At Confederation’s doorstep, the Fathers of Upper and Lower Canada contended for 72 Resolutions adopted in 1864 at Quebec City as the basis of the new country of Canada.
In the Legislative Assembly of the Old Province of Canada on Friday, February 7th, 1865, on the subject of the new Confederation, the Hon. Mr. George Etienne Cartier, Attorney General East observed:
“Objection had been taken to the scheme now under consideration, because of the words ‘new nationality.’ Now, when we were united together, if union were attained, we would form a political nationality with which neither the national origin, nor the religion of any individual, would interfere.” 1
That “political nationality” is British North American, sometimes called British American for short. Most certainly, the word “Canadian” fully comprehends the true legal and demographic sense of the term “British North American”. It denotes all things “Canadian”, including the founding peoples of Canada, in terms of the British North America Act of 1867. 2 It delimits and defines the population of the constitutional entity of Canada comprised of a limited number of local identities, entitled to the permanent protection of federal self-government. As to the purposes of the federal constitution, which are legally enforceable (that’s the whole point of a constitution), see “The Constitution 101: Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies”.
The British North Americans
are not “Europeans”
In the session of Monday, February 20th, 1985 in the Legislative Council of the Old Province of Canada, at page 333 of the same Debates3, the Hon. Mr. Thomas Ryan, the representative from Victoria, makes clear that the Canadians are not Europeans. Indeed, he makes it quite clear that the Europeans among the British North Americans about to found Canada, are a strict minority and are “foreigners”:
“Hon. Mr. Ryan said — The importance of the vote we are about to give on these resolutions is very great, as the future of the country is so largely dependent upon it, and representing as I do the division of Victoria, which is one of the most important in the country, containing a large representation of those sections or divisions of races which make up the population of Canada, I think it due to my constituents to make a few observations upon the subject before us. (Hear.)
If the constituency I represent is, perhaps, not quite the most numerous in the country, it possesses a large share of the wealth, business and manufacturing energy and commercial enterprise of the province. It also contains, in not very unequal proportions, people of the different nationalities, religions and languages which most largely prevail amongst us.
You have the French element, with the Roman Catholic religion and French language; you have the English, Scotch and Irish Protestant element, and you have the Irish Roman Catholic element, which I may be said more especially to represent, and which is by no means an unimportant one. Go through Canada, and you will find that these, with a few European foreigners, such as Germans and Norwegians, make up nearly the whole population.
My division is, in fact, an epitome of Canada. (Hear, hear.)”
The noun “epitome” means the “image” of, a “paradigm” of, or as my WordWeb dictionary says, “A standard, typical or perfect example”. In other words, Mr. Ryan’s constituency, demographically speaking, is the very mirror of the new Confederation whose political identity, whose new “political nationality” is British North American, not “European”, i.e. not “European foreigners”.
Furthermore, my well informed WordWeb dictionary defines the word “Europe”:
“The 2nd smallest continent (actually a vast peninsula of Eurasia); the British use ‘Europe’ to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles”
Thus, to call the Canadians “Europeans”, in part defies the very concept of their own identity held by the British themselves, who — culturally and geographically speaking — did not view themselves as “European”.
Now, the “French” of whom Mr. Ryan spoke are, according to prize-winning historian J.M.S. Careless, in fact “a new people, born in New France”;3 in other words, born in North America. Like the Galapagos tortoise, indigenous to one place, the French Canadians as we know them and as they know themselves, are indigenous to this place. It would therefore be only remotely exact to say that the French Canadians are of “European” derivation. However, they are manifestly of North American extraction, of their own derivation.
As well, the antecedents of the vast majority of colonists of the original four provinces of Canada are obviously in the British Isles. Furthest back, they are in England; most recently, they are in United Kingdom, not “Europe”.
The Founding Fathers knew that the vast majority of Canadians were not “European foreigners”. They moreover formally identified the Canadians as forming one “political nationality” in the new Confederation. That political nationality is “British North American”, which includes the French Canadians, the “new race” born here, on this continent.
This political nationality, British North American (simile: Canadian), legally distinguishes the founders of Canada from all other “national” peoples everywhere, whatever their color, race and origin because this group, these British North Americans, claimed sovereignty for themselves, meaning self-government.
They moreover claimed it in a unique federal state blending British and French institutions adapted to these people and this continent. The British-style Parliament and the French Civil Code were not adopted in Canada to serve the planet. They are not boilerplate. They are not neutral. They are culturally and ethnically specific, as the heritage of the particular founders of Canada.
