Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech (CV #40)

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

IMM #30: A Response To True North’s Call For Population Replacement

According to Candice Malcolm, diversity is necessary for a country to be successful. As long as there is some unifying element(s), it doesn’t matter how much you alter the makeup.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

CLICK HERE, for #1: temp workers, other migration categories.
CLICK HERE, for #2: close to 1M people/year entering on visas.
CLICK HERE, for #3: CANZUK, expansion and erasing the borders.
CLICK HERE, for #4: population replacement programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #5: replacement numbers/countries since 2004.
CLICK HERE, for #6: domestic abuse as pathway to PR status.
CLICK HERE, for #7: the International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for #8: economic imm, remittances, brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for #9: global remittance estimates, regulations.
CLICK HERE, for #10: economic immigration when unemployment high.
CLICK HERE, for #11: TD article on true migration rates.
CLICK HERE, for #12: pilot amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for #13: work permits, health care for illegals.
CLICK HERE, for #14: getting legal residence via fraud.
CLICK HERE, for #15: student/family member to PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #16: start up visas = buying PR/citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for #17: ghost students visas for immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #18: “inadmissibles” legally let in anyway.
CLICK HERE, for #19: birth rates in Canada since 1991.
CLICK HERE, for #20: main sources for demographic replacement.
CLICK HERE, for #21: demographic changes cause voting changes.
CLICK HERE, for #22: estimating temp/students staying in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #23: Municipal Nominee Program coming?
CLICK HERE, for #24: Rempel lies about temp ==> PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #25: review of 2019 annual report to parliament.
CLICK HERE, for #26: facts/figures about replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #27: the case for full immigration moratorium.
CLICK HERE, for #28: CANZUK expansion, the bait-and-switch.
CLICK HERE, for #29: the case AGAINST economic immigration.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

(1) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(2) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(3) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(4) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(5) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(6) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(7) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(8) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(9) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(10) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(11) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(12) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(13) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(14) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(15) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(16) 2019 Annual Report to Parliament

3. Context For This Article

Yes, this has been out for a few years, and should have been addressed then. However, the lies and misrepresentations are still as relevant today as they were then.

It is truly bizarre that Malcolm accurately identifies many of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism, but still insists that Canada needs to go ahead with it. Her essay reads like a parody of a nationalist: identifying all the problems, but still providing the wrong solution.

True, Malcolm is extremely pointed and critical of Trudeau. However, she is silent on the Conservative Party (and her ex-boss, Jason Kenney), doing exactly the same thing. All that differed was rhetoric. Once this double standard is shown, any semblance of objectivity disappears.

4. Conservative Inc. Influenced By Koch/Atlas

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation
Side note: Candice Malcolm is also part of Civitas.

5. Rebuke To True North Piece

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is known for his pithy one-liners and perfect soundbite platitudes. In the face of an illegal border crisis, a bizarre policy to “de-radicalize” and “re-integrate” ISIS terrorists, and growing skepticism over increasing immigration while neglecting Canada’s once-strong integration policies, Trudeau responds with the same simplistic response.

Canada’s once strong immigration policies? This would be a good time to point out that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney while he was Immigration Minister. So did her husband. Yet it isn’t disclosed anywhere on True North’s website. Nor are their ties to various Koch/Atlas groups mentioned. Nejatian is a director at True North, yet you would have to contact Corporations Canada or Canada Revenue to find that out.

As a press secretary for Kenney, Malcolm’s role would effectively be to act as Kenney’s mouthpiece. This means toeing the line on the (then) record levels of people the Harper Government brought into Canada.

All of these factors would certainly factor into the tone and agenda that True North offers its readers. Yet Malcolm discloses none of it.

“Diversity is our strength.”
What exactly does he mean by “diversity”? What about less desirable types of diversity, such as diversity of core values? Or diverse moral codes, where some Canadians do not value women’s rights or the rights of the LGBT community? What about those who believe group rights ought to supercede the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed through the charter?
Diversity of core values, beliefs and culture can easily create societal fractures, and put our coveted peace and stability at risk.

Malcolm actually gets it partly right, but misses the bigger picture.

For an awful lot of people, values are derived at least in part from religious beliefs. Topics like equality of women and gay rights do vary considerably by faiths. Yet Malcolm claims that Canadians aren’t defined by religious identity.

She also claims that a diversity of culture creates social fractures, but seems to think there is no connection between race/ethnicity and culture. Culture must be an entirely sociological construct, without any biological basis at all.

Is Canada simply a United Nations of different people with different values and different moral codes? How are we, then, to deal with the corruption that plagues the UN itself, including vile anti-Semitism, a failed consensus on what constitutes basic human rights, and a lack of an agreed upon authority to enforce laws and norms?
Canada’s defacto policy of ever more immigration and ever more diversity was the subject of a now-controversial Twitter essay by Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

If you make it a point to continuously import large numbers of people from all over the world, then yes, it becomes a “United Nations” of different people.

Bernier’s tweeting did make national news. However, he acted as if diversity was something to be celebrated, and that only abstract ideas were what unified us.

Bernier argues that an endless drive for diversity, with no emphasis on what it means to be Canadian, will push us towards division and balkanization. He asks, “if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something?” And he goes on to raise a concern I’ve raised many times — what will happen to a tolerant and liberal society if it welcomes, en masse, individuals with illiberal and intolerant beliefs, practices and traditions?
Despite the predictable pearl-clutching from the Liberal media, and the one-sided rush to condemn Bernier for wrongthink, the Beauce MP raises an important, dare I say obvious, criticism of Trudeau’s open-border mantra and obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake.

While Trudeau’s open love for diversity and globalism is revolting, mainstream conservatives in Canada support much the same thing. They are just more subtle about it. Candice Malcolm and her Conservative Inc. allies support white genocide and population replacement, just as long it is done in an orderly fashion.

If you replace the founding stock of the nation, the nation dies. It doesn’t matter if you celebrate it as diversity or not.

Pluralistic nation-states have long existed, Canada being a prime example. And the basic notions that tie our society together are based not on our differences, which are many, but on the commonalities that unite us.

From an abstract perspective this is fine, but the devil is in the details. Malcolm doesn’t really think that there should be meaningful commonalities to unite us.

Remember: conservatives and civic nationalists don’t believe that ethnicity should be a factor in the makeup of a country. They don’t care that there is no blood bond between people. Cities are divided up that way — and all done voluntarily — but race is a social construct.

Beyond that, they don’t even support cultural homogeneity. Conservatives as a whole support multiculturalism, which instantly leads to parallel societies.

What about a common heritage or traditions? Conservatives don’t even support that. They seem to care little when parks or streets or monuments to foreign bodies get erected in Canada. There is no concern that foreign histories and heritage begin to replace our own.

A common religion? Well Christianity is under attack, while all others are allowed to grow. And considering the connection between faith and values (a link Malcolm denies), good luck getting people to agree on much of anything.

