Clear Thinking Family, Race, Religion, Culture, Politics

May 20, 2016

Let’s Get Back to Self-Determination of Peoples

Filed under: Nation State,Race — Editor @ 12:51 pm

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted the Atlantic Charter at a shipboard conference Aug. 14, 1941. Among other things, the Charter said territorial adjustments after the war “must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned” and that “all people had a right to self determination.” People in this context meant not only existing nations, but ethnic populations under the control of others who wished to become nations.

Kurdistan: a people without a country

Kurdistan: a people without a country

It should be obvious now to everyone the division of the Ottoman empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI was a collosal mistake. Borders were drawn willy nilly with no consideration for the people who lived there, many of whom found themselves on the wrong side of the line. Even after the Atlantic Charter stated nations should be created out of peoples, this mistake continued.

In Asia, India split into India and Pakistan, Malaya split into Malaysia and Singapore; in Africa Sudan separated into Sudan and South Sudan; in Europe Czechoslovakia split into Czechia and Slovakia and Yugoslavia split into Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia/Herzegovnia. Where splits have not taken place, but should, wars broke out.

A prime example involves Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, all of whom should give up land for a new nation of Kurdistan. Wars also broke out in Lebanon, Cyprus and Rwanda due to ethnic and sectarian issues.

What this all means is incredibly simple to understand although very few politicians see fit to admit it. It is that peoples, that is ethnic groups, prefer to govern themselves and if they don’t have that chance, they revolt. The nature of the revolt depends on the numbers involved. If it is a very large percentage, then they opt for separation. If a smaller percentage, they opt for some kind of provincial self-governing status. The Kurds in northern Iraq, for example, have this status as have the French in Quebec.

Where the numbers are smaller still, rioting breaks out. The American example shows that while blacks only constitute 13% of the population, they repeatedly cause civil disturbances of which the Ferguson riots were the most recent. Minority riots have also taken place in recent years in London, England and Paris. Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter what the minority is, the religion or the circumstances. It just seems to be universal that ethnically similar people want self-rule. Period.

In the Canadian context, the First Riel Rebellion by the Métis and the establishment of a Provisional Government is a case in point, one that failed.

This leads me to make a simple suggestion. Canadians, and indeed all peace-loving peoples of the world, should support, as a principle, the idea of ethnic nation states. They could be large like Kazakhstan or small like Singapore, but they should be self-governing. If that principle were applied world-wide, we would sharply reduce the amount of violence, riot and war on this planet.

Of course we would have to ditch some cherished beliefs, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that would be a small price to pay for world peace.

April 26, 2016

How Free Traders like Walter Williams Get it All Wrong

Filed under: Globalization,Nation State — Editor @ 3:40 pm

This post will take some research on your part. Please read a column by Walter Williams at Front Page Magazine entitled Seen and Unseen: How tariffs hurt Americans. Of course they don’t, but first read how Williams think they do.

an American worker cutting steel

an American worker cutting steel

If you don’t have the time to read his piece, I’ll try to summarize it in one sentence. He says, using steel as an example, that an eight to 30 percent tariff in 2002 on several types of imported steel saved 1,700 steelworker jobs but cost American consumers $800,000 and resulted in layoffs of 65,000 workers in steel-using industries in California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. On the face of it that looks a little high, but no matter. His point is that cheap imports are critical to American industries using steel.

Why is this? I’ll tell you why; it’s because cheap imports have destroyed the American steel industry leaving it unable to cope with steel from cheap-labour countries like South Korea and China. Those countries have built brand-new plants using American technology, Japanese automation and German machine tools so they now not only have the lowest cost workers, they have the most productive plants.

How did that happen? It happened because American industries flew over the Pacific and signed trade deals with mostly government-backed corporations. These deals included all the plans, patents and processes China needed to start fresh with new plants. The American companies got cheap goods made to high standards and put billions of dollars in their pockets. Their workers in the United States, meanwhile, were fired.

Imagine if there had been a tariff cost at the American border, not on steel, but the products those American companies were making. Imagine if it were illegal to give corporate business secrets to foreign companies, especially those controlled by foreign governments. There would have been no incentive to build new plants in China; they would have built them in the United States. The U.S. would then have used its higher productivity to balance against Chinese lower costs.