Their descendants and legitimate heirs (people who adopt the culture) legally are entitled to maintain that nation as founded by their ancestors.
The British North Americans, in other words the real Canadians, have standing — in Latin, locus standi, to enforce their legal rights as the founders and political owners of Canada.
It’s a question of waking up the British North Americans to the fact of their true identity, so that they know who they are and what their Constitution is for. They need their identity to claim standing to enforce their existing rights to self-government in British North America, free of the mass-immigration and illegal multiculturalism which are destroying it.
My WordWeb dictionary says: noun: locus standi:
“(law) the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit or participate in a particular case”
In contrast, the mere demographic of “whiteness” has no standing. Not all white people created Canada; not all white people have a legal right to be here and to enforce Confederation.
Only those people (some of whom may not be white) who are legitimately, culturally the heirs and descendants of the British North Americans — and only they have legal standing to enforce their right to self-government; their right to exclude dissimilar foreigners from their ethnic institutions and councils of government.
Therefore, the word “European” applied to the Founding Peoples of Canada, even if only meant generically as a tag for “white” (like the term “kleenex,” which now means any and all types of “tissues”), does in fact give rise to a serious confusion of identity.
Like the students in Toronto who are trying to get a “White Student Union” into their universities, the word “European” has come to mean not merely “white” but the place called Europe, symbolized by their logo, the goddess Europa riding a bull. Which has nothing to do with British North America and the legal rights of the heirs of Canada’s founders.
Which may call to mind that prior mistake when Columbus, while seeking a passage to India, landed in North America, and labeled our Aboriginals “Indians”. But evidently, they are North American Aboriginals, they are not Hindus. (It now seems that even the North American “aboriginals” may not be aboriginals; having been preceded in North America by white Solutreans.)
Columbus can be forgiven. In his day there was no Internet, and he was, after all, on a voyage of discovery. But, anyone today who misidentifies the Canadians, meaning the British North Americans, as “Europeans”, when we have mapped the world, and we know who we are, and we have our records, is undeserving of leniency.
After all, no chemist would so glaringly misidentify his molecules. Neither should any sociologist, or “pop social scientist” misidentify the people with whose nation and fate he is tinkering.
Who Settled the Canadian West?
Now that we know who the founding peoples are of Eastern Canada: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, (and indeed Prince Edward Island, which acceded July 1, 1873, and Newfoundland, which finally entered the Union March 31, 1949), who are the founding peoples of Canada’s West?
Governor-General’s Award-winning historian, J.M.S. Careless sorts them out. Says Careless:
“The year 1896 not only saw Laurier and the Liberals take office in Canada. It witnessed the revival of world trade and the return of prosperity to the Dominion. In fact, Canada embarked on the greatest boom it had yet known. A new tide of immigration set in, the West was rapidly occupied, and all parts of the country flourished.” 4
“The basic achievement of the new era, on which the rest of the national advance depended, was the settlement of the West.” 5
“Government policies also had their share in the successful opening of the West. In many ways they merely continued on lines laid down under Macdonald, but they were ably administered by the Laurier government. Clifford Sifton, the Minister of the Interior in charge of western settlement, brought driving energy and enthusiasm to his task. He organized vigorous publicity campaigns in Britain, the United States and Europe to attract immigrants to the Canadian West and stationed immigration agents widely in all three.”6
Notice the careful distinction made betweenm “Britain” and “Europe” by J.M.S. Careless in that passage. Notice again, the Sifton campaigns are aimed at peopling the West, not at peopling the established self-governing Provinces. Therefore, though a few of these new arrivals do settle in the East, most go West to settle the new Provinces. Careless says:
“Canada was swept by the greatest wave of immigration in her history. Between 1896 and the First World War, about two-and-a-half million people entered the Dominion. Well over half a million came from continental Europe, more than three-quarters of a million from the United States and close to a million from the British Isles. During the height of the movement, between 1901 and 1911, the population jumped from five to seven millions, an increase of over one-third. But the change in the size of the population was no more striking than the change in its composition. While the new immigrants were English-speaking in the great majority, a sizeable number were from Germany and Scandinavia, from Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine, from Austria and Italy. Canada for the first time became what the United States long had been, a melting-pot of peoples. Canada was still much less a melting pot than the republic, and the British and French stocks continued to dominate. But whereas persons of other than British or French origin had formed only a tiny part of the Canadian population at Confederation, by the First World War they formed almost one-fifth of it.
