began to roll in from the Caribbeans all the same.

In fact, over the next 100 years to present, Canada has received over 800,000 black immigrants; with Jamaica and Haiti being its main sources, both overall and early on, and African countries coming more into vogue over the last few of decades.

Presently, less than 9% of the Afro-Canadian population is comprised of native Loyalists and other pioneering Afro-Americans of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

A full 91% of Canada’s Afro-Canadian population (1.2 million) is comprised of first or second generation immigrants; which will be the case for 50% of all Canadians by 2036 and, with the goal of hitting population 100 million by 2100, shall (ahem) “define” Canada by the end of the century.

Which brings us back around to the prevailing narrative that Canada is “racist to the core”.

Quite simply, while Canada is by no means perfect, as the prevailing political situation makes abundantly evident, the mere suggestion that it is racist, and specifically racist against black people, is entirely laughable and completely unfounded outside of isolated minutia and statistical games of smoke and mirrors. Not to diminish any tragedies any specific families or individuals might have actually suffer, or to turn a blind eye to honest statistics and/or specific incidences that should gives us all cause for concern, but the fact that horrible things happen in Canada, even for horrible reasons, is not evidence that Canada is thus a horrible country.

Over 800,000 black people did not chose to immigrate to Canada throughout its history to date because it is a horrible country that treats blacks poorly. Unless of course we are to assume that they were all incapable of making intelligent decisions? In fact, when compared to such black dominant, black policed, black ruled countries as Jamaica or Haiti, or even the “Rainbow Nation” itself (South Africa), a black person still enjoys more far more freedom from violence and oppression, along with a general higher standard of living and availability of opportunity here in Canada.

While I cannot find information on the homicide rate of Afro-Canadians in specific, it seems fair to assume that it is below the 4.22 (per 100,000) reported for First Nations women in 2017. Using that as our (admittedly questionable) number, this would still rank Canada as a statistically safer country to be black in than 33 out of the 54 odd countries that make up the vast continent of Africa. And of those 21 “safer” countries we find a motley assortment of predominantly Arab-Berber (ie. not black) North African countries, British ruled countries, happily small and homogeneous countries, and others that more than make up for their low homicide rates with state corruption and blatant violations of human rights.

Of the 18 African and Caribbean countries that Canada has actually drawn significant numbers (ie. 10,000+) of immigrants from, only four have lower homicide rates than the above number assumed for blacks in Canada, and they are themselves otherwise characterized by a dominant Arab-Berber demographic, and/or by wide-spread corruption and gross human rights violations. The other 14 range from somewhat more dangerous to much more dangerous, to the excessively more dangerous of Jamaica (murder rate 43.85 in 2018) and South Africa (murder rate 36.4 in 2018).

But speaking of Africa, remember those Loyalists that left British North America to found Freetown? Well, getting back to them and things we don’t hear too much about, we don’t hear too much about how they fared in their new African home. We hear virtually nothing for instance about how the black Loyalists were greeted upon arrival by lethal attacks from the indigenous (black) population of the region. But really, feel free to look into the history of Freetown yourself if you’re so inclined, and beyond citing its seemingly modest homicide rate of 1.71 in 2015, I’ll leave it at this quote from the site statecrime.org and its article Introducing State Crime in Sierra Leone,

…long before the conflict (civil war), Sierra Leone had a history of corrupt regimes, the violent suppression of civil society, and state sponsored theft of national resources… Since the end of the conflict Sierra Leone has been regularly highlighted for acute levels of poverty and high rates of corruption. With a high infant mortality rate, a low life expectancy, and overwhelming unemployment, only in 2009 was Sierra Leone elevated from the bottom of the Human Development Index… according to the World Bank governance indicators, unemployment is increasing, while control of corruption and government effectiveness have been steadily decreasing since 2003. This is despite the creation of an Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) that is tasked with monitoring and stamping out corruption… in recent years there has been an alarming trend towards ethnic based violence.

So, while Canada cannot be said to be without racism, because no country can, a few things are clearly in view for the astute (and not so astute) observer to plainly see. First and foremost, that far from being racist against blacks, Canada is, by any holistic standard, one of the best places in the world for a black man, and especially a black woman, to live. And two, that if significant racism does exist in Canada, most poignantly of the state endorsed variety, it exists against both First Nations and Founding Nations; the former of whom are due to be dealt with separately as the unique case they are, and latter of whom are experiencing it straight across the West, within their own ethnic homelands, and in direct contravention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The UNRIP conveniently redefines the word indigenous to purposefully exclude ethnic Europeans in Europe. And this despite the fact that even the Anglo-Saxons for example have been in the British Isles for considerably longer than,say, the Thule-Inuit have been in the Canadian arctic, while the Normans have been in the British Isles themselves for considerably longer than the Bantu have been in South Africa. And finally, it is obvious that if racism is Canada’s biggest problem, then there are clearly exponentially bigger problems a country can have than “racism”.