Let me put this another way. You can’t have a competitive country if you give your competitors all your secrets.

Of course, in the case of China, they’re busy taking those secrets whether you give them or not, but that’s another story.

Let’s just say that a tariff on imported steel should have been just the start. What’s needed is a tariff on ALL imports that competete head-to-head with American goods. That’s what Donald Trump is calling for and why I’m calling for Americans to please vote for him.

It’s either that or just give up on the American dream.


April 20, 2016

I’ll Bet You Haven’t Heard Anything Like this in Canada, More’s the Pity

Filed under: Immigration,Islam — Editor @ 7:26 pm

German Leader Slams George Soros, Unfortunately it’s not Frau Merkel

Filed under: Islam,Nation State — Editor @ 9:47 am

Here’s a sensational speech by Tatjana Festerling of PEGIDA. She asks Soros “Why should Europe follow your personal ideas” on immigration?” Here in a few minutes are all the reasons Germans are rising against the wishes of their government and that of the European Union. They’ve had enough and they’re not going to take it any more.

Thanks to Jihad Watch and Victor Lazlo of Rebel Media for the clip.

April 13, 2016

So What is the Alt-Right Anyway?

Filed under: Globalization,Nation State,Race — Editor @ 3:58 pm

The Alternative Right, or Alt-Right, is in the news, attacked by both the left and the traditional right. But what is it; and what does it believe? I think you’ll find if you’re a thinking person with a mind of your own, the Alt-Right is just right for you.


Charles Darwin as a young man

There are two views of human development: those of the Darwinists and those of the Progressives. We in the Alternative Right belong to the Darwinists because we believe in science, the scientific method and in the value of observation and analysis. The Progressives, on the other hand, are repelled by their observations of the human condition and attempt to replace science with a belief system they can manipulate. Progressives are Utopianists, while we on the Alt-Right are realists.

Before I go on, I should explain the Alternative Right is an alternative to the conservative movement which, we believe, has been taken over by neo-conservatives who believe in free trade, mass immigration, nation building and individual rights above ethnic rights.

We believe the neo-conservative worldview is a recipe for disaster; indeed, for the disaster that has already overcome the world with violence imported from the Middle East in Europe, America, Canada and Australia; with the loss of good middle class jobs, with attacks on our heritage and ancestry and with issues of crime and culture shock associated with mass immigration from the Third World. We believe, in short, that neo-conservativism has accepted Progressive globalist goals and attempted to dress them up in conservative clothes.

This is easily proven. Communism, the product of Marxism, sought to expand over the whole world and to impose a top-down governing structure run by socialist elites. Neo-conservativism seeks to establish a New World Order of international free trade, complete with the mass movement of workers, controlled by a small coterie of international elites. In reality, it’s the same totalitarianism in a different suit.

The Alt-Right, on the other hand, believes in democratic bottom-up government, the nation state based on an ethnic model, a capitalist national economy, very little immigration, the family as the basic social unit and a national birthrate of 2.1 children per family. These are all conservative policies, or rather what were Classical liberal policies at the time of Adam Smith. They are now extremely out of favour in the West.

Why we believe in these policies is interesting. It’s because, as Darwinists, we think the nation should exist as a gene pool, and since we come from a European background, a European gene pool. We think the same argument should apply to other ethnic and racial groups. Thus, we support the Kurds in their demand for a country of their own. We support Israel as a land for the Jews. Japan as a land for the Japanese. Congo for the Congolese, and so on. Each race is like an extended family for the people in it and this large extended family should have a home of its own. Again, this used to be standard fare for Classical liberals, but again it has fallen into disfavour.

It’s fallen into disfavour because utopianism is a very appealing concept and has won many converts. It was the driving force behind Christian evangelism, international Communism and the United Nations. It appeals to some of the best human instincts (helping others) but it also to some of the worst (something for nothing). In this latter form, it has become useful to those who are attempting to leverage it to achieve power, such as cultural Marxists, environmental activists and left liberals of all stripes.

Let me present a very simple concept at the heart of the Alt-Right movement. If people in a group are genetically similar they will develop a pattern of habits and procedures which they’re comfortable with. This is their culture. Any laws they happen to agree on are designed to catcht the exceptions; those individuals who deviate from the accepted norms. In other words, the law is for exceptions to the culture, not a method of enforcing a new culture. Because most people in the group agree on most things there is a maximum amount of personal freedom.