On the whole these European immigrants were gradually absorbed into the two older Canadian peoples, though mostly into the English-speaking majority.” 7
In other words, immigration to Canada, a country founded as an ethnic federation in 1867, a federal system, not a legislative union, naturally and correctly assimilated the vast majority of its non-Canadian, non-British immigrants, in particular the few Europeans, to the prevailing cultures.
Historian Careless underscores both the British and the North American (indigenous) composition of the influx which settled the West:
“At the same time, the largest group of immigrants gave Canada a new infusion of British stock, while the next largest set of arrivals, from the United States (about half of them returning Canadians), supplied farmers already trained in North American agriculture.” 8
So, once again, we see the vast majority of the Founding Peoples of Canada are not “Europeans”; and that those few Europeans who did come in were acculturated. In other words, they became, quite legitimately, “British North Americans”.
The Founding Peoples of the four originating provinces of Canada were not immigrants. They had been born in British North America for several generations. They were the architects and the natural heirs of their own local cultures and form of government. Speaking of the period from 1815 to 1850, Governor-General’s Award-winning historian, J.M.S. Careless, describes these founders:
“Whether ardent Loyalists or indifferent republicans, most of the English-speaking settlers in this period had been North Americans long established on the continent.” 9
Thus, when Careless later refers to “about half” of the American immigrants to Canada and her burgeoning West, he notes that “half of them” were “returning Canadians”. In other words, they were the same peoples who had been long on the continent. They were indigenous here, not foreigners; and half of that half were our own people coming home.
So, once again, Western Canada: not “European”.
Who Are the Founders of Canada’s West Coast?
In the period 1896-1914, Careless tells us:
“The Pacific coast of Canada was first opened by sea. The long fingers of British sea power stretched to Vancouver Island from around Cape Horn and across the Pacific.” 10
“Altogether, about a million new inhabitants went to the prairies and British Columbia in the peak period, 1901 to 1911. Probably the majority were Canadians and Americans, and the rest British and continental Europeans in about equal numbers.” 11
When Careless says “Canadians” here, he means British North Americans from the established Provinces. Thus, again, the Canadians and the “Americans” are those peoples “long on the continent”. The newcomers are British and continental Europeans. However, the old stock, from North America and the root stock from the British Isles far outnumbers the new Europeans. In conclusion, the Founding Peoples of Canada once again are majority British North Americans, not “Europeans”.
Use of the term “British North Americans”
Renowned historian P. B. Waite, in his Life and Times of Confederation, uses the legally, politically, culturally, historically and ethnically proper term for the peoples of British North America, which became Canada.
Says Waite at pages 3 and 4:
“Confederation was literally a national issue, the first and the greatest that British North Americans had to face. This book is a history of British North America engaged upon that high adventure.”
At page 13, Waite distinguishes the British North Americans from the Americans below their border:
“This dislike of what British North Americans thought of as American political practice was widespread. According to a Barrie paper, American legislatures were filled with ‘demagogues, prizefighters, and other specimens of the genus vagabond, who can handle a bowie knife much better than a pen. …’ The American practice of electing judges drew a vehement attack from the Toronto Globe …”
The Americans, who are from the same root stock as the British North Americans, are thus viewed as being culturally and temperamentally quite different.
Before Confederation, “Canadians” are the inhabitants of the old province of Canada made of Upper and Lower Canada (future Ontario and Quebec), but those Canadians and all the other colonists from sea to shining sea are always “British North Americans” in addition to their local identity. After Confederation, all are called both Canadians and British North Americans.
For references to the term “British North Americans” used by Waite, see i.e., pages 3 and 4, pages 13, 27, 29, 32, 34, 108, 114-115, 117, 118, 158, 263, 281, 328.
Waite, citing history from newspapers in the Confederation era, never once refers to the Canadians as “EuroCanadians” or as “European Canadians”. Indeed, he calls them what they are: British North Americans, both before and after Confederation.
In his 18 December 2016 post at VeteransToday.com entitled “Century of Treachery”, controversial British Barrister Michael Shrimpton knows that the British are not European. Said Shrimpton, by way of illustrating the distinction:
“It is a well-known fact that Jerry [Germany] does not like getting his feet wet. He was doubtless hoping that Britain would cave in quickly after the terror-bombing of London in the way that Poland caved in after the terror-bombing of Warsaw and the Dutch caved in after the terror-bombing of Rotterdam. What he overlooked is that we are British, not European. If we are bombed, we put the ﬁres out, bury the dead, build more bombers and drop ten times as many bombs on our dastardly foe as he dropped on us.”