Such as “whatever it is” that results in a homicide rate of 30+ for example or leads the world in child rape!

Not to in any way imply, as I trust is evident from my various blog entries here, any kind of blind faith in the state. Including the state of Canada. As a 21st century man of Anglo-Nordic heritage I don’t need to be told, by any one, about the dangers of an overweening and self-entitled state; much less by those marching in full goosestep to the beat of the prevailing doctrine of the (globalist) state. Our history as Anglo-Nordic peoples with the state goes way back. And even in the earliest of preChristian times a delicate balance of power existed between our proto-state/s and the folk; in which authority led more by respect born from example and less by command/power; in which the folk sat down at assembly armed; where, outside of the most extreme of crimes, the law was largely civil and fine-based; and where in the words of Tacitus, “good habits are (here) more effectual than good laws elsewhere“.

There is of course no wishing the “wolf of the state” out of existence. That genie has long since been let out of the bottle, and there is a world full of competing states, along with a host of wouldbe warlords, all mouths agape, that would promptly step in to fill any power vacuum left by its absence.  And indeed the wolf of the state is not without its objective virtues; even if they have generally tended to come via serendipity, required a heck of a lot of work and foresight, and violence and hardship, to beat into an moderately acceptable shape, and always carries with it a host of inherent dangers and evils that must constantly be watched and held to account lest it over-step its bounds and begin devouring its charges and contravening its very reason to exist.

We Anglo-Nordic folk are no strangers to historical injustices perpetuated against us by the state, and particularly by the elitist imperial/colonial/globalist state, from whose standpoint we Celto-Germanic peoples were among the first in a very long and very ethno-culturally diverse line/web of “savages” who “needed” to be civilized by any means necessary.

No, no.

I’m a pro-gun, small state, honest celebrant of true diversity kinda guy.  With an inherent, but nevertheless healthy mistrust of the state; so necessary to capitalize, in human currency, on the state’s functional value in the face of the greater world.

The abuse of power, the excessive use of force by the state on its citizens is everyones concern. The seriousness and ramifications of such affronts are done a grave disservice in the racialization of the issue, in which the BLM rhetoric regarding “standing as allies” against it involves, as requisite, that one condemn not only themselves, but their ancestors, and even their new born children as over-privileged, hate filled racists. And, well, that isn’t going to happen. And personally, that is the exact opposite direction that the current of my life has been carrying me, and the exact same direction the current of history has been carrying my folk (and yours) along in for almost 1400 years now.  And that kind of divisiveness from BLM and its ilk, in the face of such a serious and all-inclusive affront, is exactly what the wouldbe tyrant ordered.

If these types truly cared one wit about black lives, they wouldn’t be preaching to the converted about the value of life, muchless making mass generalizations based on skin tone. They would be carrying their message and directing their resources to where they are truly necessary; namely, the black populations of such places as Toronto, Chicago, and South Africa, as well as the snake-oil politicians, entertainment moguls, and social justice fanatics that promote thug-culture, attribute the characteristics of success and failure to skin colour, and sow the seeds of hatred and division both within racial groups and among we, the people.

“A king’s son… an uppity thrall… none should be so trusting as to trust in these.”

— the Havamal

Globalist and Indigenous

The predicament of indigenous “First Nations” peoples in 21st century Canada…

It seems to be a bit of a difficult position to grasp within the prevailing culturo-political paradigm. It is certainly something that requires a bit of chewing, but it is actually quite simple and requires awareness of only a few basic facts…

1) The U.N.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not acknowledge ethnic Europeans as being indigenous to Europe.

2) The people that make-up and back the U.N. are a dominant force in the politics of the Western world.

3) The political establishment of Canada, all major parties included, has announced it’s support of what has long been called the “Century Initiative”, which seeks to raise Canada’s population to 100 million by the end of the century.

4) This increase of some 65 million people to our current population of 35 million is to be achieved predominantly via immigration (from non-Commonwealth, non-European nations).

Ironically, depending on how much one knows about European history and the degree to which they “connect” with the history of their own ancestry, present day Europe is the canary in the coal mine regarding the ultimate fate of indigenous peoples in the globalist (aka post-national, aka. colonial) world of tomorrow.