(You can read an analysis of this effect at VDare where Kevin MacDonald says the following in a rebuttal of an attack on the Alt-Right by Robert Tracinski: “Apparently Tracinski can’t or won’t understand, is that individualism works well when pretty much everyone else is playing the same game.”)

(The construction in the above paragraph was stated recently by Hungarian President Viktor Orban, when he said: “Constitutional order is necessarily built on an existing community with a history. It is built on a community of real people of flesh and blood, one that is aware of its identity. It is never built on abstract theories. Abstract theories may help define the common principles and interests, but they must not supersede them.” This truly is a scathing indictment of countries like Canada who try to base nationhood on principles instead of population.)

If, to take the reverse of this argument, you have a group of people who are genetically different, each sub-unit will differ in its culture from the others. These cultures will eventually clash because their laws are based on their cultures and their cultures are based on their biology. To put these different races and cultures in the same political basket is to ask for trouble. In every case where it has been tried, it’s failed.

There are numerous examples: India, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the United States (white and black America), Canada (our Native problem, the Quebec nation) and, my favourite, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This latter was an empire based, like Canada’s constitution, on multiculturalism and bi-culturalism. Its spectacular failure led to WWI.)

The Alt-Right believes that the maximum amount of personal freedom, the best form of national economy and most harmonious society can only exist within the boundaries of an ethnically-based nation state. If we seem anxious and upset at current events in the world it is because we see them as a disaster unfolding over which we have no control and about which we are very well informed.

All of which means nothing to most people because if they express an interest in the Alt-Right they’re afraid they’ll be accused of racism. This is a real tar baby in modern discussions on race, even for physical anthropologists who have shied away from making comments on the subject because of the influence of Columbia University physical anthropologist Franz Boas (1858–1942). Boas, whose grandparents were observant Jews, turned the discipline from the study of biology into the study of culture, claiming humans could be changed by social and environmental factors and downplaying the role of genetic inheritance.

(It’s interesting that Wikipedia says his parents embraced Enlightenment values, including their assimilation into modern German society. So, in a way, Boas anthropological theories sought to validate his family’s own history of rejecting race. He is not the first, nor the last, scientist to try to work out childhood feelings on a larger canvas.)

However, as I’ve just shown culture is downstream from biology just as law is downstream from culture. To claim otherwise is to confuse cause and effect. Indeed much of the failure of modern day social programs can be laid at the feet of Boas’ followers, from the Great Society, to school busing programs to demolished public housing complexes in St. Louis and Chicago. None of these programs worked because none of them dealt with the root cause of the problem.

Surely, after 75 years of failure, someone somewhere needs to return anthropology—the study of humans—to studying humans as the animals we are. We need to study humans at least as well as we do dogs, sheep, cattle or horses. We need categories, we need statistics, we need to establish (actually re-establish) the relationship between these categories and their social and cultural by-products.

Is it racism to study race? I’ll answer that by narrowing the field in question to that of your own family. Is it racist to prefer and enjoy your own family over someone else’s? Is it racist to love your wife, cherish your children, defend your parents? Some leftist thinkers believe it is. Indeed, Cultural Marxists believe the family unit itself should be abolished.

In this semantic and social fight, which side are you on? Are you with those who want to atomize society, remove inheritance, make babies in factories to specifications approved by a ruling elite? That’s what anti-racists are calling for, working for, demanding for us all. Consider what their ultimate goal is: a world of individuals stripped of any biological relationship. This is the truly horrifying end game of anti-racism.

April 11, 2016

What Happens to Race in a Multicultural Country?

Filed under: Race — Editor @ 4:34 pm

This is a simple enough question. But, assuming you even believe in race as a descriptive reality, the conventional wisdom and actual data are two very different things. Instead of becoming a stock pot like bouillabaiss, such a country is more like a cheese factory; things tend to separate in ways no one expects.

Jair-Oliveira and Tania-Khalill

Jair Oliveira and Tania Khalill and their baby

We’ve all been reading a lot lately on the evils of white males, whites in general, white  privilege, and the hidden superiority of whites. Black Lives Matter and other groups have called for whites to be excluded, spurned and even eliminated from society, the nation and the planet. Whites have been attacked merely for being white.