The point is, that when pressed for specifics, conservatives and civic nationalists will eventually admit that they don’t want any concrete bonds between people. Perhaps free markets, the economy, and the constitution are all that we need.

It is our common features — languages, history, traditions, laws, shared culture and values — that form the basis of a pluralistic nation-state. This is the “core identity” of our nationhood. In addition to this basic consensus, individuals and communities are free to engage in their own religion and traditions — all the things that make Canada a wonderful, interesting and unique place to live.

This might be an okay take on “pluralistic nation-state” if it had any semblance of reality. However, multicultural societies don’t share any of these things — except possibly the laws.

In order to preserve things like language, history, traditions, shared culture and religion, some degree of balkanization is required. After all, these things to do exist within a few people, but a society as a whole.

One only needs to look at the Greater Toronto Area (or any “diverse” city), to see it carved up and balkanized along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Saying we have “shared values” sounds great, but people would rather live with people who share a common identity.

This is what conservatives and civic nationalists claim they don’t understand. We can talk all day about values, but it is a common identity that bonds a group.

As for the argument against identity politics, let’s dispel something: a society requires both men and women to function. Period. Promoting globohomo the way it is serves to fracture society. Beyond those 2 examples though, identity is what bonds a group.

In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values. And yet, increasingly in Canada, we are forbidden from articulating or discussing what these values may entail.

We used to. The 1971 Canadian Census listed the country as 96% European. Christianity, and its many offshoots were the basis for much of the law and culture here. Canada was effectively, a white, Christian ethnostate. It is only in the last 50 years that “forced multiculturalism” has been brought to the West.

Malcolm pretends this is not the case, and claims that it is abstract values that bond and unite us, a philosophy known as “civic nationalism”. She also conflates identity and values, which are 2 completely different things.

INDENTITY is what the people have in common, which includes things like race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, customs, traditions and heritage. These are what bind the people, and arguably race is the strongest unifier there is.

VALUES are a set of abstract ideas which hold society together in a civic sense. They include things like free speech, tolerance, or various laws and codes.

Obviously, values are much more fluid than identity, and can change quickly. The result is that society can break down when these values diverge. By contrast, having a common ethnicity, religion, culture, language, etc… society still holds together, even as values and standards change.

But in Trudeau’s diverse, post-national utopia, would there be a shared identity? Would our laws be commonly agreed upon and equally enforced? Without a commitment to nationhood, how would governments command legitimacy, and would our communities live in peace?

This is a good paragraph on its own. And a lot of valid points. One wouldn’t think that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney (and by extension the Conservative Party of Canada), when Stephen Harper imported the 3rd World in record numbers.

Malcolm seems to have no problems with importing a replacement population when her Conservative bosses are the ones doing it. However, it’s totally wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

As for the scale of this: replacing the old stock has been done by successive administrations. Both are just as guilty in facilitating it.

Pluralism, not just diversity, is our strength, and yet, Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state differs from our current position as a pluralistic nation-state. Remove the nation — the unifying factor — and what are you left with? What is the common cause?
This lack of identity or commitment to shared values is particularly troubling given the Liberal push for immigration on an even larger scale.

Yet, silence when Conservatives do the same thing.

She goes on and on about pluralism being a strength, but never explains how. It’s also never explained how large numbers of people with nothing in common can expect to come without drastically changing the nation.

Worse, it’s become hip among the intellectual avant-garde to argue for open borders and drastic measures to boost Canada’s population, with even some (misguided) conservative intellectuals arguing that Canada ought to intentionally boost its population to 100 million by the end of the century.

The 100 million is probably a reference to Century Initiative, an NGO that does want to boost Canada’s population. Yet Malcolm’s handlers in the CPC have been pushing for near-open borders immigration policies?

If Canada were to open its doors to, say, about a million people per year, for the next 80 years, would Canada continue to be a Western liberal democracy? Would English and French be broadly spoken? Would there even be official languages?

Malcolm seems to be unaware, (or perhaps pretends to be unaware), at just how many people are entering the country annually. 3 Notable programs are: (a) student visas; (b) temporary foreign workers; and (c) those in the International Mobility Program. While these are billed as “temporary” options, there are many options to stay. Since Canada doesn’t even have a proper entry/exit system, who knows how many of those people are still in the country?

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

For some context: Canada went from admitting 60,000 student visas in 2003 to almost 360,000 in 2018. That is nearly 6 times as large over a 15 year span. Additionally, we went from about 80,000 temporary work visas in 2003 to over 320,000 (TFWP and IMP combined) in 2018.

What kind of values would these hypothetical Canadians posses, and what kind of political leaders would they elect? Would our laws continue to be equally applied, or would there be special caveats and exemptions for cultural and religious communities?

Malcolm raises a great argument in favour of a moratorium on immigration. Changing the demographics leads to irreversible voting shifts, typically to more left-leaning politicians. Except, instead of that, she uses it to claim that a better job has to be done about it.

Could we continue to afford universal social services, including healthcare, education and social welfare? What language would these services be provided in?

Again valid points, and would be great to use to advocate for massive cuts to immigration. But Malcolm doesn’t do that.

Would Canada continue to be a safe, friendly and welcoming society? Would our liberal tolerance be extended to those who are illiberal or intolerant? Would newcomers bring their ancient tribal feuds and hatred with them? Would practices like FGM and forced marriage be permitted? Would we import the foreign wars of the world — Israelis against Palestinians, Shi’ites against Sunnis, Russians against Ukrainians, and so on — into our own backyard?

More great arguments to support the position of slashing immigration. However, Malcolm believes (or claims to believe), that a certain level of diversity is needed to keep a nation healthy.

Would newcomers to Canada be selected based on education and training — Canada’s longstanding practice of skills-based immigration? Or would we simply allow any newcomer who arrives at our doorstep and wants to live in Canada?

About this “skills-based” immigration that Malcolm talks about, why not get into the costs of it? Plenty of college and university graduates can’t find work in their fields because successive governments — both Liberal and Conservative — have flooded market with foreign workers. This is done in a deliberate effort to drive down wages.

This is not restricted to high skilled workers either. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example, was specifically used for entry level work because it allowed employers to ultimately pay less to import foreigners than to hire Canadians.

Malcolm was working for Jason Kenney when the TFW scandal hit in 2013.

Would there be a united Canadian identity? Or would our society splinter into identity groups with the pernicious concept of the “hyphenated-Canadians” — with some other identity coming before being Canadian?

Look at the next section. HUGE numbers of Chinese, Indian, Philippino, Iranian, Pakistani and other migrants are being brought into Canada on a yearly basis. This is white genocide. Malcolm complains now, but had no issue with the practice when working for the Ministry of Immigration.

How long would Canada continue to exist as a political entity? Perhaps Quebec would seek to separate. Or perhaps it would be aggrieved minorities, stateless ethnic groups or religious fanatics who would seek to carve out their own ethno-state.