Our First Nations are being tossed bones, strung along with rhetoric, and seeded with racial fear, hatred, and division. And Founding Nations are taking the agitation bait and playing right into the globalist hands. As all of our problems, as Canadians, compound.

Think twice, my friends. It’s a complex predicament, with no clear and easy answers for those who value both their cultural ethnic identity and the cultural diversity that has existed, globally, from time immemorial.

Globalism is rebranded colonialism. Same as ever.

Freedom

Freedom. It is an interesting word. A word that has been with the various Anglo-Nordic peoples since (at least) the dawning of Proto-Germanicism, which, like Celticism, was the only branch of the greater Indo-European tree that developed the notion out of a root (*pri-) that originally meant “beloved”.

This is the same root that we get the word friend from incidentally.

One might think of the development of the word free — from “beloved” to “not in bondage” — in terms of, say, who you would have as a room-mate in your home. Or who you would invite to home-sit for you while you were away on some extended trip. In short, in terms of who you would grant the freedom of your home to. And the answer is of course, to one’s beloved, to one’s friend/s, to those who are trustworthy and so can be trusted to conduct themselves as you yourself would; and who are thus free to “act as they will” (ie. in a beloved, friendly manner) within one’s home.

Certainly, one could argue that such a state isn’t exactly “unburdened by constraint”, but it is not a conscious matter of legalities and/or a check-list of criteria either. Friendship and the freedom that walks hand-in-hand with it are mostly organic evolutions, the unconscious attraction of like to like, such that among friends there is not a feeling, much less a manifestation of constraint. Each are acting, unrestrained according to their own habits of conduct, as they please. It’s just that the conduct that pleases one is also the conduct that pleases the other, eg. I don’t have to demand that you wash your dishes because you dislike dishes piling up just like me and act accordingly.

A common thew is shared between friends, and in a broader cultural sense between the free; thew being an Old English (and uniquely West Germanic) word that means “custom, habit, morals, conduct” and carries implications of “sinew, muscle, strength”, acting as what we today might call “social fabric”.

One could thus easily say that, like friendship and freedom, thew and freedom walk hand-in-hand; though again one is forced to acknowledge that thew doesn’t necessarily leave the individual “free of constraint” in any universal or objective manner, and contains within itself an implicit set of criteria which, if not organically met, will certainly leave a new-comer feeling constrained, a long-stander ashamed, and in either case, as the odd-one-out.

“Everyone! Look! There’s Johnny!!! He has no clothes on!!!”

Freedom it would thus seem is something of a relative state, that comes with implicit constraints that are most apt to be imparted and enforced socially, organically. Indeed, by the reckoning of our ancestors — in fact by the reckoning of common sense — freedom had no effective existence outside of social interactions and relationships, outside of human society, and was a thing that could only be achieved in relation to one’s fellow man.

To be free meant, to our ancestors, the freedom to take part in society; shouldering it’s obligations and benefiting from it’s privileges.

In contrast to the free, our ancestors had, not so much the thrall or slave, much less the young — both of which had no rights under law, but nevertheless benefited from the rights and freedoms enjoyed by their owners or adult relations — but rather the wretch, who, regardless of his degree of self-sufficiency, was left without either law or loved ones to shield him and secure his rights, to care for him in sickness and/or old age, and who was left to contend with the merciless tyranny of nature and any man or group of men that wanted to work ill-will upon him. And whose line would, at best, end with him, or alternately, produce offspring who would be damned to a wretched life of loneliness, hopelessness, and perhaps even inbred dysfunction.

As the Havamal poem says, “Man rejoices in man”. Likewise the Old English Rune Poem.

This freedom to take part in society, as a member of society, was imparted by our Anglo-Nordic ancestors at the tribal assembly, the (ahem) “state” assembly, as noted as early as Tacitus, who wrote,

Then in the presence of the council one of the chiefs, the young man’s father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the “toga” is with us, the first honour with which youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as a member of a household, after-wards as a member of the commonwealth.”