A lot of leftists and liberals think maybe blacks have a point; that maybe we whites have had it too good for too long. They’ve told us we’re racists and we’ve started to feel it. Even conservatives and the Alt-Right have seen the anti-white movement as the writing on the wall. Whites are going to be overwhelmed by a tsunami of yellow, brown and black people and all the world is going to come out with a nice natural tan. And that’ll be just fine to the Progressives currently running the country, the media and academia.

Progressives aren’t very good at pulling out facts to back this claim, but when they do, reluctantly, they point to Brazil as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society that has succeeded the way they hope Europe, Canada and the United States will succeed after waves of new, third-world immigrants re-order the racial balance.

Look at Brazil, they say. Now there’s a success story.

Well, I thought, let’s look at Brazil and see what’s going on in race relations. What are the concerns, if any, in the black community there? A good place to start is with a website called Black Women of Brazil and an article, I kid you not, entitled: “White women for marrying and the Brazilian solution to race: the elimination of the black race.” The title comes from a Brazilian expression: “Branca para casar, mulata para fornicar, negra para trabalhar” and the article and commentary makes much of the ingrained tradition of marrying white, also known as marrying up. A quote:

I also remembered the “white passport” which is a term used by a militant of the Movimento Negro (black movement) to talk about interracial relationships in which social mobility must be postmarked or “rewarded” with a white partner. For what? To show society that one is well off. A bank account and diploma does not call as much attention as strolling hand in hand with people considered “beautiful”. Those people that look like the hosts of children’s programs.

There’s a lot more in a similar, annoyed, vein with pictures of black men and women who marry white. There’s also an attack on miscegenation which will come as a shock to Canadian Progressives:

Incidentally, the source of these “modern” theories about miscegenation in Brazil is the old theory of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, generically known as “praise for miscegenation” that basically proposes the “dilution of races,” assuming, devilishly, that there might be some sort of gain from this.

Not just the early 20th Century; this is the current policy of the Canadian government. We’re all going to be one, big, happy, coloured family. Kumbaya everyone, everywhere.

Now let’s look at the reality in Brazil. Why are black women in Brazil so vexed at the way things are going? Here’s why.  Brazil, as we know is a very multi-racial society.  Whites are 48%, Browns 43% and Blacks 8% as of 2010. If race mixing were making more Browns this number should be going up. And sure enough, if you compare the figures to those from 1872 we see that Browns have risen from 38% to 43%. But, hey, look at this, Blacks have fallen from 20% to 8% and Whites have increased from 38% to 48%!

So to summarize; the black population is now less than half of what it was and the white population instead of falling, as predicted, has INCREASED by 10% of the total or 20% of itself.  The only explanation for this is that blacks and coloured Brazilians are selecting for white; that is, they are marring lighter-skinned Brazilians and getting lighter skinned babies. Eventually, taken over generations, the result is that the Black percentage goes down and the White percentage goes up.

Now, I ask you; where if ever, have you read anything about colour selection by mixed race individuals? Where have you read that the outcome is not just more coloured people, but more white people? And why are the coloured people doing this? The explanation given above that blacks are choosing whites in order to show off their economic status is obviously wrong. A far more likely reason is that by marrying whites they actually improve their economic status.

Just why that might be is worth another article at another time. For the moment it’s worth realizing that whiteness and blackness have a natural relation dynamic that plays out in multi-ethnic countries.


While the percentage of whites has fallen slightly since 2000, the decline is within the margin of error being a mere 246-thousand out of 91-Million. This means the white population is not assimilating, but has remained the same. The black population, meanwhile has trended downward from the beginning. If you take the years from 1960 and average them (despite the up-tick in the last three years), you will see that the average is 6.9% which continues the downward trend from all the years before that (6.9% being below 8.7%). Inside that average the variation is a mere 1.7 percent in 50 years. Looking at the general increase in population, you can see that the majority of it was in the brown column (17M) while the minority was in the black column (4M). So, looking at the whole thing, the brown column expanded at the expense of the black column while not affecting the white column.