Yes, all valid points. And Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney and the CPC while they were pushing immigration policies and programs to promote exactly this.

And that’s just the start. It would only be a matter of time before other groups — disgruntled Indigenous tribes, libertarian Albertans, Marxist communes, and any number of religious cults or zealous identity groups — would seek their own self-determination and self-governance.

Yet conservatives support the sort of immigration policies that encourage this. They claim that it won’t change the culture as long as there is “economic benefit”.

What would be the tipping point? 50 million? Or 150 million?

150 million by 2100 is about where we are headed now.

In the past, immigration policies were heavily restrictive, cost prohibitive and were coupled with a strong civil society promoting universal norms and values, conformity, and integration (frankly, assimilation).
The world is freer and more democratic today, thankfully, but that also makes integration all the more challenging.

Why is this change a good thing? Does Malcolm prefer easy immigration over social cohesion, integration and stability?

Trudeau has turned his back on integration, while steadily increasing the amount of immigration and without much concern for selecting those who will be successful in Canada. A casual observer of Europe’s failed immigration experiment can see that this is a toxic combination, and Trudeau’s schemes should be met with criticism and resistance from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Europe’s failed immigration experiment? Perhaps Malcolm has never heard of the KALERGI PLAN, a century old scheme to erase the peoples of Europe and replace them with a single group. Of course there has never been any sort of democratic vote, but all major parties are controlled.

Malcolm pretends that it is ONLY Trudeau who has been jacking up immigration in Canada. She deliberately omits that Brian Mulroney raised immigration rates in the 1980s to the highest they had ever been. Also, omits that Stephen Harper raised immigration to the highest rates ever (at that point)

She also omits being a staffer for Jason Kenney and pushing the mass migration narrative.

Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.

Societies that are homogenous are much more socially cohesive. Maybe Malcolm gets a kick out of driving across town to a “foreign country”, but most people don’t want that. They want societies which are high trust, and safe to live in. Multicultural countries do not offer this.

How is diversity important? Other than homogenous societies being boring? Wanting to change a nation’s makeup because you find it boring is pretty sociopathic.

Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.

Malcolm makes a disingenuous conclusion. North Koreans are miserable because they are closed to mass migration and globalized trade? Yeah, sure. I don’t suppose being a Communist dictatorship would have anything to do with that misery.

Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.

Recently, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, promoted the idea that Japan should import a replacement population in order to keep the GDP from falling. Vincent James covers it very well. Malcolm speaks in much the same tone. Instead of preserving the demographics, heritage, culture, and language, both of them think of Japan only in terms of money.

If Japan really needed more people (and it’s already pretty crowded), then perhaps a Hungarian style program of getting couples to have more children would be a better idea.

Spoiler: there is much more to a country than its GDP.

Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.

This is incoherent. Malcolm correctly identifies that the most multicultural/multiethnic societies that have collapsed, and cites 3 of them. Diversity was not the problem, she claims, but just done incorrectly. Apparently history will be different if only these vastly different groups had some common bond to unite them.

Multicultural states have only ever been able to hold together when it is done by force. And even then, it is not a permanent solution.

Alongside diversity, it’s unity that makes Canada a successful country and a great place to live. And we need to constantly work and strive for this unity, in the face of large-scale immigration, changing demographics and a societal obsession with cultural relativism, identity politics and anti-Western distortion.

Serious question: if it’s unity that makes Canada successful, and a great place to live, why do we need diversity as all?

We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.

We need pluralism and nationhood? How exactly does this work? How does importing millions of people who will balkanize Canada lead to a single nationhood?

It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.

Forget having a blood connection. Forget common culture, language, traditions, etc…. unity is just some abstract sense of being Canadian.

6. Recent Population Replacement In Canada

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Note: this is nowhere near the number of people entering Canada every year. Remember to add in hundreds of thousand of students and temporary workers, and various pilot programs.

Even if this were everyone, how exactly is a country supposed to be unified when large numbers of people from very different cultures are imported year after year? How are abstract ideas and values supposed to overcome such fundamental differences?

If Canada were a nation where race, ethnicity and religion didn’t matter, (as Malcolm claims), then it seem very strange that balkanization takes place along racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic lines. But that’s probably a racist thing to “notice”.

I realize that her prior political ties can make this a tricky subject to navigate. However, True North would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about how destructive multiculturalism really is.

7. Forced Diversity Is Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Serious question: how are forced diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, not forms of genocide? After all, they are calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, specifically, Europeans.

8. Malcolm Just Another Barbara Spectre

When rereading this essay from Malcolm, my mind instantly went to Barbara Lerner Spectre. She became infamous for saying that Europe had to adopt multiculturalism in order to survive.

How is Malcolm calling for pluralism any different than this? How is forcibly remaking the host culture — without a democratic mandate — not a form of genocide? Importing hundreds of thousands of people (now totally a million annually in recent years), completely remakes the demographics, culture, and traditions of the society. Yet Malcolm argues this is necessary, but gives the flimsiest of reasons.

It’s interesting how “conservatives” are so willing to jump on people like Trudeau for his immigration policies, but remain silent when their own people do much the same thing.

Of course there is an awful lot that True North Canada does not disclose to its readers. Rather than give real insight and research into immigration in Canada, it serves to post anti-Trudeau talking points.

Malcolm calls for essentially the same policies that will lead to the demise of Canada. But like other conservatives, she supports a more “patriotic” version of the same thing.

Thoughts On The “Conservative Inc.” National Debate

1. Overall Impression

Just let it implode.

That’s the reaction I got from watching the CPC debate. Real issues were shoved aside in favour of extremely superficial discussion. Granted, political debates are rarely meant to be engaging and in depth, and this was no exception.

This could be easily forgiven if official platforms and discussions were in depth on the important matters. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

If this group represents the future of the Conservative Party of Canada, then it’s probably best to just let the party collapse, and focus on other alternatives. It is every bit as globalist as the Liberal Party, and meaningful differences are few and far between.

2. Border Security & Enforcement

While Conservatives used to brag about how they would close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, that talking point seems to have dropped from their agendas. True, the agreement was modified, but many of the same issues still exist.

Of course they don’t mentioned that they never implemented a proper entry/exit system either, despite a recent decade in power. They never brought up that S3CA was drafted in such a way that the United Nations was a party to it, and consultations were required. They didn’t ever address the NGOs (many Jewish) who have been fighting in court for decades to keep the Canada/U.S. border open. Conservatives also downplayed the expediting of work permits to illegals, and amnesty for illegals.

It would be nice for conservatives to address abominations like Sanctuary Cities, which encourage and reward people for being in the country illegally. However, few seem to care.

In fact, conservatives have been, and remain, complicit, in ensuring that there isn’t any real border security in Canada. Closing the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is just a tiny piece of it. There is silence on so much else.