Even our CBC man on the Soviet payroll, Mark Starowicz, former McGill Daily editor and entrepreneur of “particular Marxist tactic” “The Last Post” magazine in Toronto, which published Liberal Senator Croll (from Moscow’s) NDP-written Poverty Report in 1971 pushing a basic guaranteed income for Canada (which requires Communist planning, decentralization and homogenization), knows that Canada was not a land of immigrants. In his speech entitled “Refuge and the Canadian Idea”, Starowicz says:
“It was a different English Canada then, dominated by descendants of the British Isles. We all lived in a largely Anglo-Irish and Scottish area, where people knew each other from birth, and we were the outsiders.” (Our underlines.)
By “then”, Starowicz means before the illegal imposition of mass immigration and multiculturalism by Communist Pierre Trudeau. By “we”, Starowicz means his apparently traumatizing childhood experience as one of a family of immigrants from Argentina, fleeing their friends and familiar home to evade the debts of his father’s bankrupt trucking company. Starowicz’s mental problem is projected onto Canada and he eventually becomes a French-and-English-Canada-hating Marxist and a prize-winning pro-Soviet writer of spurious propaganda-in-lieu-of-history for Canada at its long-known-to-be-red CBC.
Founding Father of Canada, George Etienne Cartier, identifies three “great races” of the British Isles as components of the coming federation. In the joint Legislative Assembly of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec in 1867) on Tuesday, February 7, 1865, Cartier says:
“Look, for instance, at the United Kingdom, inhabited as it was by three great races. (Hear, hear.) Had the diversity of race impeded the glory, the progress, the wealth of England? Had they not rather each contributed their share to the greatness of the Empire? Of the glories of the senate, the field, and the ocean, of the successes of trade and commerce, how much was contributed by the combined talents, energy and courage of the three races together? (Cheers.) In our own Federation we should have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy. (Hear, hear.) He viewed the diversity of races in British North America in this way: we were of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare. (Cheers.)”
The word “diversity” in Cartier’s speech, clearly was not used in the sense meant today, of mass immigration and “multiculturalism”. It referred to the quite minimal diversity of the founders of Canada at the time. An excellent description is given of Canadian ethnic origins by Thomas D’Arcy-McGee in the same Debates of 1865. See my post “Ethnicity of the Founding Peoples of Canada: Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee (1865)”.
In conclusion, “EuroCanadian” and “European Canadian” are not historical or scientific terms. They have no connection to Confederation or the Founding Peoples. They are neologisms. A neologism is a newly invented word or phrase. The “EuroCanadian” neologism falsifies history, consolidates all merely “White” people as one non-federal entity, and therefore hides the remedy for the illegal mass immigration and the unconstitutional multiculturalism. That remedy is the enforcement of the federal constitution: the legal framework for the guaranteed self-government of each of the founding peoples.
In his article entitled “Charles Taylor’s Philosophy of Minority Ethnic Identity and the Suppression of Eurocanadian Identity” in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, Summer 2016, Ricardo Duchesne quotes Charles Taylor 13 as maintaining:
“Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being.”
I agree. I therefore demand that the neologism of “European Canadian” or “EuroCanadian” be dropped immediately. Ricardo Duchesne will therefore have to change the name of his organization to the “Council of British North Americans”, with consequent negative fallout for his program of white-race redemption. The British North Americans have a legally enforceable Constitution; the Constitution counts; our color is merely incidental.
Identity is linked to rights. The buzz-word “EuroCanadian” camouflages the legal, political and historical landscape. It denies their true identity to the Founding Peoples of Canada, who are not “EuroCanadian” and cannot use that term to enforce their constitutional rights to self-government.
What does “European Canadian” Mean?
And where did it come from?
There is and has been a network of movements and their publications in Canada and the USA which appear to have developed the term “European” to mean “White” in lieu of the politically discredited term, “Aryan”.
This network goes back decades and is intertwined across the Canada-USA border. It is intertwined as well with anticommunist groups and communist-front groups. It would need a great deal of patience to unknot the ravel of all these threads, document the intersections and track down the origins. Hopefully, somebody out there will be inclined to do it in order to see where the “Money” is coming from that generates and runs these things.
The Edmund Burke Society (EBS) is a link in that network. In their typewritten journal, Straight Talk!, the EBS (later renamed The Western Guard) adopts the term “European Canadian” with a view to giving it political meaning.