April 6, 2016

A Response to Robert Tracinski’s Attack on the Alt Right

Filed under: Globalization,Multiculturalism,Nation State,Progressivism,Race — Editor @ 3:15 pm


The Federalist website published April 4, 2016 a vitriolic attack on the Alternative Right by with the rousing title, “Yes, The Alt-Right Are Just a Bunch of Racists.” You have to read it to get the full effect, and to make any sense of what follows.

Our preference

our preferences are obvious

Well, let’s get right down to it. Tracinski makes five points and supports them with some argumentation. Let’s do the same. His points in boldface.

1) ‘White identity politics’ is racism. If he means that the alt-right thinks Europeans have a superior culture to that in the rest of the world, and that this culture is the product of the race living in Europe, he’s right. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

2) The alt-right agenda is to ban miscegenation. Again, Tracinski makes this out as a pejorative. Since when would interbreeding win a prize at Crufts or Westminster, or at any horse show, livestock exhibit or state fair? You say, ‘but those are animals!’ So are humans. Ask Ashkenazi Jews, you know, the ones from Europe, why they have such a high intelligence level. Ask them how that happened. Ask a Border Collie. Next point.

3) The alt-right are hard core collectivists. He suggests that we’re opposed to free markets in favour of economic nationalism. No, and yes. No we’re not opposed to free markets in a national economy; yes we do believe in a national economy. When Adam Smith, the great economist, wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776 he was referring to the wealth of NATIONS, not the wealth of the whole world. Inside a national economy, we’re all classical liberals jealous of our individual rights. Read the book.

4. Tribalism is not pro-Western. Tribalism in the West developed into Nations; the national “family” led, usually, by a Royal Family. Nations are a Western invention, and a damn fine one too. Tribalism, in a national sense, can properly be described as patriotism.

5) The Alt-Right is dancing to the left’s tune. Oh, Please! The Alt-Right if anything is refusing to dance to the left’s tune. We’re refusing to debase and dilute our culture and our ethnicity in the interests of a global dictatorship of cultural Marxists.

I invite those who disagree with my argument on the first point to paddle a dugout canoe up the Amazon to find a lost tribe that still retains its pre-Bronze age way of life. Blood feuds and poison arrows, malaria and wild boars; it’s a jungle out there and not a Disneyland jungle either. But, hey, if that’s what you prefer; go for it.

Those who don’t wish to go quite so far back in time, can travel to the Middle East where, with the exception of Israel, the 7th Century is still in full swing. Incidentally, the locals there refer to Israel as an imposition of Europeans; quite a compliment to the European Jews who decided to go back to the land God gave to Abraham.

There’s that word, “European” again. Darn.


The statement I make in point three, that there’s more freedom in an ethno-centric state, is echoed by Kevin MacDonald in his deconstruction at VDare of Robert Tracinski’s article:

Apparently Tracinski can’t or won’t understand, is that individualism works well when pretty much everyone else is playing the same game. But it’s a disaster in competition with collectivists, particularly intelligent, highly networked collectivists.

Some Cultures are Better than Others

Filed under: Multiculturalism,Race,Society — Editor @ 10:17 am

The kicker is in the last line.

Which raises two questions: how did the West achieve its preeminence and how can we maintain it?

April 4, 2016

Dogs and DNA, a Curious Relationship

Filed under: Race — Editor @ 12:03 pm


It is generally agreed some dogs are easier to train than others. You can do a web search and get lists of breeds with Border Collies or Poodles usually at the top. But why is this so? Is it that some dogs are smarter than other dogs? And if that’s true of dogs, might it be true of higher primates such as Chimps and Gorillas?


The same, but different

If you’re of a philosophic cast of mind, it’s fun to dissect the descriptions on dog sites and ancestry sites about what they’re talking about. For example, taken at random, here is the description of what the site listing trainable dogs mentioned above has to say about the list.

We humans tend to correlate trainability in dogs with intelligence. And while that is one factor, there are other things that affect whether your dog is going to listen to you or not, such as what the breed was developed for, the training methods you are using, and what you are asking your dog to (for example, does it go against your dog’s natural instincts?).