3. True Scale Of Immigration Into Canada

This has been brought up repeatedly on this site, but the “official” immigration numbers in no way reflect the number of people actually entering Canada with some pathway to stay longer. Each year, hundreds of thousands of students and “temporary” workers enter Canada. But this is noticeably absent from the discussion. Remittances drain our national coffers, pilot programs are varied and numerous, immigration is pushed even during times of high unemployment, and rich people can simply purchase a pathway to permanent residence. These are just a few examples of the mess that is the Canadian immigration system.

This also should be noted: every year thousands of “inadmissibles” are denied entry originally, but then allowed in LEGALLY anyway. What’s even the point?

This also ties back to the last section. Since Canada doesn’t actually have a proper entry/exit system in place, how can he ensure that students and temporary workers, (and the inadmissibles) are actually leaving the country afterwards?

Sloan (to his credit), made a few vague references to reducing immigration, but has never addressed the true size of the problem.

4. Lack Of Transparency On CANZUK

O’Toole repeatedly brought up CANZUK as a free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. What he left out was that CANZUK also has a free movement provision, which allows citizens to freely move between countries. O’Toole deliberately omits as well that he fully intends to expand CANZUK to other nations as well. Watch 2:00 in the video.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

This is by no means everyone entering Canada, but does demonstrate a point. In recent decades, immigration to Canada has overwhelmingly been from the 3rd world. This has resulted in irreversible demographic changes, to balkanization, and to a society where many feel no need to integrate.

Instead of addressing this, the candidates all cucked hard at the issue of “systemic racism. Instead of calling out the farce being played out live, they all submitted. Candidates all, to various degrees, played along with the horrors that people of colour experience on a daily basis.

Never mind that the only group that it’s legal to discriminate against is whites. In particular this means white men. This display was truly revolting to watch.

6. Silence On “Gladue Rights” Hypocrisy

If conservatives really wanted to address inequality in the criminal justice system, they could have brought up “Gladue rights”, which entrench special rights and considerations for Aboriginals and blacks. This abomination has been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is now commonplace in criminal courts. Yes, we actually have race-based-discounts in criminal courts, even in sentencing. If this isn’t systematic racism, then what is?

Critics have claimed this is necessary, given the overrepresentation in prisons. While there is overrepresentation, these same critics try to avoid the key issue: CRIME RATES. They will look to any other reason to explain this disparity, other than actual criminal behaviour.

It was Gladue rights that allowed Terri McClintic to go to a healing lodge, for a brief period at least. This has been the law since the 1990s, but yet no one in power talks about that systemic racism.

7. International Banking Cartel

While Conservatives do whine about the debt, they deliberately avoid discussing WHY the situation is so bad. Specifically, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing primarily from private sources. Money is always artificially created, but when it’s owed to – say the Bank of Canada – the debt stays in Canadian hands. It can be paid off or cancelled at any time. Not the case when it is private institutions doing this.

In fact, over 90% of Canada’s national debt has been from accumulated interest. Liberals and Conservatives alike play along with this fraud, ensuring the balance grows.

Canada currently owes about 30% to foreign interests, which give them great leverage over us. Despite vague talking points, supporters have never been able to explain how private loans reduce inflation, and even if true, why this is better than simply using the Bank of Canada. Worse, Conservatives were in power when this was challenged in court by COMER, so they can’t claim ignorance on the issue.

Fiscal conservatives will always focus on a symptom (the debt), and not on the disease (the international banking cartel). They are complicit in helping this scheme along.

8. Silence On Climate Change Scam

I can’t even be happy about the approach here, and this is why. It’s another case of the Conservatives focusing on symptoms (Paris Accord, Carbon tax), while ignoring the underlying disease (the climate change industry). The candidates repeatedly say that the Carbon tax is an ineffective means for implementing a climate plan. The point to Provincial court challenges, while omitting that they are really just a form of controlled opposition.

The problem is that the entire climate change industry is built on lies and deception. Carbon Dioxide is plant food, and playing along with this hoax does not serve Canadians’ interests in the slightest. Broadly speaking, money which Western nations provide (with debt of course), are used for climate bonds, and predatory loans to the 3rd world.

None of this benefits Canadians, nor helps the environment in any way. Yet conservatives are quite willing to play along with the agenda, even if they claim to oppose the Carbon tax.

9. Support For Internationalist Agenda

Throughout the “debate”, candidates were criticizing Trudeau for how he handles affairs internationally.

Problem is, they criticize his handing of it only. They have no problem with the agendas themselves. Conservatives have no issue with being in bed with the U.N., or groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, CANZUK, or supporting agreements like the USMCA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To reiterate: conservatives are only being critical for how Trudeau handles the globalism agenda. They have no problem with the agenda itself.

10. Two-Faced On Trade Protectionism

This was amusing to see the mental gymnastics at play. The Conservatives support the globalized trade agenda: NAFTA; (it’s successor USMCA); CANZUK; Trans-Pacific Partnership; FIPA, and countless more deals.

Problem is, as long as a part supports the offshoring agenda, they will never believe in protectionist policies. While all candidates gave lip service to wanting to be self sufficient, the reality is that they don’t. Keeping control over the production of essential goods necessitates protectionist policies — and an anti-free trade mentality. Conservative policies over the years have directly contributed to the dependence on foreign powers that are hostile to us.

11. Social Conservatives Thrown Under Bus

There was some talk from all candidates about the need for a “bigger tent”, and for bringing social conservatives in.

The problem is: there’s no sincerity behind this movement. Social conservatives are nothing more than a voting base to be tapped into. This party supports diversity, multiculturalism, gay “marriage”, the gender agenda, widespread abortion, and other non-traditional beliefs. In fact, the more diverse a country becomes, the less there is to conserve socially.

Read between the lines here. Soc-Cons are to be used as a vote supplement, nothing more.

12. Shift From Identity To “Values”

A major problem with conservatives is that they don’t believe that national identity is worth protecting. Whether it be demographics, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, religion, etc… As such, they don’t make any effort (other than platitudes), to preserve the makeup of the country.

Instead, they go with the much more vague and malleable notion of “values”. These are simply ideas that can be changed or watered down to suit political purposes.

13. Miscellaneous Points To Add

(Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

(Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

MacKay has been around for a long time, and was involved in Harper’s globalist agenda all along. He and Maxime Bernier helped with the 2007 endorsement of the UN Parliamentary Assembly vote. There’s also his history of stabbing his colleagues in the back, from David Orchard to Andrew Scheer. MacKay is also connected to the Desmarais family, having previously dated Paul Desmarais Jr.’s daughter.

Aside from pandering constantly, O’Toole has tweeted out that he is a shill for foreign interests, or one in particular. Makes ones reasonably question his loyalty and commitment to Canada. Also noteworthy is that he spent a few years at the (now defunct) law firm of Heenan Blaikie. This is the same firm Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at. It had also been infiltrated heavily by the Desmarais Family.