It can also be gleaned in the respect of the indigenous Germanic state for freedom and thew, as seen in it’s largely fine based system of crime and punishment. Their system of crime and punishment was itself a manifestation of Anglo-Nordic thew, representing one aspect of our shared customs and habits of conflict resolution; a thew evolved to deal with the inevitable sprains and tears in thew, which, as such, remained largely in the hands of the people and their locality, to be used or not used, used well or poorly, as the participants saw fit, and in which the state played little to no role. This led to the characterization of the Icelandic gothar for example as being “lazy” and/or (ahem) “too permissive” in regards to the conduct of their folk, ie. “too respectful” of their freedom. Only in the most severe of cases, such as deeds which threatened to undermine the collective trust, eg. secret killing, was the state empowered to mete out more familiar legal punishments such as flogging, imprisonment or execution. This attitude extended to military service outside of a certain distance from one’s own locality among the Anglo-Saxons. No law could be invoked to oblige a man to take part in his king’s call to muster or force a man to go aviking; though thew might well prompt a man to do so at least once in his youth. Whatever the case, as a matter of both law and thew no man would be forgiven for failing to rise to the defense his own locality and he would be dealt with very harshly, be it by law or mob, and understandably so I would think, by his neighbours within that locality for refraining to do so.

It can also be seen in the beliefs and functioning of the Germanic hierarchy as well; in which the free could fall into thralldom (play at dice anyone?), the thrall win his freedom, and being the firstborn of the reigning king vouchsafed one nothing. As the Havamal states, a king’s son, an uppity thrall, none should be so trusting as to trust in these. Unlike the caste structure of our fellow Indo-European belief system, Hinduism, the indigenous Germanic hierarchy was dynamic rather than static, and while ancestry certainly meant something, the ability of the individual was given it’s rightful due. And the right of even a thrall to self-rule — not to mention basic obligation of self-sufficiency — under his own roof-tree was recognized and observed; albeit by thew rather than by law.

The problem with freedom in this post-modern world is a lack of thew, a lack of common identifiers, and the self-regulation that comes with it. And it was toward the notion of thew in general that Tacitus was speaking when he wrote, “good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”, and provide the real reason why, among the Anglo-Saxons for example, state executions were so rare (ie. based on an examination of felon graveyards).

Not strong laws, but strong thew.

Freedom flows upward, out of the soil, into the sole’s of one’s feet, and throughout one’s entire being. And only then can it, not so much descend, from “on high” as it were, from the state, as simply turn about, reflect and affirm, that which gave it life and upon which it’s continued vitality relies. Freedom does not come from political institutions, laws, or intellectualized social constructs or ideologies.

Freedom comes from the habits of a people. From thew. Or not at all. And thew cannot be all things to all people. It cannot be intellectualized and instilled. It evolves through local, first person interaction.

One Ring to Rule them All

Politics. It’s a funny thing. Funny-strange.

I spent most of my life, not unlike most of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s, without affording politics much more than a sideways glance. Unlike most of my peers, I was much more concerned with my native culturo-spiritual heritage as a man of Anglo-Frankish (paternal) and German (maternal) ancestry; which is to say that I was interested in my preChristian heathen heritage. And that of course is as much as to say my ethnic heritage; the word heathen (country-dweller) being a gloss of the Latin paganus (rustic, villager; from pagus meaning “rural locality”) which itself is a gloss of the Greek ethnos from whence we get the Modern English word ethnic; which itself is a much deeper and complex concept than “race” that certainly encompasses the notion of “race” but which is neither limited to nor dominated by it.

As a Germanic Heathen, my values, my identity does not “descend from on high”. It rises up out of the soil beneath my feet, up from the halls of my ancestors and through their generations to me, and stretches up and out as far as my reach can grasp and my environment will allow. That is my domain. And the well-being of my domain, of my tribe, is my politics.

My tribe first.

This is not to suggest that I don’t care about the well-being of other tribes, or fail to realize how successful alliances with outsiders can benefit my tribe, only that I know where my priority-one responsibilities and obligations lie. No one enters into a deal that is not beneficial to them; for all that we might hope that the benefit was mutual. This is of course no different than someone saying that they put their children first, even before my children, to which I would respond, not with self-righteous contempt and holier-than-thou indignation, but rather with a pat on the back and a warm assurance that this is the foundation of being a good parent. You are behaving as you should, as one should expect of you as a parent. Nothing more, nothing less. And the same principle applies no matter the context, big or small. What is true for the parent is true for the family head is true for the tribal head is true for the head of state.

Among wiser folk, folk more in-tune with nature and human nature, folk less ideologically obsessed, such a statement as “I put my child first!” might well come off as uncouth, a statement of the obvious, and as such might be perceived as carrying certain implications that might be frowned upon, depending of course. But we Euro-descended people of the 21st century are not such folk.

