While relying on these violent labels without definitions, Kilian has the nerve to say that
Duchesne...relies on populist clichés like "establishment," "elites," "transnational elites," and "cultural Marxists." He never defines them.
This is not true. I defined "cultural Marxism" along with other key terms requiring definition, such as "Euro-Canadians." There is no reason to define works like "establishment" which are commonly understood by everyone. Those who actually read my book will know that the meaning of the words I use are evident within the context they are used.

The One Potentially Fair Objection

The one potentially fair objection Kilian makes is too imprecise and illogical to be of much value to readers. He writes:
Duchesne...cites Canada's first census, in 1871, to argue that the new country had just 23,000 natives, barely more than the 21,500 blacks. But an Indigenous population that small wouldn't have kept the Hudson's Bay Company in furs for two centuries before Confederation.
The population of First Nations on the B.C. coast alone was estimated at 60,000 in the 1860s — before a disastrous smallpox epidemic wiped out 20,000 of them and shattered their centuries-old societies. The population of the coast before the first arrival of smallpox in the 18th century was likely 100,000 or more. Duchesne takes no notice of the demographic disasters that conveniently depopulated the Americas for the Europeans.
First, to be sure, the 1871 census does say that the native population was 23,000. Now, I should have qualified this statement by adding that these figures "are for the four original provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia) only." The census was counting the population of these 4 provinces because these were the provinces that came to constitute Canada a few years earlier in Confederation in 1867. Manitoba and Northwest territories joined in 1870, and BC in 1871.

Yes, one can argue that this census left out the natives of these newly integrated provinces in 1870 and 1871, but, as Kilian himself adds, the 60,000 he guess-estimates for BC in the 1860s was reduced by 20,000 soon after. It is also the case that the natives in these newly acquired provinces were mostly outside Canadian legal society, and that, in this respect, it would have been inaccurate to count them as "Canadians" since they were members of autonomous tribes living in the wild. Moreover, by the same token, this 1871 census is not counting the European population in the other provinces and territories apart from these four provinces. The European population in BC was about 36,000 in 1871.

I do refer to the demographic disasters the natives suffered, calling it "tragic." But my intention in offering numerous statistical facts about the ethnic composition of the Canadian population was precisely to avoid the notion that natives should be elevated into major participants in Canada's history insomuch as they were drastically reduced in numbers. I wanted to offer an accurate account of their contribution to the making of Canada's institutions, rather than a moral account driven by White guilt.

But this is exactly what Kilian tries to do in the review, once his sentence on the epidemics is completed, he goes on to exaggerate the contributions of "Chinese, Hawaiians, South Americans and countless others" in the making of Canada, totally ignoring the masses of demographic statistics I offered on the ethnic distribution of Canada's population, which totally refute his statistical fabrications.

Moral Posturing While Ignoring The Subject

The rest of Kilian's review is full of moral grandstanding coupled with bromides about Donald Trump and Anglo supremacists. He completely ignores the arguments I made, opting for the claim that I am fascist who writes history "without concepts." What about the four theoretical chapters I offered on Kymlicka, Taylor, Strauss, and Schmitt? Kilian claims that I offer "an attitude, not a thesis, that life was better under European rule because Europeans are (indefinably) superior." It is the other way around, this lazy journalist never asks one of the cardinal questions reviewers must ask: what the intention of the author was in writing the book?

My intentions were:
Why is everyone in the Canadian establishment, from left to right, engaged in a program of diversification without open debate?
Why is everyone saying that Euro-Canadians stand to be enriched as they are reduced to a minority in their own homeland?
Why are historians, and the elites, insisting that Canada is a nation of immigrants, lying to millions of students, when there is no historical evidence for this claim?
What are the roots of the ideology of multiculturalism and the obsession with excluding Euro-Canadians, and only Euro-Canadians, from affirming their ethnic identity?
Why does multiculturalism encourage the group rights of non-Europeans, while openly excluding the group rights of Euro-Canadians?
Why are Canadians being told that Canada is historically unique in its multicultural identity when we know that they are making the same claim about the unique multicultural identity of European nations, United States, Australia, and New Zealand?

I offered answers to all these questions. Kilian ignored them all and opted for a repetition of what the banks, politicians, and the lying media say about those who criticize diversification. No one respects men like Kilian; they may be called "nice" by Asians and Blacks, but they are never respected. Deep down everyone knows that a man who trashes his own ancestors lacks honour and basic human decency. There is just something wrong witnessing Kilian take regular snipes against the men who built this nation as "mediocrities," making fun of our most respected Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, while always praising foreigners-to-become immigrants as morally superior.