Dr. Lewis graduated magna cum laude from the University of Toronto (Trinity College). Thereafter, she obtained a Juris Doctorate from Osgoode Hall Law School, a Masters in Environmental Studies from York University, with a Concentration in Business and the Environment from the Schulich School of Business, and completed a PhD from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Dr. Lewis is the Managing Partner of Lewis Law Professional Corporation and has developed a specialized commercial litigation and international contract trade practice which focuses on energy policy. She has two decades of strong litigation experience beginning with some of the strongest Bay Street law firms, prior to starting this firm. She has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals on international law, contracts, climate change and the feed-in-tariff system in renewable energy projects. Her local practice focuses on corporate commercial, real estate and estates, while her international practice is concentrated in the area of cross-border services including immigration, energy law.

While career politicians are distasteful as a rule, Leslyn seems to have come out of nowhere. She finished her PhD dissertation in 2019, at the age of 48. She seems professionally invested in the climate change scam and to have a globalist/internationalist mindset. Not sure this is the best choice for a party that desperately needs to ditch its globalist ties.

14. Forced VS Optional Vaccines

It was nice to hear the candidates say that no vaccines would ever be forced on Canadians — an obvious reference to the CV planned-emic. However, a point has to be made about that.

WHY are they so okay with vaccines in the first place? Given the deception and lies behind the reporting and the overblown nature, why aren’t they questioning the vaxx agenda itself? Why aren’t they questioning the rampant lobbying and conflict of interest here? Instead, the “opposition” seems limited as to whether vaccines should be made mandatory.

15. Just Let It Implode

This is some random tweet referring to the Republican Party in the United States. However, the exact same reasoning applies to “conservative” parties in Canada. They co-opt and corrupt nationalist and populist movements in order to incorporate (or appear to incorporate) them into their platform.

The result is that an extremely watered down — or non-existent — version of populist sentiment gets put into the mainstream. This is where puppet journalists obediently parrot the talking points and deceive the public.

The Conservative Party of Canada is not worth saving, or reforming, or overhauling. It needs to die. With it out of the way, more nationalist leaning alternatives can flourish and grow.

IMM #28: CANZUK Expansion, The Open Borders Bait-And-Switch (FT #10)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

CLICK HERE, for #1: temp workers, other migration categories.
CLICK HERE, for #2: close to 1M people/year entering on visas.
CLICK HERE, for #3: CANZUK, expansion and erasing the borders.
CLICK HERE, for #4: population replacement programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #5: replacement numbers/countries since 2004.
CLICK HERE, for #6: domestic abuse as pathway to PR status.
CLICK HERE, for #7: the International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for #8: economic imm, remittances, brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for #9: global remittance estimates, regulations.
CLICK HERE, for #10: economic immigration when unemployment high.
CLICK HERE, for #11: TD article on true migration rates.
CLICK HERE, for #12: pilot amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for #13: work permits, health care for illegals.
CLICK HERE, for #14: getting legal residence via fraud.
CLICK HERE, for #15: student/family member to PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #16: start up visas = buying PR/citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for #17: ghost students visas for immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #18: “inadmissibles” legally let in anyway.
CLICK HERE, for #19: birth rates in Canada since 1991.
CLICK HERE, for #20: main sources for demographic replacement.
CLICK HERE, for #21: demographic changes cause voting changes.
CLICK HERE, for #22: estimating temp/students staying in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #23: Municipal Nominee Program coming?
CLICK HERE, for #24: Rempel lies about temp ==> PR pipeline.
CLICK HERE, for #25: review of 2019 annual report to parliament.
CLICK HERE, for #26: facts/figures about replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #27: the case for full immigration moratorium.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for #6: CANZUK erasing our sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #7: outsourcing, other trade deals, CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for #8: professional outsourcing, wages, immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #9: EPI research on social costs of free trade.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for article on expanding CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for ExtraNewsFeed article on CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for article, mentions expanding.
CLICK HERE, for UK branch of CANZUK on expansion.

4. CANZUK’s Luke Fortmann On Expansion

As proponents of a new and exciting geopolitical union between the four CANZUK nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), we’re very often met with one particular question: looking ahead, who else might be able to join the partnership?

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

The original article was deleted, but thankfully it is archived. CANZUK researcher Luke Fortmann writes about the possible expansion and states that options are “always being considered”. To be blunt, this 4 nation alliance could swell.

Also, he does acknowledge that expansion would lead to mass migration to the original 4 nations, and to their demographic replacement. But he doesn’t seem to care as long as it’s done in an orderly fashion.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Expanding CANZUK

Listen to Erin O’Toole at 2:00 in the video

We can take it to the next level, to show that multi-later organizations can be aspirational. Where you have the rule of law, GDP, respect for rights, the Common Law system, the ability to support a free market, that you’ll work more together. Then we let more and more countries in, and revolutionize opportunities with CANZUK. Please support it. Thank you.

5. Australian Senator Paterson Supports It

Senator Paterson has also let it slip that he sees expanding the CANZUK zone as quite possible as soon as it is operational. The initial 4 are just the starting point. Interestingly, he points out that CANZUK is effectively an expansion of the 1973 Trans-Tasmanian Agreement.

(3:50) Rather than drafting a new agreement entirely from scratch, Australia should advocate adding Canada and the U.K. to the [Closer Economic Relations] Agreement, with only a few major changes if required…. Like the CER, CANZUK would include the freedom of movement between the 4 Commonwealth countries.

It could act as a strong voice in favour of the rules-based liberal order, that is under attack from populist movements on both sides of the political aisle around the world. Over time, this is a group which could grow. In the past week, I’ve had many good suggestions of countries that would make logical additions to CANZUK. Getting the core building block in place, though, I think makes sense.

Again, a bait-and-switch. Promoting it as just a 4 nation pact is the selling feature. Goal is to expand it once it’s fully operational.

6. Free Movement Is Primary Goal

Steve Paiken points out that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. happen to be majority white “for now”. Great emphasis. Knowing that it will change pretty soon. The people in the video make it clear they don’t care about demographic change.

7. ExtraNewsFeed Article On CANZUK

That leads into the benefit for the group in terms of geopolitics. Forming a close economic alliance with the EU would be easier for the bloc, and the two unions combined would have a population of 600 million people, around an eleventh of the world’s population. The combined economies of the two blocs would represent over a quarter of world GDP, at around $23 trillion.

Throw the US in as a partner, and this Western/Anglophone bloc is now worth half of the world’s economy and hosts an eighth of its people.

Some have mooted that the US or some African Anglophone countries might also join such a union, although this would certainly complicate trade matters and the idea of free movement. Perhaps a second “outer ring” union, with a pathway to full membership contingent on democratisation and economic development, could be created for other Anglophone countries.

That’s right. The article promoting CANZUK suggests creating a “secondary” level of nations, with a pathway to eventual full partnership.