In any event, the word “European” for Straight Talk! clearly means “White”, as we will see presently.
According to its Technical Data Sheet, the University of Toronto Library’s Photo Duplication department in 1975 did not have a copy in the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library of Volume 1, #1 of Straight Talk!, “The Official Bulletin of the Edmund Burke Society”.
We thus find at archive.org, scanned by the U of T, Volume 1, #2, the October/November 1968 issue as the first available copy of Straight Talk!.
On the masthead, the Editor is Joseph A. Genovese. Associate Editors are F. Paul Fromm and D. Clarke Andrews, with the Board of the EBS acting as the magazine’s Directors.
When Straight Talk! later ceased publication, its archives were apparently transferred to a US-based “White”-interest publication entitled Aryan. That information came to me from a university reference librarian in a chat online. It seems to underscore that the word “European” in Straight Talk! indeed means “Aryan”, i.e. “White”.
The noun “Aryan”, in my WordWeb dictionary, means “a Caucasian person of Nordic descent (and not a Jew) (according to Nazi doctrine)”.
WordWeb then says that “Aryan” also means “A member of the prehistoric people who spoke Proto-Indo European”.
WordWeb says that “Aryan” as an adjective relates to “the former Indo-European people”.
An in-depth study of the over a thousand surviving pages of Straight Talk! would help determine whether the EBS was using the word “European” to scoff at Nazi doctrine, or perhaps affirm it. However, some 40%-50% of those pages, online in archive.org, are illegible beyond reconstruction because of bad scanning.
Very possibly, the intent of the EBS was to counter the discredit after WWII heaped upon people who happen to be white in color, by affirming and revaluing these people under a new term. However, again, this is not 100% clear without further study, and many of the scanned pages online by the U of T are illegible, which adds to the difficulty. Moreover, their reasons for affirming it, if that is what they intend, would have to be ascertained, as their use of the term “European” as a substitute for the term Aryan may also reflect a desire to rehabilitate White people generally from slurs tied to the allegation that nationalist “White” people mass murdered dissimilar Jews in World War II.
Peter Sutherland, the U.N.’s migration mogul, has openly blackmailed actual Europeans by implying that their rejection of outrageous levels of mass immigration into their countries could lead to a repetition of what (is alleged to have) happened under Hitler. In other words, the Hitler narrative is widely used to intimidate all White peoples to force them to comply with policies which are to their own disadvantage.
Canada’s current chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, has implied in a public speech that the constitution of Canada could become “a Nazi document” if Canadians reject their own outrageous mass immigration. Therefore, media-driven “White” guilt over the alleged events of WWII is being used to silence and oppress western peoples who in fact are being subject to a process of cultural and physical genocide by replacement.
Indeed, there is today an almost casual acceptance even on the part of people who are “White” that a burden of collective guilt, from the alleged events of World War II, somehow lies upon the whole White race.
However, referring to Straight Talk!, the racial color “White” and all “White” people as an arbitrary political unit, emerge as the meaning attributed by the EBS to the term they coin: “European Canadian”.
Straight Talk! Deconstructs Western Civilization,
and Canada, Too!
Race Wars and a manufactured “identity crisis” are robbing the Founding Peoples of Canada of our self-government. Where did this problem begin?
1971In the January-February 1971 issue of Straight Talk!, Volume III, Number 5, edited by F. Paul Fromm et als for the Edmund Burke Society (EBS), contributing author J. M. Harris launched one of the typical misled offensives by the EBS in defence of what these “Burkers” called the “European” “West”.
In his article entitled “The Threat to our Way of Life”, more or less well begun at page 19 of the quoted issue, J. M. Harris nonetheless dives off the deep end in his segment, “Defend the West!”.
Says Harris for Paul Fromm’s Edmund Burke Society:
“One of the ways in which we can combat the world revolutionary movement is to promote the concept of Western civilization. Western civilization comprises the countries of the Euro-American community, and the cultural legacy which they have received and shared with much of humanity. Any attack on one of these countries is an attack upon all of us. We should do all we can to safeguard our common culture, institutions, and way of life against the anarchists working to annihilate us by creating closer ties among Western countries, by building collective security.”
By “world revolutionary movement”, Harris means Communism. However, the British Parliamentary system, also called the Westminster system, prevents a communist takeover. Therefore, the best “defence” against the “world revolutionary movement” is the proper education of our people in Canada, UK, Australia, etc., whose culture is built around the Westminster system.
