Recently, “Conservative” Michelle Rempel-Garner posted on Twitter calling for (presumably) her party to adopt the policy of “pluralism”. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it. But what is pluralism really?
Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as: “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization”.
It has nothing to do with assimilation. Instead, it’s discouraged.
Furthermore, the definition also includes “a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state [of pluralism]”. Let the word games begin now….
[1] Liberals promote policies of “diversity”.
[2] Conservatives promote policies of “pluralism”.
But in the end, these are the same things. If you’re championing pluralism, you’re championing diversity. This leads to society being carved up and balkanized along various identity groups.
Since these people are all U.N. puppets, here’s something else that’s worth addressing. There are different ways to advocate for 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.
It’s also worth asking if pluralism (imposed without the consent of the people) would amount to genocide under the terms as laid out by the U.N. in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide After all, if pluralism results in at least a partial replacement of a group, isn’t that bringing about its destruction?
These policies are pushed in Western countries, and only in Western countries. This means that the consequences are deliberate.
Endorsing the globohomo agenda also seems to be part of conservatism these days, which shows just how far things have fallen.
Rempel supports pluralism, which is essentially state-imposed diversity. And how exactly does one make a country more diverse? Quite simply, you have to replace (or displace) at least a portion of the local population in order to make room for the new arrivals.
Now, are conservatives proud of this?
After all, if forced diversity is something that everyone’s on board with, doesn’t that lend credence to the notion that whites are being replaced?
Rempel did explain herself more fully:
That was not the first or the last time I have had to counter that particular racist diatribe. It is a core tenet of so-called “great replacement theory”; an anti-Semitic white-nationalist conspiracy theory involving a supposed plot to replace white people with non-whites.
The narrative it usually follows is that the immigration policy of western countries is designed to replace whites, or to “out breed them,” in order to prevent whites from getting jobs, dominating culture, or electing a “pro-white” government. It is racism built on longstanding colonial and white nationalist dogma that never truly has been erased, even after decades spent building pluralistic policy.
It is pure ignorance to believe that white replacement dogma doesn’t exist in Canada.
In a wink to this sentiment, some right leaning political candidates in recent years, both at the federal and provincial levels, have promised to “lower immigration levels” without explaining what benefit this would bring to Canada.
On May 18, 2022, Rempel wrote a piece that appeared in the National Post, denouncing “White Replacement Theory” as the paranoid rantings of racists. She condemns such conspiracies, and calls for people who endorse it to be removed from the party.
A serious question to ask: how can a Member of Parliament openly call for the creation of a “pluralistic” society, but condemn any talk of “white replacement”?
Do these people simply object to their ideals being explained as what they really are?
A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.
(1) https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1517246163828846597
(2) https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1527006649059254273
(3) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michelle-rempel-garner-we-have-a-duty-to-reject-conspiracy-theories-about-white-replacement
(4) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism
(5) https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