8. On Expanding The Zone

So, each of the CANZUK nations have focused on their local geographic regions with their trade deals, for reasons of proximity and ease of transport. But there would seem to be a huge opportunity here – for collaboration in free trade deals with each other’s home regions. For example, Australia and New Zealand already have free trade deals with China – Canada and the UK could hitch a ride onto these existing channels. And all four nations are interested in a trade deal with India – why not combine efforts?

These would have small effects to start with; but when combined over three regions – Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe, the effects would accumulate. Essentially, trade deals which would be too marginal to be worth pursuing on an individual national basis (for example, Australia-Norway) could be wrapped into a CANZUK framework. In this case, the UK would be the lead partner, opening their region to the other CANZUK partners.

Exactly how this would work remains to be seen. You could have a single CANZUK trade delegation, working together to land bigger deals, or a piecemeal approach, where the region lead partner(s) initiates the approach, bringing the others along for the ride as negotiations proceed.

While the talk of expansion appears to be in the context of trade, it would lead to economic harm, given how places like India and China can simply underbid local companies and put them out of work. And who’s to say it “won’t” lead to free movement at some point?

9. UK CANZUK On Expanding The Zone

I’m an advocate of creating a new geopolitical partnership between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). This would begin with a free trade agreement, an agreement for free movement to live and work, and a defence and security partnership. If that were seen to function well, we might move on to establish an ever closer union principle, and create some formal mechanisms for caucusing our views in global debates and enhancing mutual recognition of regulation and coordinating in other relevant ways. The aim would not be to create a new integrated superstate (certainly not at first, and probably not for many decades or centuries, if at all) but, rather, a geopolitical partnership, akin to the European Economic Community or Warsaw Pact partnerships of the 1970s.

However, a more natural way to proceed would surely be to get CANZUK established and if those initial countries worked well together for a few decades, we could then consider adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and St Kitts, perhaps after some providing some assistance to raise their GDPs per capita a little closer to ours.

Overall, then, it would be best to begin with the narrower set of countries that are most compatible. That will be challenge enough to start with. That does not mean that in some decades time we should not consider adding countries with similar constitutions, such as The Bahamas or Barbados, if they can raise their GDP per capita and reduce their murder rates. But decisions on that question are, at this stage, many decades away.

Yet another piece reiterating that the current list (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), are not the end result. Many more countries could be added at some point.

10. CANZUK Report Addresses Expansion


From a socio-economic standpoint, it is clear that integrating other Commonwealth nations within a facilitated migration initiative at this time would not work. At present, additional countries (such as South Africa, India, Jamaica and Pakistan, to name a few) do not meet the economic criteria that is essential for facilitated migration to succeed, as the benefits of reciprocal migration can only be guaranteed by Commonwealth countries that are very similar in terms of socio-economic characteristics.

There is no reason why additional countries within the Commonwealth would not be able to eventually join a facilitated migration initiative, but for the foreseeable future, the CANZUK countries are so similar in terms of social, economic, cultural and historical factors, it would be folly not to promote reciprocal migration, free trade and foreign policy among these countries and observe the benefits that such arrangements would bring

Read between the lines (page 9 of the report). Expanding CANZUK beyond the original 4 members doesn’t seem feasible, but doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t happen at some point.

11. CANZUK Bait-And-Switch

It is sold to the public as a free trade and free movement (visa free) pact between 4 very similar countries. While this may not sound too bad in principle, fact is that expanding it to other countries is also being talked about. What people are being sold on is not the entire story.

Of course, there are other references available to CANZUK expansion, but hopefully the point has already been made here.

TSCE #20: George Soros & Open Society: Smuggling; Lawfare; Population Replacement

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for #12: the Zionist roots of Amnesty Int’l NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Canadian Council of Refugees NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #14: NGOs coordinate illegal Roxham Rd. crossings.
CLICK HERE, for #15: Ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger.
CLICK HERE, for #16: NGOs in court for decades to open borders.
CLICK HERE, for #17: reduced penalties for child sex crimes.
CLICK HERE, for #18: does CDN Gov’t support trafficking?
CLICK HERE, for #19: politicians deliberately keep border open.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 206 groups funded by Soros.
CLICK HERE, for Open Society financial reporting.
CLICK HERE, for Soros, Open Society, UNCHR, refugees.
CLICK HERE, for CBC on Canada/Soros partnership.
CLICK HERE, for Soros/Clinton donate to Antifa.
CLICK HERE, for Pueblos Sin Fronteras mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for Soros ties to invading caravan.

See section #8 for links to the various groups that George Soros and the Open Societies are financing. This will give insight as to what the motivations are.

3. Context For This Article

Knowing who funds an organization is important to knowing its real goal, especially if it is something other than profit. Money speaks louder than words. This review looks at the various Open Society groups headed by George Soros, and where the money is going. The Open Society funds a variety of causes, but the goal is the same: collapse of Western Civilization.

Some examples include:

  • Open borders NGOs are funded in order to advance policies of loosening immigration rules. This means funding political candidates who share these views
  • Cultural Marxist groups are funded since their goal is upending social norms. They claim that others are being oppressed, and are anti-white, in particular anti-white men. Note: these groups often share open borders ideals.
  • So-called “anti-hate” groups are funded, whose objective is to silence legitimate criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration.
  • Open Society funds scholarships of foreign students often leads to them permanently settling in the West, especially with the diversity laws on the books. As such, student visas are a form of backdoor population replacement.
  • Open Society partners with the Canadian Government (and other Governments) on refugee relocation programs
  • Open Society indirectly finances court challenges to strike down, amend or otherwise weaken our borders

To put it mildly, this is a convoluted mess of connections and financing. This critique in no way covers everything that is going on. However, it is meant to shed light on how bad the problem is.

4. Review By Civilian Intelligence Network

The corruption of higher education by the Soros cabal was covered by Civilian Intelligence Network in this earlier article. In depth and with a lot of detail, it is worth a long read. This will not be a rehash of the CIN piece, but rather some different coverage brought to George Soros.

5. Open Society Group Tax Records

EIN: 13-3095822

EIN: 13-7029285

EIN: 52-2028955

EIN: 26-3753801

EIN: 45-4209345
No tax returns yet, just determination letters

EIN: 46-5635908
No tax returns yet, just determination letters

EIN: 52-1035144

EIN: 81-0623035

There isn’t a single Open Society Group. Rather, it is a series of charities available for tax-exempt status. The above records are available with this link, and searching the IRS.

6. Michael Ignatieff VP Open Society Fund

Michael Ignatieff is the rector and president of Central European University in Budapest. A university professor, writer, and former politician, Ignatieff served for three years as the Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Practice of Politics and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he was the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy from 2000 to 2005.

Ignatieff earned his doctorate in history at Harvard University, and has taught at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; Kings College, Cambridge; the London School of Economics and Political Science; and the University of British Columbia. Active in Canadian politics from 2006 to 2011, Ignatieff was a member of parliament and leader of the Liberal Party. An author and journalist, he is widely published, including Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (2013) and The Ordinary Virtues: Moral Order in a Divided World. In 2019, he was awarded The Dan David Prize for the defense of democracy.

