Satan: — “I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it.

The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don’t dare to assert themselves.” — Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

SOURCES: The World Factbook 1997. Central Intelligence Agency, 1998. A Geolinguistic Handbook, 1985 edition, by Erik Gunnemark and Donald Kenrick. Country data are the most recent available as of early 1998. Ethnicity is defined on the basis of language used at home, on race or on religion, as seems appropriate to the country. Scientific American, September 1998



Since 1945, 15 million people have been killed in ethnic conflicts. When you look at an ethnic map of the world, you can’t help noticing that nations historically saturated in blood are areas either of ethnic confluence or artificially imposed ethnic separation. These flash points dot the maps of Europe, Asia and Africa; as the same repeating pattern emerges again and again, ethnic identities consistantly transcend, or equally resist, arbitrary boundaries. While age-old hatreds simmer on, recent introductions of dissimilar groups forced to live in pantomime “harmony” proves to be just as wrong-headed and divisive. Although the map suggests a highly cohesive population, China’s two boiling trouble spots (Tibet and Xinjiang Province) couldn’t be more ethnically and culturally distinct from their new masters.

China’s expansionist ambitions may have been satisfied, but only at enormous and continuing expense. Note Africa’s singular lack of ethnic cohesion. With 1,300 language groups in just 42 countries, the continent’s ethnic conflicts are so well known that there is not room here (or anywhere) — Hutu/Tutsi, Ethiopian/Eritrean, Xhosa/Zulu — to catalogue all of them. While we might hope our “leaders” would connect the bitter dots and reach the logical conclusion, they either cannot or will not. As “immigrant” evolves into a vaguely derogatory term, social engineers speak in terms of “migrants” or the “migration of human populations”, as though this unprecedented human floodtide were the most natural thing in the world; an unstoppable and inalienable rite of nature. “It should be realized that the forces promoting immigration are selfish forces caring neither for the welfare of the country nor for the welfare of the immigrant.” (Robert Hunter, Poverty, 1904) This interminable will to immigration defies not just historical, but natural human order.

Here, we endure the forced imposition of people so outlandishly dissimilar to ourselves (and likely to remain so, while rejection of our cultural norms is guaranteed under the provisions of multiculturalism) that the only evidence we have of new Canadians’ tolerance for us (if any) depends on the government telling us that they do. A constantly replicating human rights industry watches our Internet, media, and other institutions for “evidence of hatred”. Apart from keeping Canada’s “hate” industry up and running, the English language does not enjoy quite the same prestige in any other field of economic endeavour today. However, any group wishing to bash us (or a more traditional ethnic enemy) in Gujarati, Toi San, or Amharic is presumably making an important contribution to Canada’s diversity. The Vancouver Sun of July 15, 1998 reported that two Vancouver-based Punjabi (Sikh) radio stations currently under investigation by the CRTC, may find themselves hit with a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint. Referring to their “enemies”, the stations’ rhetoric runs the emotional gamut from hatred to contempt:

    “‘Bloody Brahmin. We must get rid of her.’ … ‘He should be ashamed of himself. He should dip his face in the toilet, as he may be sitting quite close to it.’ … ‘A dog who should be beaten in public with our shoes.’ … ‘We cannot talk about that on air, but call me during the day, we should get together and plan and execute.'” One is left with the distinct impression that had these sentiments been uttered in English, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would not now be merely considering a complaint.

Similarly, RCMP and CSIS efforts to monitor possible terror links among ethnic groups have met with indifferent success. There has been a venal tendency among translators (after a good long time on the job) to be exposed as moles specializing in affirmative translation. In other words, once again, ethnic loyalty supercedes committment to a a mere revenue-generating job (or country). English is likely to remain Canada’s “official lexicon of hatred”, for however long genuine discussion is flagged as dangerous and socially divisive.

