Why Liberals are Anti-Canadian

Mass immigration has been the domestic counterpart of globalization. The second transfers power upwards. The first so Balkanizes national politics and social life, that no concerted effort can be made to pull power down again to the people. Sean Gabb

Why Liberals are Anti-Canadian

(hint: because they yearn for control) 

by Frank Hilliard

I've written previously that Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not a Canadian nationalist, but rather was an anti-nationalist; a believer in internationalism, multiculturalism and Marxism.

I said he introduced multiculturalism to Canada in an effort (which proved successful) to dilute Canadian cultural nationalism at the expense of the English and to the benefit of the French.

I've said eventually this will lead Canada, through mass immigration of unassimilatable Muslims, into a repeat of the civil wars that regularly engulf the Balkans and that destroyed Yugoslavia.

What I only hinted at, because my thinking hadn't coalesced, was what the ultimate goal is of both globalization and multiculturalism. The person who helped me figure it out is Sean Gabb writing in VDare on John Stuart Mill, The BNP, and the U.K.'s Dying Democracy

This column is, by far, the most incisive analysis of the problem I've seen in three or four years of looking. He first explains how the British establishment is hounding the British National Party and the English Defence League. He says it's because in one way or another they are trying to mobilize the English as a nation, that is, as a collective based on culture.

Then, he quotes John Stuart Mill on why this poses a threat to the elites.

"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favor of the government against the rest.”

Or to put that more simply, multiculturalism allows the elites to divide and conquer. If there is no nationalism, there can be no formulation of a national will, or indeed, of a democratic majority.

Just look at Bosnia (again), or Lebanon (again) or Iraq (still) and you'll see this is a fact.  Mill is right; if there are different groups in society they will fight among themselves rather than with 'the common arbiter, the state.' This leaves the state with all the power.

On top of which (literally) if the state is caught up in a web of international treaties and obligations, the opinions and desires of the people, in the unlikely event they ever get expressed, can be controlled by an international body of unelected bureaucratic busybodies. The European Union is a perfect example of how this looks in practice.

So, to get back to the title of this post, multiculturalists, of which the Liberals are the leading example, are anti-Canadian because squelching nationalism makes it easier for the elites to rule and to stay on top. Let the 'nationalities' confound each other in the streets, the permanent bureaucracy will float along over their heads like clouds.

Because they know what's good for us, because they have been captured by the Fascist impulse.

All of which explains why the Liberal Party of Canada is anti-Canadian. It is anti-Canadian because it doesn't believe in the concept of the nation state. Rather, it believes in multiculturalism at home and internationalism abroad.

Just how they manage to sell this to Canadians, and how they remain a major party, is difficult to understand. They signed the Kyoto accord without a thought as to how this would kill jobs and destroy the economy in this country.

And why are we surprised; they don't understand or even like, the idea of Canada as a country?

Go ahead, ask one if he, or she, believes Canada should adhere to International treaties, international law, the international court, the UN Human Rights Commission?  Just ask them.

They're quite happy to tell you Canadian law should be subservient to law drawn up by bureaucrats in Brussels or the Islamic voting bloc in the United Nations. Ask them what Canada should do regarding the proposed international treaty on small arms.

They're ready to sell the shop folks. They're ready, and eager, to sell Canada to the United Nations.

And THAT is why they're anti-Canadian.