Does that last name look familiar? It should. Michael Ignatieff used to be the head of the Canadian Liberal Party, from early 2009 until mid 2011. Only the biggest defeat in Liberal history kept him from becoming Prime Minister. He is now on the Board of the Open Society Foundation.

Ignatieff crashed and burned in the May 2011 Federal election. However, Soros would get a Liberal Prime Minister as a puppet in the very next session. As a bonus, Chrystia Freeland would also get elected, and get chosen for Foreign Affairs Minister.

7. Areas Open Society Finances

CATEGORY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
DP $76.5M $102.9M $113.9M $99.3M $140.5M
ECE $18.6M $20.7M $21.9M $21.3M $22M
EGA $76.7M $127.4M $146.2M $131.7M $136.7M
EAD $75.8M $82.4M $80.2M $85.3M $111.5M
HR $47.3M $58.8M $50.1M $46.8M $47.2M
EDU $26.0M $19.5M $52.2M $85.3M $63.7M

DP = Democratic Practice
ECE = Early Childhood Education
EGA = Economic Governance & Advancement
EAD = Equality & Anti-Discrimination
HR = Health & Rights
EDU = Higher Education

For the entire list that Open Society discloses.

8. Groups Open Society Helps Fund

For a glimpse into what groups Open Society sees as worthy of funding, consider this 2016, 2017, and 2018 returns, and the names that are on it. There are a lot of NGOs and civil societies who receive Soros money.
EIN: 52-2028955

American Civil Liberties Union 2016 $170,000
Advance Carolina 2016 $112,500
Alliance San Diego Mobilization 2018 $150,000
America’s Voice 2018 $575,000
American Immigration Council 2016 $190,000
American Immigration Council 2017 $190,000
American Immigration Council 2018 $35,000
American Jewish World Service 2017 $150,000
Amnesty International USA 2016 $350,000
Amnesty International USA 2017 $350,000
Amnesty International USA 2018 $250,000
Arizona Wins 2016 $75,000
Arizona Wins 2017 $425,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center 2016 $300,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center 2018 $650,000
Bend The Arc Jewish Action 2018 $200,000
Beyond The Choir 2018 $140,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 2016 $80,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 2017 $80,000
Center For American Progress 2018 $240,000
Center For A New Economy 2016 $120,000
Center For Community Change Action 2016 $1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action 2017 $2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action 2018 $1,060,000
Center For International Policy 2018 $125,000
Center For Popular Democracy 2016 $1,030,000
Center For Popular Democracy 2018 $700,000
Color Of Change 2018 $350,000
Engage Cuba 2017 $750,000
Every Voice 2016 $475,000
Institute For Asian Democracy 2016 $25,000
J Street 2017 $25,000
J Street Action Fund 2017 $25,000
Maine People’s Alliance 2016 $400,000
Mercy Corps 2016 $150,000
Mercy Corps 2017 $150,000
MoveOn Org Civic Action 2016 $25,000
National Ass’n Latino Elected 2016 $55,000
National Security Archive Fund 2016 $55,000
New Left Acceleration 2016 $250,000
Planned Parenthood 2018 $1,000,000
Pretrial Justice Institute 2016 $50,000
Pretrial Justice Institute 2017 $50,000
Project On Middle East Democracy 2017 $90,000
Retain A Just Nebraska 2016 $500,000
San Diegans For Voter Participation 2016 $200,000
Sierra Club 2016 $125,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund 2016 $481,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund 2017 $2,257,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund 2018 $3,837,000
Taxpayers For Sentencing Reform 2016 $500,000
The Aspen Institute 2018 $65,000
The Constitution Project 2016 $50,000
Tides Advocacy 2018 $1,760,000
Tides Center 2016 $20,000
Tides Center 2018 $22,500

America’s Voice claims to track hatred and racist media. Consider it a form of the ADL, or the Canadian Anti-Hate Network

The Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund, sells itself as a voter empowerment group, but is really concerned with pushing for the “rights” of people in the country illegally.

The American Immigration Council effectively wages lawfare against the United States by challenging existing laws and regulations as unconstitutional.

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is a group trying to mobilize younger people, in an effort to get more liberal policies voted into law.

This group, Bend The Arc Jewish Action, is a group trying to mobilize Jews into a political force. The goal allegedly is to defeat white supremacy and give power to marginalized people.

The group Beyond The Choir looks at different marketing strategies for how to promote and advance liberal causes in the West. Also touts an openly anti-Trump agenda.

The Center For American Progress Action Fund contains many Democrats in high ranking positions. It’s an openly partisan group trying to get Donald Trump out of office.

The Center For Popular Democracy is a group that promotes every marginalized group under the sun, claiming that they are all oppressed.

The group Color Of Change calls itself a “racial justice” group, and is trying to build real power for black communities, whatever that means.

Community Change Action is a group trying to get more people voting for pro-immigration policies, and focuses on potentially close political races.

Sixteen Thirty seems to be missing, (was it taken down?) but according to critics, it was used to influence politicians towards liberal leaning causes.

The Aspen Institute is a think tank which promotes global solutions to a variety of world problems. Interesting list of members.

The Tides Foundation promotes and funds a variety of environmental and social justice causes around the world.

Of course this is nowhere near all of the groups who receive some funding from the various Open Society groups. But it does help illustrate the types of institutions that George Soros and his people would be interested in financing.

9. Open Society & Higher Education

John Hopkins University 2017 $15,000
Fellows Of Harvard College 2016 $50,000
University Of Maryland 2017 $49,000
Fellows Of Harvard College 2016 $196,000
Various Scholarships (12) 2016 $717,000
Various Scholarships (12) 2017 $717,000

The above listings are just a small sample of what the various Open Society groups offer.

This has been addressed many times on this site. However, the typical Canadian is completely unaware of just how many students and temporary workers are being let into the country. While this is sold to the public as forms of “temporary” migration, the reality is that there are many pathways to stay longer.

10. Open Society Pushes For More Refugees

UNITED NATIONS/NEW YORK CITY, September 19, 2016 – The Government of Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations have agreed to launch a joint initiative aimed at increasing private sponsorship of refugees around the world. Research demonstrates that privately sponsored refugees tend to have relatively early, positive integration and settlement outcomes, thanks in part to the social support provided by sponsors.

This announcement came from the UN High Commission on Refugees.

In September 2016, a partnership was announced between the Canadian Government, the UN High Commission on Refugees and the Open Society, to bring more refugees to Canada.

Interesting side note: despite all the attention that the UN Global Migration Compact gained in 2018, few people seemed to care about its predecessor, the New York Declaration, which was adopted in September 2016.

11. UNCHR Party To Canada/U.S. Border

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

Few people know this, but the UNHCR is legally speaking, a party to this agreement. It is not a bilateral pact between 2 countries, but includes at least 3. Yet this detail isn’t spoken about in the media.