To sum it up quickly, no one can access appointed or elected office in Canada who opposes the Constitution. That keeps power, and thus military power, out of the hands of traitors, red or otherwise. Next, and of no less importance, a Westminster Parliament transcends time! Like the British Crown, Parliament exists in the past, the present, and the future. The aphorism, “The King is dead, long live the King!” is not for nothing. British institutional arrangements keep the legal “Sovereign” alive through an heir or a regent, thus keeping the Crown alive, thus keeping the Parliament alive whose very existence depends upon the existence of the Sovereign.
Thus, the laws of a British-style Parliament exist in the past, the present, and the future. Even more importantly, the legal ability to alter or repeal these laws, which is a guarantee against tyranny, meaning the finality that comes with dictatorship, is impossible in the British system since the people are always free to amend or repeal a law through their representatives. Finality of a law or a situaiton of which the people do not approve is tyranny.
In his article, “Administrative Law: 1923-1947” in the Canadian Bar Review (Vol. XXVI, 1948), constitutional law professor, F. R. Scott, a future Dean of Law at McGill, points out (page 273):
“Limitations [on the abilities of Parliament] appear to exist; (a) in that no legislature could abolish itself, substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo …” Scott was discussing the War Measures Act, which temporarily suspends Parliament for emergency autocratic rule. The fact that Parliament cannot abolish itself, said Scott, “might be a useful principle with which to oppose — should the occasion arise — the setting-up of some dictatorial, unparliamentary government, perhaps serving for Canada something of the purpose of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution [its famed “supremacy clause”] which guarantees to every state of the Union a republican form of government.”
In other words, Canada’s BNA Act of 1867, on the Westminster model, guarantees to every Province and to all of Canada the parliamentary, Westminster form of government, whose laws the people make, and are free to change. He did not say that in part this is due to the trans-temporal character of our British-style Parliament. In Canada, our British-style Parliament is both an inherited and an express guarantee against unparliamentary government or tyranny because our basic Constitution is in writing.
Justice John Wellington Gwynne of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days) wrote in Citizens’ and The Queen Insurance Cos. v. Parsons (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215, p. 347:
“Within this Dominion the right of exercise of National Sovereignty is vested solely in Her Majesty, the Supreme Sovereign Head of the State, and in the Parliament of which Her Majesty is an integral part …”
And as we saw from Scott, Parliament cannot abolish itself; therefore, neither Parliament nor the Sovereign can abdicate or legally transfer Canadian sovereignty to anyone else; the only way that a loss of sovereignty can happen is by Conquest; militarily or by traitors from within. In the case of Canada, it happened the latter way in 1982.
Trudeau’s 1982 coup d’état gave us a tyranny by imposing a Star-Court on us under a Charter in which political “rights” are dictated by unelected judges in unforeseeable pronouncements we cannot easily repeal, the way a statute, considered by the people while governing themselves, is passed or is repealed.
Indeed, the British North America Act of 1867, on the British model, is a guarantee against the “government of judges”. And yet, today, we have a government of judges over a third-world banana republic where Confederation and self-government used to be. In our new post-coup dictatorship, opinions in disagreement with brainwashed third-world mentality, foreign to our culture and our soil, are repressed by social and “legalized” intimidation. In other words, we have a fledgling Soviet system; and this is no accident.
That said, collective security of the West is a good idea if implemented with military defence alliances amongst the nations. But Harris is wrong when he identifies the “concept” of the West as “protecting” “our common culture, institutions, and way of life.” The whole West might once have been Christian; but the whole West has never had British parliamentary institutions, of whose character our schools have kept us ignorant, to our disfavour.
Harris’s statement (under Editor Fromm) is reformulated in a 1972 issue of “Straight Talk!” (below, left) as “White people” “One Race, “One Culture”, “One Heritage”: European.<img src="https://modernfathers1867.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/straight-talk-september-october-1972-claims-canada-for-all-white-people.png?w=296&h=233&crop=1" alt="Straight Talk! — “White People: One race, One culture, One heritage: “European”. Let’s keep it that way. Canada belongs to us. September-October 1971.” width=”296″ height=”429″ class=”size-motif-grid-thumbnail wp-image-837″ /> Straight Talk! — “White People: One race, One culture, One heritage: “European”. Let’s keep it that way. Canada belongs to us. September-October 1971.
The Fascists before the middle of the last Century attempted to consolidate the West in a similar way against the Communists. It might have suited a part of the West; but the British-parliamentary part can manage the Communists on its own, thank you.