No. We 21st century Euro-descended folk can, as a whole, be summed up in the prophecy of Queen Basina, the mother of King Clovis of Frankland, when she foretold that her children would be like noble lions, but her grandchildren like savage bears and wolves, while her great-grandchildren would be like dogs and small squabbling animals that would devour each other. It might have taken a little longer for the dynamic to infect the West as a whole as opposed to just the once sacral Merovingian line of France, but infect us it certainly has. We are like a bunch of stuffy old obsessive-compulsive hyper-critical grannies with nothing better to do than constantly peck and nit-pick, remembering the past only insofar as it can be used to fuel our self-righteous indignation, but utterly senile and entirely oblivious to its many virtues … the very things that have afforded the “grannies”, the weak, the luxury of their continued existence, as well as the rights and freedoms to engage in their incessant, hyperbolic whining and protest to begin with.

One has but to speak towards the historical virtues of the “white male”, or express a concern over our demographic predicament, or cite a fact that runs contrary to the “victim narrative” — or even simply exist as a “white male” — to bringing the wrath of, not only the politically correct mob, but the politically correct establishment down upon you.

Nope. In the U.S. a Christian bakery can’t refuse the business of making a cake for a gay wedding. Meanwhile here in Canada, if you were looking to become a member of our Feds, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, you might imagine that you were in luck as they have plenty of vacancies and are having difficulty filling those positions. Not so lucky however, if you are a white male. Sorry. That quota has been filled. Indeed, in an effort to fill their vacancies with non-white males, the R.C.M.P. have since done away with … wait for it … the requirement of Canadian citizenship!  And meanwhile any hint of Euro-descended peoples, and particularly straight white males, coming together to in any way discuss and/or represent their concerns and interests is denounced as “sexist” or “homophobic” or “racist” or “anti-immigration” and set upon by the mob as certainly as Pavlov’s dog begins to salivate at the sound of a bell. No actual “food” required. No actual hate required. And just never mind the fact that so-called “minority groups” are both encouraged and celebrated for doing the very things that Euro-descended folk are demonized for.

Indeed, just the other day there was what is believed to have been a “terrorist attack” carried out in Edmonton, Alberta by a Somalian refugee. In the wake of the attack our Prime Minister shared an image, presented within the context of the attack, that denounced white supremacy.

whitesupremacy

Inappropriate one might think. Definitely lacking in couth. But it comes as no great shock. We have seen similar responses as this numerous times at this point from other (or the same) politicians in the Western world; responding to Islamic terrorist attacks by lecturing us about the evils of “Islamophobia” … or even just deciding to “throw it out there” to the world that we the (Euro-descended) people (of Canada) are a bunch of low-life “racists”.

And no one questions it. Like Pavlov’s dog they simply begin to “salivate” when someone “rings the bell” of white racism; all too happy to hop on board and goose-step to the tune of the state … all the while imagining themselves to be that courageous soul with his arms crossed, indignantly, while amidst a crowd of (actual) Nazis eagerly throwing up the Roman salute … in the name of Germania.

Political correctness is after all adherence to the doctrine of the state by any other name. It is explicitly totalitarian, implicitly Leftist, and as such runs against the grain of our fundamental ethno-cultural disposition as Germanic people; as evidenced in our centuries long struggle and ultimate(?) victory against the theocratic Abrahamic (Christian) state that resulted in the separation of Church and State and the freedom of belief. But in fact, while the state my have tossed out the proverbial baby, it decided to hang on to the bath-water and carry forward the worst elements of the Christian theocracy; namely its negative evaluation of human nature and its over-bearing, “born again” paternalistic presumption to hold the one and only true path to salvation … which you are “literally Hitler” if you don’t give your mind, your soul and your undying devotion over to.

And hey! Don’t forget to ante up your “Peter’s Pence” while you are at it. Or else.

The Germanic ideal of government is of course best summed up in Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote, “That government is best which governs the least“; which shows off our ancient love of liberty, locality, and self-determination, our trust, our confidence and our sense of security in relation to our neighbour, our fellow man, that hearkens back as far as Tacitus in the historical record. In his work Germania, Tacitus expresses it in so many words here,

“Their freedom has this disadvantage, that they do not meet simultaneously or as they are bidden, but two or three days are wasted in the delays of assembling. When the multitude think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right of keeping order. Then the king or the chief, according to age, birth, distinction in war, or eloquence, is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command.”