In fact, Canada hasn’t had true border security since 2002 (when the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was signed), if it ever did at all. This is addressed in Part 7 of the series.

12. Open Society Finances Lawfare In Court

(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236

(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418

Since 1989, NGOs have made at least 3 major attempts to have portions of our laws struck down. This would make it easier for fake refugees to enter from the United States. This has been addressed elsewhere in the series, such as in Part 16.

But an interesting piece of the puzzle was left out: who’s funding this? Who is the source of financing for the lawyers who want to strike down Canadian Borders?

Amnesty International USA 2016 $350,000
Amnesty International USA 2017 $350,000
Amnesty International USA 2018 $250,000

This of course is the American counterpart, but Amnesty International works in similar ways across Western nations. Obviously, Amnesty International has many donors. However, the Open Society does contribute to groups who take Governments to court to allow refugees easier access.

13. Soros Allegedly Funding Civil Unrest

A disclaimer to start out with: given that these are still not proven fully at this point, the qualifier “allegedly” will be used here. It has been alleged that the Center For Community Change has helped finance and coordinate Antifa riots and other violent demonstrations, with money from the Open Society and other such groups.

Center For Community Change Action 2016 $1,475,000
Center For Community Change Action 2017 $2,500,000
Center For Community Change Action 2018 $1,060,000

This data is available from the 2016 to 2018 tax returns for the Open Society Policy Center (EIN: 52-2028955). From the information presented, Open Society clearly does fund the group Center for Community Change Action. However, the group obviously doesn’t publicly admit to staging violence.

15. Caravans Facilitating Illegal Entry

Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a transborder organization made up of human rights defenders of diverse nationalities and immigration statuses that promotes accompaniment, humanitarian assistance, leadership development, recognition of human rights, and coordination of know-your-rights training along migrant routes, as well as monitoring and raising awareness of human rights abuses against migrants and refugees in Mexico and the United States. Our accompaniment does not end at the border, it continues in the immigration detention centers of the United States and the communities in Mexico and the US.

This NGO openly admits that its agenda is getting people across the border from the United States into Mexico. The name, PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS, loosely translates to “Town Without Borders”. It openly supports illegal waves of people (called Caravans) coming up north to the U.S.

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of Central American migrants demanding asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico Sunday may be poor, but they have support of major foundations, corporations and billionaire George Soros for their well-organized caravan-style invasion.

The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo sin Fronteras. But the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services and the American Immigration Lawyers Association – thus the acronym CARA. At least three of the four groups are funded By George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, WND has confirmed

Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a member of the National Day Laborer Network, which is affiliated with United for Justice and Peace, Caravan Against Fear and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The connections run deep between left-wing activism and corporate and foundation sponsorship.

The Democratic Party links are also in strong evidence. Earlier this month, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Kate Brown accepted a contribution to her re-election campaign from Soros – his first direct involvement in that state’s elections. Three days later, Brown announced the Oregon National Guard would not be participating in President Trump’s effort to get the Guard providing border security.

The online site WND has reported that some of the groups behind the Pueblo Sin Fronteras movement have been receiving funds from the Open Society. They cite these following organizations:

  • American Immigration Council 52-1549711
  • American Immigration Lawyers
  • Catholic Legal Immigration Network 52-1584951
  • Refugee & Immigration Center For Education And Legal Services
EIN: 26-3753801
EIN: 52-2028955

American Immigration Council 2016 $190,000
American Immigration Council 2017 $190,000
American Immigration Council 2018 $35,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 2016 $80,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network 2017 $80,000

The American Immigration Council and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network are both unquestionably being partially funded by the Open Society. It’s quite possible that one or both of the others are being funded through an intermediary.

Mercy Corps 2016 $150,000
Mercy Corps 2017 $150,000

Worth a mention is the NGO called Mercy Corps, which helps bring large numbers of refugees to the West. Soros is a large supporter of them as well.

16. Trudeau Foundation Media Swamp

Why doesn’t the Canadian media do any real investigating into George Soros, the Open Society (any of those groups), or any of the money flowing to various globalist NGOs? Why aren’t MSM outlets doing much more to inform the public as to what is really going on?

It was addressed in this piece before, that there are many prominent members of the Canadian media who also belong to the Trudeau Foundation. This is likely why (or at least part of the reason) that the coverage is so limited.

The connections between Soros and many nefarious groups is not difficult to piece together, yet the main media heads in Canada simply won’t do it. Refusing to cover a story, or only giving it superficial coverage, is an indication of being controlled opposition.

By contrast, Civilian Intelligence Network actually went into great length about Stephen Toope, the first President of the Trudeau Foundation. The group laid out his many globalist links. This is an example of how investigative journalism SHOULD be done.

17. Open Society Attacks In Many Ways

The Open Society (and groups like it) are waging a war against the West. They do this by funding and coordinating a number of events — both legal and illegal — meant to bring about our destruction. Some examples include:

  • Financing lobby groups to invert social order
  • Financing “education” to warp public opinion
  • Financing scholarships to bring more foreign students over
  • Lobbying to install open borders politicians into office
  • Financing groups that challenge immigration/refugee laws in court
  • Financing groups that facilitate illegal mass entries
  • Financing groups that cause violence in public

Why aren’t these seditionist actions detailed in the mainstream media? Two main reasons are: (a) the MSM is financially dependent on government handouts; and (b) many members are part of the Trudeau Foundation, and similar groups. These conflicts of interest make it impossible for them to act effectively.

In 2018, there was a $595 million bailout of unprofitable media in Canada. This left many outlets in the awkward position of being dependent on the very government they are supposed to hold to account.

There isn’t just a single avenue that Soros or the Open Society groups take. This is a multipronged approach to attacking our civilization. The details need to be shared.

Make no mistake: these groups are our enemies.

Solutions #14: Making More Informed Voting Choices

Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.

To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #10: How to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Have proper entry/exit border system.
CLICK HERE, for #12: Maintain spiritual foundation of the West.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Refusing forced vaccinations/medications.

2. Views/Bias Of The Author

Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.

Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support

  • Population replacement of Europeans
  • Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Forced multiculturalism
  • Replacement of Christianity in the West
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-children
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
  • UN and other “multilateral” institutions
  • Islamification of the West
  • Foreign aid handed out everywhere
  • Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Government control over all major aspects of business
  • Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
  • Restricting free speech rights
  • Strong gun control, seizures

Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.

  • LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
  • LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
  • LEGAL forced multiculturalism
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
  • UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
  • Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
  • Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
  • Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Business interests topping interests of people
  • Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
  • “Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
  • Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners

From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for

3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?

To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.

(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?

(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.

(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly

(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.

(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.

(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?

This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.

4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters

People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

5. Opposition By Scandal

Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates

There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.

To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.

Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.

7. Deflect With Personal Attacks

A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments

8. Take The Time To Self-Educate

Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.

There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.

However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.

Protect yourself.