Fromm and his friends decided to “defend” Canada: [a] from Communism and [b] from non-white immigration, as being merely a “White” country, and not as the nation of its own Founding Peoples; not British-Parliamentary, and not Confederation. He therefore made mass-immigration, multiculturalism and Communism into “options” by necessary implication. But the Parliamentary constitution and Confederation prohibit all of this.
Thus, by fighting “politically” against these things, instead of using the legal framework to repel these things, all of this tyranny has been allowed to happen to Canada, as a political “option”.
Which proves, it is necessary to know precisely WHO you are, and what your Parliament is, what is optional and what is not, or you can be stripped of your fundamental rights and institutions.
Communist front-groups like the Canadian Action Party under Fogal and Hellyer have used a similar tactic to make North American Union an “option” by demanding a “democratic vote” or a “vote in Parliament” on something the Constitution in fact forbids. They deceive the public into thinking that Parliament can, indeed, “abolish” itself; that annexation, which the Constitution forbids, can be made “legal” by a vote. All this veneer of “democracy” is mere cosmetics over the various planned stages of a coup d’état, well underway because the people of Canada to whom the country belongs, have no clue who they are, and what their form of government and Constitution are.
Mr. Fromm and the Edmund Burke Society (EBS) have thus done Canada the dubious favour of radically altering our race, our history and our constitution “to protect” us; leaving us victims of invasion by migration, and of dispossession and genocide, all as an “option”.
The battle for Confederation was won in 1867 by the founders of Canada, but lost in 1971 to the Paul Fromm revisionists at Straight Talk!.
Fromm Spreads the Misnomer
The attribution of the word “European” is therefore a grave misnomer where Canada is concerned. It has been spread, however, to the United States of America, very possibly by Mr. Fromm in his friendship with Don Black and David Duke of Stormfront, who now refer to all Americans who are white in color as “European Americans”.
Surely, the passengers of the Mayflower were not continental Europeans, but Englishmen and Englishwomen. Once again, my WordWeb dictionary describes the Mayflower:
“The ship in which the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from England to Massachusetts in 1620.”
It sailed from England; in the British Isles. It did not sail from “Europe” in any ethnic sense.
In the Debates on Confederation of Thursday, March 9, 1865 at page 851, the Hon. Mr. Maurice Laframboise underscores this when he notes the “English” character of the whole of North America:
“The language, the laws, the character of the North American continent are English, and every race but the English (I apply this to all who speak the English language) appears there in a condition of inferiority.”
Mr. Laframboise means English as in proceeding from that race of people. Thus, according to the Hon. Mr. Laframboise, who was living in that environment at the time, the Americans and their culture were manifestly English.
As England was a division of the United Kingdom, and was not on the European continent, Mr. Laframboise clearly did not mean to say that the Americans were Europeans.
Surely, the founding peoples of America did not secede from “Europe” in 1776 but from Great Britain, from the British King, King George III.
<img src="https://modernfathers1867.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/may-1971-f-paul-fromm-still-editor-when-celtic-cross-is-adopted.jpg?w=296&h=233&crop=1" alt="Straight Talk! May 1971, F. Paul Fromm is Editor when Celtic Cross is adopted” width=”200″ height=”325″ class=”size-motif-grid-thumbnail wp-image-838″ /> Straight Talk! May 1971, F. Paul Fromm is Editor when Celtic Cross is adopted
Stormfront has also adopted the Celtic Cross from its Canadian forebear in Scarborough, Ontario (the Edmund Burke Society), further advancing a Canadian origin forthe questionable term “European American”.
This great “American” “white nationalist” movement which now spans the globe, imposing the “European” misnomer equally upon New Zealand and Australia (both colonies of the British Isles, not of Europe), is an awkward “Canadian” export.
The “Race” Pied Pipers
Got It Wrong
It is therefore absurd in 1971 and 1972, in the pages of Straight Talk! for the Edmund Burke Society (co-founded by F. Paul Fromm) to refer to Canada’s founding peoples as “Europeans”, meaning merely “White” in color.
In place of our legal identity as a group of distinct peoples with local self-government under our own Legislatures, Fromm gave us a biological identity merged with all “White” people everywhere.
It looks like madness, but it may be Marxism-Leninism. Fromm’s reduction of Canadians to biological status consolidates all White peoples into a new pool lacking any formal legal rights. Consolidation is a Communist tactic.