Whether or not we believe in race and ethnicity hardly matters: it is a recognized and legitimate phenomenon everywhere else in the world. Far from going away, these ideas will loom ever larger in our societies, not because we are “racists”, but because immigrants bring strong opinions about the issue with them. And as you see, nowhere do more immigrants bring more opinions with them than to Canada, the world’s only officially multicultural country. The chart below makes clear what our government has neglected to mention, that Canada’s per capita intake rate is twice that of the next most generous immigrant receiving nation. Since this is so, why is discussion of immigration Canada’s eternal taboo or have we just answered our own question?


and fertility rate
(children per female)
per thousand
2.71 /1,000 (1997)
8.5% (1996)
Caucasian 95%
Asian 4%
aboriginal and other 1%
6.1 /1,000 (1997)
9.7% (1996)
British Isles origin 40%
French origin 27 %
other European 20%
Amerindian 1.5%
other, mostly Asian 11.5%
0.63 /1,000 (1997)
12.7% (1996)
Celtic and Latin with Teutonic,
Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities
1.87 /1,000 (1997)
10.8% (1996)
West 9.6%
East 15.9%
Turkish 2.4%
Italians 0.7%
Greeks 0.4%
Poles 0.4%
other 4.6%
(negative net immigration)
-3.73 /1,000 (1997)
5% (1996)
homogeneous mixture of descendents of Norwegians and Celts
(negative net immigration)
-1.49 /1,000 (1997)
11.9% (1996)
Celtic, English
2.18 /1,000 (1997)
6.5% (1996)
Dutch 96%
Moroccans, Turks, and others 4%
New Zealand
3.12 /1,000 (1997)
5.9% (1996)
European 88%
Maori 8.9% Pacific Islander 2.9% other 0.2%
1.23 /1,000 (1997)
5.3% (1996)
Swiss Nationals:
German 74%
French 20%
Italian 4%
Romansch 1%
others 1%
1.32 /1,000 (1997)
6.7% (1996)
English 81.5%
Scottish 9.6%
Irish 2.4%
Welsh 1.9%
Ulster 1.8%
West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, other 2.8%
United States
3.1 /1,000 (1997)
5.4% (1996)
white 83.4%
black 12.4%
Asian 3.3% Amerindian 0.8% other 4%
“none” 10%

Figures drawn from Central Intelligence Agency’s 1997 World Factbook

“Stop annoying Mister President with impertinent questions, Junior.” — Death Race 2000


No soon-to-be-former European nation has so wilfully altered its ethnic composition as has Canada. Even that primary beneficiary of colonialism (U.K.) is comparatively indifferent to “making up for the past”. Nothing ensures Canada’s status quo quite so effectively as our enforced silence. Consultation is a luxury reserved for other, more democratic nations (with a mere fraction of the non-traditional non-European inflow). Internal immigrant demographics are not especially encouraging either: according to Statistics Canada, “In 1996, 85% of all immigrants — and 93% of those who arrived between 1991 and 1996 — lived in a census metropolitan area.” A glance at the map suggests that Canada is an enormous, unsettled country. And so it is, with good reason: just five per cent of Canada’s land mass is arable. If this is being relentlessly paved over, shouldn’t we at least attempt to determine what constitutes sustainable immigration? Well, the answer seems to be: “Who cares?” Discussion here is restricted and kept well within the bounds of Canada’s elite “immigration industry”.

Just as Lenin had his Pavlov, whom we can thank for 50 years of brainwashing and behaviour modification brutalities, so Stalin had his Lysenko. A low-born Rasputin-like character, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko rejected the idea of heredity through genes. With a couple of polytechnic agricultural courses under his belt, Lysenko insisted that minerals could be turned into organic matter, wheat crops could be turned into rye, sugar beets could be planted in summer rather than winter; and the predictable thing happened. Farmers forced to follow his dictates watched helplessly as their crops failed and famine ensued.

Academics who resisted the new Soviet “science” were accused of “sabotage, wrecking, espionage, terrorism, Trotskyism, [and, more familiar to us] fascism and racism”. A corollary to this was that, if Stalin actually believed that organisms passed on characteristics acquired not through heredity, but through environment, he was free to liquidate opposition without regard for what he was doing to Russia’s future.

The genetic cost to us of two World Wars is as nothing compared with Uncle Joe’s deliberate campaign to rid the state of “trouble-makers”. Whether seven or ten millions were deliberately starved in the Ukraine mattered not. However many millions more were killed or broken in gulags and insane-asylums (where resistance was proof of the need for more “treatment”), or simply dispatched with a bullet (as were 14,000-plus of the Poliah elite officer corps at Katyn Forest) was of no consequence; malleable peasants would simply build better nurseries, and all would be well with Mother Russia. But it wasn’t (and isn’t) is it? We descended to Lysenkoism the moment we accepted that all the important distinctions among men are merely “cultural”. This is thanks, in large part, to UNESCO’s 1950 statement: “The likenesses among men are far greater than their differences.” That this statement emerged just five years after Nazi ideas on race were discredited appears to neither date nor tarnish the sentiment in many people’s eyes. Of 106 genetiscists and physical anthropologists asked to comment on the [UNESCO] statement, 80 responded with less than unanimous enthusiasm; of these 23 accepted it as a whole, 26 agreed with the general spirit but took issue with particulars, and the rest [31] strongly disagreed with it. (Provine, “Geneticists and Race”, American Zoologist 26, 1986, 857-87) What the “cultural differences” argument fails to take into account is that Nazis identified Jews, not genetically, by the shape of their nose or the colour of their eyes, but simply because they were Jews — in other words, the distinction was cultural.

