new

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.

On 27 May 2014 the Vancouver City Council voted unanimously to take steps toward yet another official apology for "historical discrimination against people of Chinese descent". The approved motion, which was initiated by Chinese Councillor Raymond Louie, contains a sweeping mandate directing staff to investigate thoroughly, "as long as it takes", every act of discrimination committed against the Chinese from 1886 to 1947.

It also calls for staff to report back to council with recommended actions for compensation and inclusive redress. According to Councillor Kerry Jang, the Chinese who lived in Canada before 1947 "weren't allowed to do very much...to live in certain areas...to go to school or do anything."

What Kerry Jang is saying is a historical fabrication.

The Chinese in BC prospered substantially despite the head tax and not having the right to vote until 1947. In an MA Thesis conducted by Chinese Canadian Paul Richard Yee for the University of British Columbia, 1983, under the title Chinese Business in Vancouver, 1886-1914, it is concluded that the Chinese were able to enjoy "economic opportunities arising inside and outside Chinatown".

Chinese Millionaire Migrants

Daniel Hierbert, a social geographer at UBC, has thus projected that Chinese migration will result in the creation of "a social geography entirely new to Canada". The Chinese, which currently make up about 410,000 of the population in a city of 2.2 million, are set to double to 800,000 by 2031. Hiebert also notes that the city will be increasingly divided into racial enclaves, with white residents becoming a minority group, or only 2 out of 5 residents by 2031.

This massive wave of Chinese colonizers has driven the price of homes way above what middle class Whites can afford, making Vancouver the second least affordable city in the world - behind only Hong Kong.

In Richmond, a city of 200,000 in greater Vancouver, mainland Chinese migration has already helped create the first majority-Chinese city outside Asia, with White citizens cornered into small enclaves and many being forced to sell their homes and move out as "millionaire migrants" take over (read here). It has been estimated that 74 percent of the houses sold for more than $3 million in Vancouver's core Westside neighbourhood in 2010 were sold to Chinese buyers.

Institutional Racism in China

But what is perhaps even more astonishing is that these "millionaire migrants" enjoying apologies from working and middle class Whites come from a culture that, by the standards of British Columbia between 1886 and 1947, are not merely illiberal but vulgarly racist. This has been thoroughly documented in the works of Frank Dikötter. Starting with his book, The Discourse of Race in Modern China (1992), Dikötter examines how traditional Chinese authorities commonly described as "ugly" the "ash white" skin and "indelicate hairiness" of Europeans, and the blacks as "animals, devil-like and horrifying".

More revealing is Dikötter's thesis on how these traditional Chinese notions about inferior "barbarians" intermingled with Nazi forms of "scientific" racism to form a distinctively Chinese racial consciousness in the 20th century and today. The concept of race came to be widely accepted as scientifically proven. Racial theories were disseminated through textbooks, anthropology exhibitions and travel literature, reaching the primary levels of education.

The dominant Han are described as the core of a "yellow race", which includes in its margins all the minority populations. In another book, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China (1998), Dikötter references government publications claiming that eugenics is a vital tool in the enhancement of the "biological fitness" of the nation, heralding the twenty-first century as an era which will be dominated by "biological competition" between the "white race" and the "yellow race". A research team was indeed set up in November 1993 to isolate the quintessentially "Chinese genes" of the genetic code of human DNA.

The visit by Condaleeza Rice to Beijing in 2008 led to a flurry of racist postings on China's websites, with Rice stigmatized as "the ugliest in the world"... "I really can't understand how mankind gave birth to a woman like Rice"... Some directly called Rice a "black ghost", a "black pig"... "a witch"... "rubbish of Humans"... Some lamented: "Americans" IQ is low — how can they make a black bitch Secretary of State"... Others did not forget to stigmatize Rice with animal names: "chimpanzee", "crocodile", "a piece of rotten meat, mouse shit", "[something] dogs will find hard to eat".

Chinese elites have always been very cunning at using their quietness and cautiousness as a rhetorical device to delude Westerners with the quaint notion of Chinese innocence and purity. China is currently building an empire in Africa, based on the exploitation of cheap African labor, poor if any safety standards for workers, construction projects based on the cheapest and shoddiest Chinese materials — all in exchange for vital resources to feed the insatiable desires of 1.4 billion Chinese. That's the strategy: use dirt cheap construction materials to build up good will, then sweep in and take the natural resources. According to Peter Hitchens, Chinese companies have lax safety procedures and "employ African people in slave conditions."

Extermination of Ethnic Minorities in China

China's ethnic composition is almost exclusively Han, 91.9 percent of the population. The ethnic minorities (Mongols, Zhuang, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, and Uighurs) are treated as second class citizens. Tibetans are routinely described as superstitious, lazy, ignorant, and dirty. Tibet is an independent country occupied by Chinese imperialists; Han migration is destroying their heritage; Han companies dominate the main industries; the Chinese get all the best jobs.

The Tibetans are irritated that Chinese migrants eat their dogs (animals believed to be the last reincarnation before humans in Tibetan Buddhism); that the Chinese don't walk clockwise around temples and monasteries, and that they toss away their cigarettes at wooden temples and holy trees. The New York Times described an incidence of one man whose house was burned down for no evident reason as follows: when he tried to seek help, the authorities said, "What race are you? Tibetan? Go ask the Dalai Lama for help."

In 1949, Han Chinese amounted to only 5 percent of Xinjiang's population; today they are up to 41 percent. Urumqi, the capital city, consists of 75 percent Han Chinese, of the 2.5 million inhabitants. The average Chinese views the natives from Xinjiang as backward and as ungrateful for not appreciating the modern infrastructure bestowed upon them by the Han. In the summer of 2009, this region saw violent riots by 2,000 to 3,000 thousand Uighur workers and Xinjiang separatists, in which approximately 150 Han Chinese were killed. The Communist reprisals were swift; up to 50,000 police and security personnel were sent to restore order, more than 2000 Uighurs were detained, and a few dozen were executed. The policy of Sinicization was intensified; in May 2010 Beijing announced a new development strategy to pour $1.5 billion into the region, encourage the migration of more Han Chinese businessmen, together with a 'love the great motherland, build a beautiful homeland' patriotic education campaign that aimed to indoctrinate the Uighurs that "ethnic minorities are inseparable from the Han."

Clearly, it is superbly absurd and cowardly for leaders of European ethnicity in Vancouver to have endorsed a motion calling for more apologies in the context of a reality characterized by mass immigration from a country and an ethnic group that is currently complicit with vulgar and oppressive acts of racism.