Forty-six years later, a “former” Soviet Marxist and Hegelian dialectician, Ricardo Duchesne, will take up Fromm’s “European” trumpet. The heavily multiracial Puerto Rican professor in sociology at the University of New Brunswick, together with his colleague, “master of laws” from Trinity College, Cambridge, Baronet Sir Richard Storey (also a newspaper man), now propose developing the “personhood” of the “White” race in order to give this new biological entity created by Fromm and the Burkers, and imbued with new vitality by Storey and Duchesne, new (legal rights) (enforceable in court). For more, see Part II.
Simplistic reductionism gravely distorts both our ethnic and our legal and political identities. It robs the founding peoples of Canada of our legal right to self-government by circumventing and ignoring the Constitution.
The right to federal self-government means the right to exclude masses of dissimilar foreigners, or anyone who refuses to adopt the original Canadian culture.
The Pied Piper, says my WordWeb dictionary, is a “leader who entices people to follow (especially to their doom)”.
Our “doom” is indeed already upon us. We are now living the consequences of useless “race” agitation by F. Paul Fromm and his “Burkers” waving the “White” “European” flag for half a century to no avail. “Race” is not legally enforceable. A gene pool is not legally enforceable. The Constitution is enforceable.
As we shall see in PART II, more than 40 years after Fromm and friends had set in motion a “European” rat-race to national and federal suicide, a heavily multiracial “former” Soviet Marxist from Puerto Rico, Ricardo Duchesne, has emerged under Fromm’s old label of “New Right”, to lead the founding peoples of Canada, still mislabeled “European”, to our final doom.
“Decades ago,” to quote Paul Hellyer (although he was referring to the space aliens), multiculturalism and the immigration required to do it, could have been stopped by a constitutional challenge and the issuance of Court orders restraining this obvious attack upon the rights of self-government of the founding peoples of Canada.
The irony is that one effect of such a court challenge would be to protect the founding peoples of Canada, who in their vast majority, are indeed, but quite incidentally, “white” in color.
Preserving their self-government would also preserve the incidental factor of their gene pool, which F. Paul Fromm and the race warriors have wrongly made the defining element, while missing the whole point of the Constitution.
To Know Who You Are is to Know Your Rights
Now that we know who we are, the British North Americans, also called Canadians (the real ones; not the mass-immigrated foreigners who are here to do Communism ), we, the Founding Peoples of Canada have the means to discover and enforce our rights.
Our first right is defined in the First Principle of the Alliance of the Founding Peoples of Canada (whose web site you are currently visiting): “Canada is a Sovereign Ethnic Federation.” The full-text principle reads as follows:
“THE CONFEDERATION OF CANADA is an ethnic federation of the constituent or Founding Peoples of Canada. It is a federal sovereign nation. It is Parliamentarian on the British Westminster model, the very character and essence of which is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The British model separates the powers and therefore guarantees our self-government. It repels globalism, judicial interference in politics, and foreign control of our law and of our culture on our own soil. Thinking of the Division of Powers, our Parliament can make and un-make any law whatever which the Constitution empowers it to make. It can make and repeal at will any treaty which the Constitution authorizes.
If you are a British North American, a real Canadian, you should know it by know. And if so, that’s your first right, the right to your ethnic Parliament and its national sovereignty.
And, if you are a British North American on a university campus in Canada, send this greeting to your merely incidentally “White” fellow British North Americans, who may not yet know who they are:
1 Page 60, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., Parliamentary Printers. 1,050 pages.
2 British North America Act 1867. 1867 c. 3 (Regnal. 30 and 31 Vict.)
4 Canada — A Story of Challenge By J.M.S. Careless, Chairman of the Department of History, University of Toronto (the MacMillan Company of Canada Limited, Toronto), First published 1953, Revised and enlarged edition 1963; Chapter 5, “The Life of New France, 1663-1760,” page 72.
5 Ibid., Chapter 16: “Laurier and Canada’s Century, 1896-1914” in Section 1, “Immigration and Western Settlement”, page 301.
7 Ibid, page 303.
8 Ibid, page 304.
9 Ibid, page 305.
10 Ibid, Chapter 9: “Immigration, Development and the Pioneer Age, 1815-50” in Section 1, “The Migration from Britain”, page 145.
11 Ibid, Chapter 1: “Geography Sets the Stage”, Page 12.
12 Ibid, Chapter 16: “Laurier and Canada’s Century, 1896-1914″ in Section 1, “Immigration and Western Settlement”, page 305.
13 Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 25–73, 25. All references herein are from this version of Taylor’s article.