This starts off well enough; we humans think some dog breeds are smarter than others (Occam’s Razor applies here). But, that’s not all, there are other factors: 1) what the breed was developed for, 2) your training and 3) whether the task goes against its “natural instincts.” If you consider the first exception you’ll see that some tasks are more complex than others, so if a breed was ‘developed’ for a complex task, it must be smarter, yes? Point two. Some teachers are better than others, so what. Smart students learn from poor teachers; poor students don’t learn from smart teachers. Point three, ‘natural instincts’ are genetic. So, in short, we humans were right the first time; some dogs are smarter than others and the reason is the breed.

OK, moving right along, let’s examine breeds as they relate to humans. Let’s start by analyzing the Wikipedia definition of ethnicity.

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences. Unlike most other social groups, ethnicity is primarily an inherited status.

The first sentence is almost as opaque as the reason some dogs are more trainable than others. However, the second sentence lets the cat out of the bag, or the baby out of the bassinet to be more precise. But even here the meaning is obscured by the words “primarily” and “status.” Minus those unnecessary qualifications we get: ethnicity is inherited, period. In other words, it’s genetic.

Having cleared that up I take you to a splendid site for tracing your ethnicity. You can do this the traditional way, by following your blood line backwards through time. Or, you can simply purchase a DNA test for $149 to find “new details about your unique family history.”

An example on site shows an individual who is mostly from the United Kingdom, Scandanivia and Spain. It says: “Learn about the places where your family story began.” Humm. Don’t you love the expression, ‘your family story?’ It sound so literary and the ‘places,’ so geographic. And all of this tucked away in your Deoxyribonucleic acid. Who knew literature and geography could be reduced to a strand of acid?

Of course all this dissembling is as silly and pretentious as the literature about dog breeds. Dogs are who they are because breeders mated dogs with certain traits to others with certain traits. In time, subsequent generations expanded on the desired characteristics. Human populations are the same. Beautiful women consistently marry rich and powerful men. Handsome warriors consistantly carry off the most attractive maidens.

We’re all busy working on our DNA, like dogs really, every time we go into a bar, a cocktail party or a resort casino. We’re working on our DNA every time we fight a war and cozy up with women from the losing side. You would think, looking at the way men gravitate to groups of young women, they were trying to improve their position in he pack. You would think looking at a defeated country, one pack had a big fight with another over their bitches.

One more question before we quit this exercise. Why is it that mongrels, God bless ’em, aren’t used for sheep herding, police patrols, game bird retrieval, deer stalking or service dogs? Or racing? Or ratting? OK, I’ll give you ratting.

And why is it Europeans developed steam engines, gasoline engines, aeronautics, rocketry, bicycles, classical music, and, Oh, what else, atomic energy, before any other ethnic group? And why is it other ethnicities (not all) have so many problems adapting to or even maintaining these devices?

I’d look this up to have it explained to me but, somehow, I think the explanation has been lost, like our common sense, in these modern and progressive times.

March 30, 2016

Is Agenda 21 Already Here?

Filed under: Globalization,Nation State — Editor @ 10:37 am


Agenda 21 is a world wide environmental plan produced at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The outcome of this so-called “Earth Summit,” is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that seeks to re-order life on Planet Earth, end the nation state, eliminate private property, reduce human populations and create world government.

A future Earth under Agenda 21 (illustration courtesy Max Resistance)

A future Earth under Agenda 21 (illustration courtesy Max Resistance)

I am standing on a corner in the small town of Ashcroft on the Thompson River in British Columbia. Statistics Canada says the population in 2011 was 1,628. It is certainly less now. How do I know this? The town has one grocery store, one school (it used to have two) and one doctor (it used to have a hospital with an emergency department). It also used to have a gas station, but that closed. A town without a gas station.

And yet, there is life here. There are two trans-continental railway lines running through town, CN on the North side of the river, CP on the south, and they’re both busy. I counted a 153-car train on the CP line composed of two locomotives in front, one at the 70-car mark and a fourth at the rear. On the other side, CN trains were constant, day and night. Unit coal trains were heading west and container trains were heading east. The global economy is certainly humming on those 130-year old tracks.

To that extent, Ashcroft is unique. Plenty of other small towns and cities across Canada don’t even have working railways. They had them, but they’re gone along with the industries, jobs, schools, stores, people and all the other bits and pieces of a modern society.

