Debunking “diversity is our strength”

Maxime Bernier Is Our Strength, Growing Diversity Is Our Weakness

by Tim Murray

Tory MP Maxime Bernier: Have immigration restrictionists finally found a real leader?

News item: Conservative MP Maxime Bernier says that more diversity will destroy Canada’s greatness.

The most significant thing about this story is not Bernier’s gutsy comments, but the predictable reaction to them. The nauseating cant issuing from Scheer’s spokesman Brock Harrison, and Michelle Rempel’s tightrope walk over both sides of the fence was to be expected. Unless an organ donor steps forward to offer his brain, I can’t help Harrison. But I can help Rempel. If Michelle wants data to support the argument that ours is not a “functioning pluralism”, if she sincerely wants to learn about the costs of diversity, she only need to google Robert Putnam + Bob Birrell + a myriad of other studies related to theirs. Or if it would be more convenient, she can take a look at this or this or a comprehensive reference list like this.

There is even a University of Victora statistical study conducted in 2010, led by Zheng Wu, that found that many new immigrants feel comforted and protected by settling into ethnic neighbourhoods and that they are less apt to feel loyalty to Canada by doing so. Or as Wu put it, life in ethnic enclaves reduces immigrants’ “sense of belonging to Canada.” So voluminous is the data that even a casual perusal of it would lead any impartial researcher to assert that the onus of proof is clearly on those who promote diversity, rather than those who question its benefits. The game is over and the final score is Evolutionary psychology 1, Social Engineers 0.

Conservatives need to understand that the number of people who cast ballots in federal and provincial elections is not fixed. It is not a certainty that more than four in ten of registered voters will continue to stay home on election day. The only reason they do is that they understand that all the main parties are mere factions in a ONE PARTY state. They realize that parliament is a closed shop. And that as long as there are party whips, as long as there are virtually no free votes in the House, political parties will not feel obliged to listen to the feedback of their constituents. While it has become the fashion of politicians of all parties to hold “town hall” meetings in their constituencies, they do so only to give constituents the false impression that their views will be decisive in determining how their parliamentary “representative” will vote on any given issue.

Four in ten of us recognize this charade as a fraud, and we register our cynicism by abstention on election day. It is not about voter apathy, it’s about voter rebellion. Some rebels spoil their ballots, some formally refuse them if they can, and some stay home. Instead of chasing after swing voters with a progressive mentality, instead of working within the closing Overton window of acceptable PC discourse, instead of conceding more and more ground to anti-Western cultural demolitionists, Conservatives should appeal to the rebels. They should think and campaign outside the box. They should weaponize the muzzled majority.

Here is some unsolicited advice to Tory strategists and convention delegates. If you want to know what leadership candidate to select — the candidate who has the best chance to win the next election— pick the candidate that the CBC and the MSM vilifies most, the one they say has no chance of winning, the one who would, they warn, lead the Conservative Party to oblivion or permanent marginalization. The one who dares to challenge the shibboleths of multiculturalism and immigration. The one whom they say does not represent “Canadian values”.

That would be the candidate whose victory will send them into shock and horror and prove, once again, that the political class hasn’t a goddamn clue about how the masses think, or any concept of what “values” guide them.

There is a reason why “outsiders” and “extremists” like Ford and Trump win. It is because they are not outsiders or extremists. They are “insiders”. They dwell inside the world and thinking of ordinary people. The real outsiders live in bubbles. In newsrooms, broadcast studios, and ivory towers. And the real extremists are the ones who have pushed the extreme agenda of hyper-immigration, demographic displacement, quota hiring, transgender ideology, runaway political correctness, censorship, the criminalization of speech, and the conscription of tax payer dollars to subsidize those who lobby for this agenda — most particularly the radical ideologues in the CBC.

Progressives on both sides of the border contend that Trump’s victory emboldened “haters” and “normalized” hate. But the truth is that haters have long been emboldened, and hate speech has long been the norm. The only reason that Leftists didn’t notice it is that the hate was coming from their direction. It was looking at them in the mirror. Hating white people and Western civilization is quite the norm these days, and those who spew such hatred are rather bold about it, don’t you think?

The sad thing about this affair is that Bernier’s twitter comments are treated as controversial, instead of how they should be regarded. A statement of the blatantly obvious.