He hits upon it again in relation between lord and thrall here,

slaves are not employed after our manner with distinct domestic duties assigned to them, but each one has the management of a house and home of his own. The master requires from the slave a certain quantity of grain, of cattle, and of clothing, as he would from a tenant, and this is the limit of subjection. All other household functions are discharged by the wife and children. To strike a slave or to punish him with bonds or with hard labour is a rare occurrence.

 

What has become known as the “roof-tree law” in modern Germanicism is echoed centuries later in such Havamal stanzas as,

 

One’s own home is best, though it be small.
To each, home is hall.
Though he owns but two goats,
and a thatched roof, it is better than begging

One might say it is further demonstrated among the Viking Age Norse in the founding of Iceland, Greenland, and the Vinland colony! But getting back to Tacitus, he also speaks towards the heart and soul of what made the Germanic concept of self–rule, the ideal of small government, actually work,

good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.

This observation is noted within the context of marriage and fidelity among the tribes of Germania, but speaks toward a more pervasive concept that the Anglo-Saxons called thew; meaning “customs, habits” of a community, as expressed, not in some lofty doctrine, but in rather in the habits of life and social interaction of the people that make up that community. Today we might call it “social fabric”, though “social muscle” would be more appropriate. It is organic, strong yet fibrous and flexible, and it is inherently functional. Thew is what enabled our ancestors, top to bottom, to feed and shelter and cloth themselves, and each other, to extend charity to the needy, to operate under a system of law that was largely civil in nature and absolutely dependent on the parties involved, and their local community, to determine and make amends for any wrongdoing. Good habits. Common values, common vision, common history, common sense, up out of the soil, emanating from the halls of the ancestors and down through the generations to them. And it is primarily in the area of thew that a society that has become co-dependent upon the state most suffers.

And yet in all of this talk that has emerged since the birth of Classical Liberalism about the oppressive nature of the state, and rabidly advanced by the mob of minorities that make up the “politically correct” crowd with the ever paternal “white knights” leading the charge, where is the call for smaller government? Where is the call for limiting the power of the very instrument of oppression that they are all so sore about? Rather, as a result of the very “politics of fear and division” they so often speak out against, they work to feed the wolf, to feed the state, in a frantic effort to secure a hold, Gollum-like, of “the one ring to rule them all”; granting the state ever more power to limit the freedoms and rights of their countrymen, and utterly oblivious to the ever-changing nature of the political landscape.

Here is a word to the wise for you … when you say that all politicians are liars and cheats, that’s a good indication that you mean all of them, rather than all of them except for this one here, who is offering me free stuff and catering to my sympathies, and who is clearly remarkably different than the rest … until I am betrayed by my own selfish naivety … yet again. Rinse and repeat.

Now, it’s one thing to see European peoples in general, or even NW European peoples in specific pander to this political correct nonsense, this faux shaming that generally amounts to so much hyperbolic hot air. But it’s another thing to see people who claim to be “Germanic Heathens” do it. And it is an absolute joke to see one of these “middle grounders” denounce “fanaticism on all sides, be it Far Left or Far Right”, when in fact, for one, both Nazis and Commies are on the Left, both equally big government totalitarian regardless of the presence or lack of an ethnic component, and for another, they set to salivating at the chime of “racists” every bit as quickly, as furiously, and as unthinkingly as the rest of Pavlov’s dogs.

Does it matter to them that the Sons of Odin for example, and most pertinently their Canadian contingent, have never been charged let alone implicated in a hate crime? Does it matter that they regularly spend their free time making sure drunk women make it safely home after a night of partying, do garbage clean-ups in their local neighbourhoods, and shovel their less-than-able neighbour’s sidewalks for them? No. Of course it doesn’t matter. It only matters that their Finnish founder had a background as some kind of “white supremacist” as though, true or otherwise, he is representative of the whole. Does it matter that such outfits as the Sons of Odin or the Proud Boys can boast members, prominent members, married to non-white wives with mixed offspring? No. All that matters is that they have a positive evaluation of Western culture and Western history, which of course somehow means that they are “Far Right” and “white supremacist”. Heck, does it even matter that some of the people being branded with the stigma of “white supremacists” are … wait for it … not even white??? Nor male, nor straight, nor even of clear gender in some cases? No. All that matters to the mob is the doctrine (and udder) of the state and the threat such people pose to the prevailing narrative and the status quo.

What is most confounding about these “Germanic Heathens” that engage in this game of smoke and mirrors, is that they often cite (unfounded) accusations of racism leveled against themselves, and a desire to get out from under them, as their motivation and justification for opposing “racists”; oblivious to the fact that, as such, they are complicit in the slander by, at the very least, validating it with their agreement.  And also to the fact that, no matter how many times they address the question of racism to these slanderers, even going so far as to pull out their own token non-whites to prove the matter, the same slanderers can and do go on doing exactly what they do … slandering them with allegations of racism. This holds true for Euro-descended people as a whole of course.