We are told by government that centralized services are more efficient, that regional schools give better education than local ones and that helicopter ambulances will wisk us away to a big city trauma centre after we’re triaged at what used to be the local hospital. Most of us accept that argument because we believe in capitalism and efficiency. Our grandparents saw what happened to Canada’s rural economy in the early part of the 20th Century when combines took over from threshing machines. And our parents saw the move to the cities accelerate after WWII. This down-sizing of rural and small-town Canada must be part of the same thing we think; collateral damage from the march of progress.

But what if it isn’t the result, but rather the cause of the changes in question? What if we have misidentified cause and effect?

We know, for example, that groups like the Bilderberg Group of political and economic elites have private conferences at which they discuss such things as globalism, the environment and trade. Discussing Agenda 21 fits right in.

In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and, a steering committee member for 30 years, said: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

There are other similar organizations, notably the World Economic Forum which is based in Geneva and typically hosts 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals, and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world.

The 2014 meeting was held from 22 to 25 January, with the theme “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business“. The 2015 meeting was held from 21 to 24 January, with the theme “New Global Context“. With the theme of  “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” the World Economic Forum’s 46th annual conference began on 19 January, 2016 at the Swiss ski resort of Davos.

There is a thread running through these meetings, no matter the theme; it is that business and government leaders get together to discuss the very same issues laid out in Agenda 21. They do so largely in private. Why is that? And what, precisely, do they decide to do after chewing over their Kobi beef and washing it down with Champaign?

Let’s view all this through the lens of Agenda 21. Let’s say they really do want to de-populate rural North America. How would they do that? One way would be to encourage the development of corporate farms. If they buy out local families, those families will stop shopping at local towns and the towns will, eventually, go bust. If they promote the growth of bio-fuel, productive farmland will be taken over for the growing of corn for ethanol. If they encourage seasonal workers, guest workers and illegal aliens to work the corporate farms, they will destory the economic basis even for tenant farmers.

Governments can co-operate in this scheme by centralizing education services, downgrading local hospitals, introducing helicopter ambulance services. They can also close post offices, close government service bureaus and M.P.’s offices. Government regulated industries can play right along by moving their customer services to India and closing retail offices in local communities.

Supermarket chains and retail petroleum companies can do the same; “rationalizing” their retail operations by closing “inefficient” stores and stations.

As the tax base withers away, local municipalities fall behind in road maintenance, water and sewer services, policing, building inspections and animal control. Eventually, they too are amalgamated. And in the end, the town is unincorporated, everyone moves away and we’re left with a modern version of a gold rush ghost town. All of this, everything I’ve just mentioned, is in line with the proposals of Agenda 21.

But there’s more. The key result of the drive for free trade, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), is to increase the transfer of manufacturing from North America to Asia and its replacement by a consumer society based on debt. As more people lose their jobs, they also lose the ability to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of their cars. They sell their cars and homes and move into lower cost condos and apartments. They concentrate, rich and poor, in the major cities.

Cities help this process along by allowing residential prices to rise (Vancouver homes now cost more than $1-Million) while promoting high rise condominiums, public transit and bicycle lanes. Indeed, in Vancouver, car drivers now pay a tax that goes straight to the buses that clog the roadways in front of them. Soon, sooner than anyone realizes, governments everywhere are going to move to taxation based on mileage. Car computers will be downloaded automatically by road sensors and the cost of your trip will come out of your bank account.

When that happens, nearly everyone will stop driving and will hunker down in their apartments in front of their TV screens. To go to the “country” you will need a rental car, park access permission, and God knows what else. Agenda 21 will be in charge.

This may sound like a distopyan fantasy, but now, clearly it’s seeping through the cracks in our lives, coming from almost every angle. When you started reading this posting you probably said to yourself you were glad you weren’t living in Ashcroft with its declining services.

I have news for you. We are ALL living in Ashcroft, and soon we’ll be living in The Hunger Games; destitute, impoverished, enslaved and enthralled to the most pervasive and pernicious social-engineering idea since Communism.


The Wikipedia entry on Agenda 21 has been sanitized, but there is plenty on YouTube to make your hair stand on end. But put that aside. Start looking around. Ask your friends. Take a drive in the (largely deserted) countryside. Decide for yourself. Isn’t all this social and economic decay just a titch too perfect?

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress