latest

Canadians from the founding cultures, need to look beyond a conventional political solution. If Catalonia, Khalistan, Israel, Wakanda, “Farrakhanland,” Scotland, Kurdistan, Quebec, and “New” California, why not a homeland for European-Canadians in South-Western Ontario; the Maritimes; the Prairies, around Quebec City or the interior of beautiful British Columbia? It’s British Columbia, after-all.

We can’t be accused of discriminating against people we don’t live with. The massive transfer of wealth and the $35B-$40B fiscal costs of immigration will disappear. Infrastructure savings would be enormous. We’ll never have to worry about being branded racists or xenophobes again. Taxes will decline. Hospitals, currently operating at 135% of capacity in both the Fraser River Valley and the GTA, largely as a result of chain migration, will gradually decline to their intended 85% cap, and we’ll be able to move on our highways again. The Canadian environmental could heal. Employment equity plans will vanish, and organizations can get thousands of our kids out of their parent’s basements and into the workforce.

A new homeland for the founding cultures might seem fantastic or a pipe dream to some but consider that we are now, as of the credit crisis of 2008-09, at a significant historical inflection point. In their bestselling book, The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with History, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe describe the seasonal nature of history and foresee an inevitable period of decay that will destroy existing social and political institutions.

Steven K. Bannon, former advisor to President Donald Trump (and many others), agrees that a Fourth Turning began in 2008 with the global financial credit crisis and has argued that the administrative state must be dismantled in advance of the final climax. Canadians, too, should tear down everything that is no longer functional, including our pathological immigration policies and official multiculturalism. In order to renew, forests need fires and rivers need floods.

To be fair, sweeping theories of history are not as well received in academia. The Fourth Turning is non-falsifiable and has been a tough sell to professional historians who have now been co-opted into re-writing and revising history to allow for the occupation of formerly Western ancestral homelands by alien out-groups. William McLoughlin, a former history prof at Brown, believes that it is fantasy to think that “if you put enough data together and have enough charts and graphs, you’ve made history into a science.” Fair enough. Those sophisticated enough to lose money in the capital markets at any time, will confirm that the future is unknowable by definition. Nevertheless, the Turnings are much more than mere happenstance or data mining.

Readers who have stock market experience can find support in Elliot’s 5th and final wave of his grand super-cycle and with Nikolai Kondratieff’s wave theory. The cycle of crises also corresponds with cycles of war identified by Arnold Toynbee and geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson. Keep in mind Vladimir Lenin’s comment that “In some decades, nothing happens; in some weeks, decades happen.”

There’s a lot to be concerned about. North Korea and Iran; the staggering mountain of immoral public debt in the United States and Canada and throughout the West; the crouching, racist and hyper-nationalist tiger dreaming of global domination and increasingly militarizing, with weapons stolen from the West, the South China Sea, or what I prefer to call the North Philippine Sea, are all potential sparks. The world’s greatest threat according to Bill Gates, is an influenza pandemic. The Institute of Disease Modelling predicts that a severe flu pandemic could kill more than 33 million people in just 250 days. Several concerning strains are already circulating.[iv]

Finally, in my view, there is a growing threat of a second civil war exploding out of the incredible divisiveness in the United States. Either of these four “sparks;” debt, China, a flu pandemic, or the outbreak of a second American Civil War or a combination of these threats could ignite the final Fourth Turning “climax” sometime between now and 2025, give or take, according to the theory.

The generational cycle cannot explain the role or timing of these individual threats. Nor can it account for the great events of history, like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Kennedy’s assassination, 9/11 or the Lehman insolvency. What the generational cycle can do, according to Strauss and Howe, is explain how society is likely to respond to these events in different eras. It is the response, not the initial event, which defines an era according to the theory. [v] According to Strauss and Howe, the crisis period lasts for approximately 20 years.

A financial collapse driven by a debt implosion is certainly plausible. Total debt in the U.S., for example, including Federal, State, Municipal and contingent liabilities in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is roughly $207 Trillion. In Canada, the Province of Ontario is a financial train wreck. The province will need to increase borrowing to finance another spending shortfall, adding to an existing mountain of debt, borrowed on our grandchildren’s credit cards, and is forecast to rise to $325 Billion, or more than $22,500 for every man, woman and child in the Province.[vi]

Newly elected Premier, Doug Ford, will find his hands to be tied but at least he has the right mindset and there is some hope that his populist surge will spill over Federally next year. To make matters worse, Moody’s has joined the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and S&P Global is warning that Canada’s banking system, yes Canada’s, is facing a growing threat of souring consumer loans amid rising interest rates. Canada’s ratio of household debt to disposable income reached a new astonishing record of 171% in the 3rd Q of 2017 and the proportion of uninsured mortgages has increased to 60% from 50% five years ago.[vii]

It is my view, however, that the final spark for the Fourth Turning will be ignited by a Second American Civil War. Either way, the day of reckoning is coming. The chickens will come home to roost.

The Fourth Turning, whatever the final cause(s), has the potential to trigger a political upheaval beyond what we can possibly ever imagine. Strauss and Howe see a return to a more traditional and conservative social order as one of the outcomes. If history is a guide, the probability of retribution for former “collaborators” and for those who resist the new expectations for conformity will be high. There will be no assumption of compassion for the traitors and complacency will not be an option.

On the bright side, fertility rates will rise again, quality of life and prosperity will climb and public investment in infrastructure will surge. We will enter into a period of Peace, Order and Good Government but many nations are likely to be fractured and geographically divided by ethnicity as a consequence.

Yes, there is hope for a new homeland for the founding cultures. This may be our opportunity to take our nation back and hold those responsible for giving it away, without our consent, as traitors. Gird your loins for our next rendezvous with destiny.

Canada is over 400 years old. Our people have a DNA all our own. We belong to a unique and storied nation with its own official languages, religion, history, heroes, mannerisms, culture and identity. We don’t want open borders. We don’t want mass migrations to change Canada into something new. We don’t want to become a minority in our own land. We want our country back.

Canadian “elites” babble about “diversity,” about how much better a country we will be in 2036 when white Europeans are just another minority and we have become a “gorgeous mosaic” of every race, tribe, creed and culture on earth. To many Canadians, such a future entails the death of our nation. To Canadians, millions of African, Chinese, Indian, Arab and Islamic peoples settling in our lands means the annihilation of the historic nation we love, the nation that came into being to preserve us. We will never forgive politicians, whether by accident, or design, if they change our country completely and forever.

Many of these aliens who occupy Canada today have no “cosanguity” with either of the two founding cultures or the larger white European family. From the growing expressions of resentment, contempt and even hostility towards us, it’s clear they we’re not compatible.[viii] Canada is increasingly being filled with people who have absolutely no connection to the great historic Dominion of Canada. They can’t be faulted. Canada was never really created for them but as anti-white sentiment goes mainstream and all of Canada’s non-whites increasingly assert their own racial and ethnic heritage, what will keep Canada together when we lose our white majority? If Euro-Canadians had the same group loyalty as Sikhs, Muslims, Chinese and Indians we would never have permitted these aliens into our land to begin with.

Our ancestors did not create the heroic and adventurous Hudson Bay Company, fight on the Plains of Abraham, Beaver Dam, Stoney Creek, Lundy’s Lane, Michilimackinac Island, Queenston Heights, Paardeberg and Leliefontein, Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, The North Atlantic, in Defence of Hong Kong, The Battle of Britain, Dieppe, D-Day, The Liri Valley, Normandy, the Scheldt, Kapyong and Kandahar, and endure the enormous hardships and sacrifice of the Great Depression, in order for baby boomers to turn the country over to alien out-groups and foreigners who have nothing in common with us and who don’t share our values.

Canada is much more than an idea; it’s much more than a shopping mall. The Fathers of Confederation did not frame the British North America Act to celebrate diversity. It’s the “British” North America Act, after all. Canadians did not spill their blood and treasure around the world for multiculturalism and to become a marginalized, despised but “privileged” minority in the land bequeathed to us by their ancestors; our home and native land. Did we?

If we don’t stop this madness, and establish our own lands, Euro-Canadians will learn soon enough that the non-whites our hyper-altruistic elites usher into 24 Sussex Drive will not fritter away their demographic, political and economic gains in fruitless displays of moral superiority the way we have. A Canada run by non-white aliens and foreigners will be a shockingly different place. Competitive racial and ethnic altruism is not a game non-whites play.[ix] Canadians must force our traitorous elites to abandon policies that will, before long, destroy us all and everything that was bequeathed to us.

I should be careful what I wish for, but as far as I am concerned, the Fourth Turning can’t come soon enough. We are a people. We can create great things if left free to be ourselves and only we can be ourselves. If Canada ceases to be majority white country, it won’t be a country at all. Euro-Canadians should never give up on the idea that this country belongs, first and foremost, to us. We will fight back and the fight has, in fact, already begun. A cold wind is blowing. Winter is coming—

Can you give a good reason why you believe child pornography ahouldnt be illegal? Because to me it sounds like youre justifying child rape in the name of "anti-censorship"

I’m not doing that at all, and you shouldn’t put scare quotes on anti-censorship.

First, let’s go over a few incidents. Recently, I heard about an acquaintance of mine whose 16-year-old son’s 17-year-old girlfriend attempted to send him a topless selfie but instead accidentally texted it to her neighbor, an old lady who freaked out and called the police. And the first reaction of the police was to begin the process of indicting ALL THREE OF THEM for possession of child pornography and adding them to the sex offender registry for life - and it’s only because the girl’s dad was a golfing buddy of the chief of police that it ended with all of their cell phones being confiscated and wiped instead. Does this sound like a reasonable way of dealing with this situation? Were all of them child rapists? How much prison time should you get for the crime of receiving an unsolicited JPEG file exactly?

Let’s consider also the Playpen incident last year, which was what prompted that post you’re probably responding to, in which the FBI ran a sting operation that disseminated a massive amount of child pornography through the dark web, which was so badly mishandled that very few people they caught downloading real hardcore child rape pornography can be prosecuted. The US federal government is itself unquestionably the biggest distributor of child pornography there is. This is the same federal government that ran COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, etc. And they are now headed by Donald Trump, who is one of several political figures who went to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island before Epstein was convicted of trafficking in underage prostitutes. Donald Trump of the Republican Party, which recently had Dennis Hastert as the Speaker of the House, who has since been convicted of raping an underage boy. And let’s not even get into all the shit the Democrats have been caught doing. Are these the people you trust to fairly enforce these laws? Do you think it would be difficult for any three-letter agency to put child pornography on your computer without your knowledge if they wanted to, so they could prosecute anyone they wanted and claim they were secretly a pedophile, to destroy their reputation? Is that a power you are comfortable with Donald Trump and the deep state having? They haven’t been willing to legally define ‘pornography,’ even. Having laws forbidding certain combinations of ones and zeroes hands those people a blank check to destroy whomever they wish.

Let’s go back to what prompted my personal interest in this whole debate, which was the relationship I had with an older woman when I was 16 - when I had a job, I was going to college, I was allowed to drive a multi-ton motor vehicle, I was talking to a recruiter about joining the Marine Corps, etc. but had no access to many other legal rights arbitrarily withheld from people under 18. If she had sent me racy photos of herself or vice versa, well, she might still be in prison today. As it was, we carefully avoided putting her at risk for two very long years until I was 18, at which point we had a rather normal romantic adult relationship for several years that ended amicably, that I look back on fondly today. As the person who was supposedly protected here by being forcibly kept apart from the person I loved, how do you think I feel about the state’s interference in our relationship now? If you guessed ‘immensely resentful even after all these years,’ you are correct. Would it have been child rape on her part if I had sent her a picture of my naked body unprompted? Does it make any sense that I could pledge to sign several years of my life over to the military at that age but I couldn’t send someone a picture of myself? Do you get how that experience molded my opinion on the subject and made me willing to speak out on the subject even if it meant people would call me a pedophile?