Does anyone ever stop to consider where some of these so-called “racists” are coming from? Ever attempt to actually “build bridges not walls”? Do they ever stop, if they’ve accumulated enough years to do so, and think, “hey, in the 70s and 80s we were strongly encouraged by the political narrative of the time to stop having babies because doing so would result in a global apocalypse, only to be told in the 90s that because we didn’t have enough babies, we had to accept perpetual mass immigration as the only solution. Now, something isn’t right here.”?

No? Well, why not???

If nothing else, we were lied to … taken in by the good ol’ “bait and switch”. A person of honour and conscience could not simply over-look that or let it pass unchallenged, to say nothing of try to silence any such observations with socially malicious gossip. Our fertility rate as Euro-Canadians sits at .5 points below the abysmal national average of 1.6 (kids per couple) at an even more abysmal 1.1 (kids per couple). You don’t need to have a degree in advanced calculus to do the math on the issue.

Or maybe we weren’t lied to. Maybe Canada really did need to cap its population growth? After all, from its foundation in the mid-60s to its abolishment in the early 90s, the Science Council of Canada consistently advised a population cap in order to ensure sustainability and environmental health. And of course it was in the early 90s, paralleling the abolishment of the S.C.o.C., that Canada began its modern practice of perpetual mass immigration and we began taking in an average of 250,000 immigrants per year, every year, with the goal of reaching 100 million by the end of the century; a farcical and pretentious goal that flies in the face of simple logic, common sense, and every study done on immigration to date, and relies on some obscure metric that suggests a “sweet spot” of population density that, if reached, shall magically “unlock the bounty of the nation”, but which can’t actually be demonstrated, and only serves to be undermined by using existing countries that do sit in the hypothetical “sweet spot” of  population density as examples. They might as well be prophesying from the entrails of goats or predicting the Second Coming for all that they can validate their claims.

Yes, gentle reader, for those of you unfamiliar with the Scientific Method, a hypothesis is not at all the same thing as a conclusion. And even a conclusion requires verification.

This notion of a population cap was in more recent times echoed by the West Coast’s very own environmentalist golden boy, David Suzuki, who said in criticism of the Harper government and its immigration policy that, and I quote, “Canada is full“. And for this Suzuki was lambasted as “anti-immigration” by the Conservatives and such media personalities as the roundly loathed Ezra Levant. Moreover, Suzuki was left so shaken by the Mjolnir-like bludgeoning power of the accusation, which, again, actually amounts to a lot of hot air, that he hasn’t said a peep about immigration since.

In fact, those very Conservatives that slammed Suzuki as “anti-immigration” were themselves coloured anti-immigration by their critics, and despite taking in a modern record of 285,000 immigrants in a single year. Likewise, back in the 90s, Preston Manning of the old Reform Party was slammed as “anti-immigration” for suggesting that we pull our intake down to 150,000 per year, despite being able to boast 150,000 articles of evidence as to why he was anything but anti-immigration … unless of course one meant that he was anti-immigration like antifa is “anti-fascist”, ie. not at all.

I mention this to demonstrate what a farce the accusation of “anti-immigration” is. And in this it is no different than the accusation of “racism”. Indeed, both have a very direct relation to one another, serve the same end, utilize the same hyperbolic tactics and rely on the same knee-jerk reactions, and as such are more-or-less synonymous. It would also seem to illustrate the essential contradiction that exists between the Leftist platforms of environmentalism vs. immigration and economy. And there is every reason to question the received doctrine of  “immigrants and economy” as well.

Despite the oft repeated mantra that “Canada needs immigrants”, not a single study has been produced that  lends credence to the notion. According to the study undertaken by the Fraser Institute immigrants represent a net burden on the Canadian tax-payer of some $23 billion dollars per year. A similar study conducted by the Simon Fraser University, often used in (pathetic) retort to the former, concluded that immigrants “only” cost Canadian tax-payers $2 billion dollars per year, ie. but cost us nevertheless. Meanwhile the study that, until recently, sat upon the Government of Canada website,  “the Economic and social objectives of immigration: The evidence that informs immigration levels and education mix”, concluded that, economically speaking,  immigration has only negligible effect, either way, upon the country; but also drew firm conclusions that, on the one hand, immigration certainly improves the economic outcome of the immigrant, and on the other, that immigration certainly undermines the social cohesion of the host nation.