The events of WWII continue to shape our attitudes and establish the bounds of permissibility, but the science has not vanished. On the contrary, it accelerates as genetic studies boom (in a world where “differences are merely cultural”). This is a dangerous hypocrisy, not because racism is an ever-present threat, but because most of us realize that, according to psychoanalytic principles, what is repressed always returns to haunt you. Throughout most of the 20th century, at least among European peoples, it is race which has been the great repressed. Sadly, in some strange way, we are becoming resistant to whole sets of ideas. On July 8, 1998, the New York Times reported that irrespective of religious belief, people have never quite accepted evolution theory. “Its basic tenets, surveys show, are rejected as false by one of every two Americans.” If our comfort zone demands a century or so buffer between us and important ideas, little wonder that UNESCO’s feel-good statement enjoys its current vogue.

Maybe, the bustle’s due for a come-back too. Ironically, the way you think about race may be, in itself, the result of your race and your genetics. The London Daily Telegraph of January 18, 1996 reports that research “has shown a correlation between people who vote socialist in France and the frequency of the O and Rhesus-negative blood groups. The vote is strongest in those regions where Paleaeolithic genes are most prevalent, in the south-west, while the Right is stronger in the Neolithic – ‘modern’ – heartlands, the north and east.”

Resistance to “dangerous” new ideas is nothing new. James Gillray’s 1802 cartoon for the Anti-Vaccine Society shows Edward Jenner innoculating against smallpox, even as previous recipients break out in grotesque bovine traits. Thanks to Jenner’s vaccine, smallpox today is one of the few scourges of mankind which has been completely eradicated.

Finally, if the “cultural” argument is so compelling, why is it our culture which is reckoned worthy of sacrifice? Every Age of Enlightenment has made a wide detour around the grunting, scratching classes, but there was a time when the best of us were eager to embrace new ideas with the cold passion of pure, rapturous logic.

Everyone agrees that some cultures are holistic, or metaphysical, or even non-Western. These may be equally legitimate ways of being but they are essentially foreign, and the sum effect of thrusting them into our midst does not “enrich”, but rather disrupts our natural progression as a distinct culture.

At one time, unless you were on the spot, you were unlikely to distinguish between a Hindu, Sikh, Moslem, Parsi, or Jain, but we certainly do now. While our learning curve climbs steeply, Ukrainians, Danes and Scotsmen are casually relegated to stand over there under the “white” umbrella. Thus, the old order has simply been reversed. Perhaps, it is time to acknowledge that that reversal may extend to the concept of “marginalisation” as well.

Over the course of our evolution as a people, we have survived some disasterous flirtations with zealotry, superstition and religious fanaticism, but we survived in our own way and in our own time because we were left to our own devices. The question for you to answer is whether you think we are likely to survive our newest article of faith. A pending decline in fortunes seems never to have been anticipated by those living in ancient empires — or were those who did advised to kindly shut up?

Our capacity for rational thought is fruit of the vine, rooted in a two thousand-five hundred year fascination with the order and events in a world of unimaginable scope. Forcing us now to deny our nature and collective life-experiences to embrace “other” value systems not only alters us fundamentally, but flies in the face of the organic process that formed us. We cannot emerge enlarged from the process.

URL links Why was the West so successful? This map of Europe shows the birthplace and provides a short biography of prominent mathemeticians. A link there connects you with the rest of the world, which falls sadly short. With the solitary exception of the United States, the appearance of mathematical geniuses elsewhere (including Canada) is negligible. . British Medical Journal chart comparative ethnic makeup of United Kingdom Curiously, this nation that did ‘bestride the world like a colossus’, has an insignificant 5.5 per cent non-white population. . CIA 1997 World Factbook – all kinds of interesting information and maps. . A rather distressing map showing the progress of US AIDS cases, 1980 – 1995.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.