One of the most famous home movies in history is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. We’ve all seen it, right? But it’s photographic evidence of a crime. Shouldn’t we all be charged with condoning the murder of the president for watching that footage, by your logic? Surely you agree that murder is worse than rape. Shouldn’t possessing media of a person being killed be illegal, if possessing media of a person being raped should be? And if animated or drawn child pornography is illegal, shouldn’t possessing any movie or video game in which a person is shown being killed be grounds for imprisonment as well? The logic that you folks use has implications far beyond this subject, but you never really pursue those implications (and you shouldn’t, because they’re insane).

My point is, that’s because you’re fabricating unsound legal principles here to support the existence of this unjust, unconstitutional law (probably because anyone who questions it gets accused of being a pedophile, and you don’t want to wind up with clueless anons accusing you of justifying child rape, for example), instead of coming up with law based on sound legal principles. In any other context, anyone would tell you that possessing a picture or video of a crime is not the same thing as committing the crime yourself and the harm was entirely in the original crime, not just watching it. Are you justifying robbing convenience stores by saying it shouldn’t be illegal to watch America’s Dumbest Criminals? And if we took that principle to extremes it’d suppress important political speech - for example, after Vietnam the American media was pressured by the military to stop showing images of US soldiers in body bags, and as a consequence we’re more emotionally isolated from the wars currently being waged and information about the circumstances of the deaths of soldiers has been kept from the public ‘out of respect.’ Laws against pornography were used not so long ago to suppress information about birth control and sex education. It’s not unimaginable that there’s something important we’re not being allowed to know about, or that we’re all afraid to discuss, because it’s been declared child pornography. Censorship is absolutely something you should be afraid of in any form, and even well-meaning censorship can inadvertently suppress the truth. A free society, especially a democracy, depends on open access to information to function and I’m skeptical of anything that nibbles at that around the edges, even for the noblest of causes. These things always have chilling effects on expression far beyond their official limits as well. If some JPEGs can be illegal it requires all this machinery of surveillance and enforcement that can be just as easily used to suppress other things, and if we don’t trust the state, which we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t be comfortable with that machinery of censorship existing at all. We can’t trust them to stay within their mission - look at all the NSA personnel spying on their girlfriends instead of terrorists. Look at how the state has far outgrown its constitutional bounds. Stopping a few fucked up people from getting access to their preferred masturbation material is not worth having to give Leviathan access to all of our digital communications.

I am an anarchist. I discuss radical libertarian politics here. That’s why I’m against this law that’s been abused so much, the enforcement of which has been a massive travesty of justice for decades. Not because I’m ‘trying to justify child rape.’ My ideology is rooted in the nonaggression principle, which rape obviously violates. Do you think I should take the position of ‘we need to remove all power from the government except the power to prosecute people for child pornography?’ There’s no exception here to my general critique of the state. And what do you think would happen to child rapists in Ancapistan, anyway? ‘Hunted for sport’ is my guess. A convicted child rapist would probably not be able to retain the protection of a DRO (I’ve conjectured for a long time that that might be the one thing all of them would refuse to deal with) and they’d have the status of a medieval outlaw, they’d have no legal protections - likely a de facto death sentence with all the people who’d be lining up to kill them. Meanwhile, the state plays catch and release with child rapists - go check the sex offender map and see how many live in your community right now, I dare you.

Anyway, Anon, you are the unwitting pawn of someone who has started a harassment campaign against me, who has accused me of all kinds of other ridiculous vile shit in the past few days as well, and sent messages encouraging me to commit suicide. They dug up a post from nearly two years ago and reposted it outside of the context of the ongoing debate we had had, triggered by the revelation that the FBI had disseminated a massive amount of child pornography on the deep web. I had explained all of this back then in even greater detail, but then someone sent me an anon asking me about banning violent porn and I made the mistake of mentioning my position again without that context, so it could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with my ideas.

So yeah, I don’t condone raping children, I’m not a psychopath, I just really don’t trust the government, in large part because there are so many actual child rapists at the highest levels of government, and I think we can do better than the current system. I hope this clarifies my thinking for you.