That is to say, it undermines thew … the ability of people to get along, work together, and feel at home in their surroundings. 

These questions regarding fertility rate, demographics, and immigration, the integrity and power of the state,  are real concerns based on actual data whose discussion should and shall be insisted upon by a civic-minded population possessed of right goodwill. And they are not at all problems exclusive to “straight white Christian males”. They impact the lives of women and homosexuals no less, and have already had a significant impact on the state of First Nations people within Canada … who have found their voice of 1.4 million strong eating the dust of “First Generations”, of which some 6+ million (offspring not included) have been brought into Canada over the past 25 years. And it is “predicted” that future population increase, and they are planning a lot of it, shall come predominantly from immigration (as opposed to natural increase), which should raise an alarm with any legitimate citizen of Canada.

Note that none of this is observed with any particular prejudice or malice towards the non-European populations of the world, or those existing here. There are certainly some groups, such as Islam, that I think we should certainly be more careful as setting up as our “preferred source of immigrants”, but I understand the motives of immigrants for wanting to come to Western countries, to come to Canada. Contrary to the self-loathing collectively apparent in those so eager to hurl and accept the slurs of “racist” and “anti-immigration”, we lovers of the West understand the motivations of immigrants only all to well. Namely, they know as well as we do that “the West is the best”. It’s not at all perfect, and still has some major hurdles to overcome, as this blog entry should make abundantly clear, but it’s the best thing that the world has going and, more importantly, it has evolved a process that speaks towards our collective humility, self-awareness and self-criticism, that is requisite to any hope of growth and progress. And it’s possession is why the West is the best. Moreover, while I am happy to judge groups collectively, I am also wise enough to judge individuals based upon their own merit as individuals and have in my life grown up alongside wave after wave of immigrants that had washed up on the shores of Canada. And contrary to the prevailing narrative, we all got along pretty good back in the 70s and 80s, governed on the play-ground and ballfield largely by local thew, before the state and its political correctness at last stepped in to do what it does … ruin an otherwise good thing for everyone, the young not least among them.

Finally, these questions, which amount to nothing less conscientious than questioning the state, are also a concern for anyone who has a true appreciation for ethno-cultural diversity. History has shown us time and again that in any collision or coming together of cultures within a given area that one shall dominate and subsume the other/s. It is a simple logistic reality. Whose language shall be the language of the state? Or shall the state have 12+ official languages? Whose values will it embody, who will define its social mores, what shall be it’s laws and system of laws? And what will become of its history? This is not to suggest that such “cultural conglomerations” cannot work. It is only to point out that the end product isn’t a wonderful garden of either baseline human or ethno-cultural diversity; which itself is not actually an ideal that needs achieving, but rather is the default position of human life on Earth, that only needs observing, but which has never been in greater danger than it is today.

You see, the political paradigm is no longer one of Left vs. Right, of Liberal vs. Conservative. No. The (re-)emerging paradigm is a very old one at this point. It is one of the diverse peoples and cultures and nations of the Earth vs. a pretensious and self-serving global elite and their collection of useful idiots. And its modern manifestation has been working hard, both at home and abroad, to destabilize cultures both foreign and domestic, with the end goal of establishing a global monoculture overseen by a global state … in which we mere “peasants” have all been reduced to interchangeable parts for their own convenience. And the rhetoric of these globalists and their stooges, most poignantly on the Left, betrays itself. In one instant they are demanding a respect for and celebration of diversity, and in the next they are insisting that we are all really just the same, with nary a difference between us; black or white, male or female, gay or straight, and indeed, ultimately, you or me.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

And so as this long rambling entry of mine draws to a close, my thoughts begin to wander back to its beginnings and the events that have transpired over the last few days. Particularly, this time around, to the events that rocked Las Vegas and left nearly 60 concert-goers dead. In its wake I have heard the bewildered questions, “how could this have happened??? What possibly could have been his motive??? What could have triggered him???”. And I am reminded of the fact that second generation Muslim immigrants tend to be far more prone to radicalization than their immigrant parents. How is that, we wonder? After all, unlike their parents, they themselves grew up here in the West, did they not? How could they fail so utterly to integrate with Western culture? But then you take a look at the cultural landscape they have apparently been in the process of integrating with since they were born. Where did this hatred of the West come from? Indeed, where did this disdain for humanity itself come from?

Gee. I wonder.

J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Ring_verse