The baffling violence of Toronto’s “youth”

Posted by Phil on December 28, 2005, 10:06 PM | #

The bright boys over at GNXP have often touted Canadian immigration policy as a kind of model for the world to follow. “Cognitive Elitism” and all that.

The fact however is that the thing that allows High IQ immigration is the same thing that also (simultaneously) allows low IQ immigration - both of racial aliens. And that thing is called Liberalism. I have said quite a few times on this blog that High IQ and Low IQ immigration are twins. One follows the other. The two cannot be separated because a people who have lost their sense of cohesiveness by allowing the immigration of smart aliens will also not balk at the immigration of dumb (and violent) aliens.

We are regularly served sermons by JJR about the virtues of Aussie immigration policy. Somehow the violent Lebanese managed to sneak through (and are still sneaking in) despite all that “smartness” in the said policy.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that immigration of racial incompatibles is in itself a problem. Unfortunately, Western societies have decided to engage in some long term masochism just for the fun of it (and to feel a little morally superior while we are at it). And our wish is now being granted. We are getting what we asked for.

Posted by Geoff Beck on December 28, 2005, 10:36 PM | #

Its not a gun control problem: it is a minority control problem.

Posted by Matra on December 28, 2005, 10:39 PM | #

Phil

The fact however is that the thing that allows High IQ immigration is the same thing that also (simultaneously) allows low IQ immigration - both of racial aliens. And that thing is called Liberalism

True.

Canada’s much praised and copied points system, which supposedly is biased in favour of high IQ immigrants, only accounts for about a quarter of all accepted immigrants. Family reunification is more important than the points system.

According to the 2001 census Canada has just over 660,000 blacks - the group responsible for the vast majority of shootings in Toronto. That is only a bit more than 2% of the Canadian population - 3% or so of the under 25 population. But most of them live in the Toronto area where blacks are a significant minority.

Statistics on Canada’s “Visible Minorities”

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo50a.htm

Posted by Matra on December 28, 2005, 10:50 PM | #

The fatality from Monday’s shooting has been identified.

Posted by Geoff Beck on December 28, 2005, 10:53 PM | #

Go ahead, say it Matra, the Black Savages shot to death a 15 year old WHITE GIRL!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 28, 2005, 11:23 PM | #

Unfortunately, Western societies have decided to engage in some long term masochism just for the fun of it (and to feel a little morally superior while we are at it)

Phil, I think you’ve touched on one contributing factor that no one likes to consider, not even in our camp: at least some small part of the reason the west is killing itself seems to be boredom.

I know that sounds crazy, but it occurs to me now and then that we seem to be doing what we do in part because we don’t have quite enough drama in our lives.  Well some of us don’t anyways.

It’s like people who like watching those hospital dramas (like ER, a show that seems to take a perverse delight in explicating suffering); seems to me they haven’t had any real death or tragedy in their lives, so they compensate by watching television that wallows in it.  I’ve seen my two best friends die terribly, so I can’t stand seeing it on teevee.

After all, what does the “diversity” of north or sub-Saharan Africa really bring us?  It brings us New Orleans, Cronulla, and Clichy-sous-Bois.

Functionally there’s absolutely nothing whatsoever to the diversity they bring us, otherwise.

Of course, the left bears a huge share of the blame for this ennui in the first place.

Posted by Geoff Beck on December 29, 2005, 12:00 AM | #

Murdered by Savage Negro Beasts. Beasts that ought not to ever been allowed in Canada:

Posted by Andrew on December 29, 2005, 12:51 AM | #

I don’t know what is so baffling about it: It’s obvious. And Gun control is not the issue: Australians have been disarmed years ago, it is the Ethnic minority that is armed to the teeth and illegally too –boot. Does the government and Beaurocrats care? Not in your life; to them there is no problem unless a White guy looks mean.
You might have a point Svi, They might be bored.

Posted by John J Ray on December 29, 2005, 08:52 AM | #

I see the Beckster is back and not mincing words

Posted by h-man on December 29, 2005, 10:40 AM | #

Merely speaking as a lurker, attempting to steal good ideas, I’m glad “Beckster” is back.  (also glad JJR is still here)

Posted by Mark on December 29, 2005, 12:16 PM | #

Most of the fault belongs to whites who allow blacks to live with them and make excuses for their savagery.  These whites are our enemy as much, if not more, than blacks are.

Posted by Kubilai on December 29, 2005, 12:22 PM | #

Oh no, no Geoff.  The media never said the perps were black.  They mention “youths” and “group of 10 to 15 males”.  You must be mistaken my good man.  Blacks had nothing to do with this most heinous of crimes.  I’m sure of it because that’s what the media says and we know they never lie, right?

In all seriousness, this crime made my blood boil.  I couldn’t give two shits about all the dirty black vermin that were snuffed out by their own kind this past year, but now they brazenly kill a this angel in the middle of a busy street,  during the Christmas season and one of the busiest shopping days of the year.  I say round them all up and send them packing.  ALL of them and not leave a single one.

Posted by Matra on December 30, 2005, 03:10 PM | #

It needs to be noted that the vast majority of violent blacks in Toronto are Jamaicans. The blacks I used to work with from Barbados attended church, were well-dressed, followed cricket instead of American basketball, and were hard working and even entrepreneurial. I’d bet anything their kids get picked on by other blacks at school and get called “white” or “Uncle Tom”.  In black areas of Toronto kids are afraid to be seen with books as it’s not cool. It is the American gangsta culture that is winning over black Canadians, especially Jamaicans. Here is a collection of articles from the Canadian press about gangsta culture in Toronto:

http://www.fradical.com/Rap_contributes_to_Toronto_violence.htm

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 31, 2005, 01:39 AM | #

It’s hard to accept the gangsta rap influence position, Matra. Jamaica’s murder rate per capita is 32/100,000 compared to the US rate of ~4/100,000. Only Colombia and S/Africa lead Jah. Barbados mean IQ is 78 compared to a Jamaican and S/African mean of 72. US blacks average 85.

The other issue, raised by Jared Taylor, La Griffe and Seymour Spilerman in the early 1970s (vis-a-vis black riots) is that the critical mass of blacks in a neighbourhood is the single biggest determinant of how violent and dangerous that neighbourhood will be.

Spilerman’s principal finding was simple: the absolute size of the black population (positively correlated with riots) and southern location (negatively correlated with riots) were the best predictors (in a statistical sense) of the incidence and severity of the riots [among American cities]. He found little support for a wide range of other seemingly plausible explanatory factors, including a variety of indicators of blacks’ absolute and relative (to whites) economic status.

This is not new to TO. We forget the brutal 1994 slaying of Georgina (Vivi) Leimonis, and the cold-blooded killing of Constable Todd Baylis by Jamaicans, Oneil Grant (one of four) and Clinton Gayle, both who were still in TO pending an appeal against their deportation.

Ms. Leimonis was white; Mr. Brown and three other young men charged in the case were black.

Just Desserts was in the heart of the Annex, one of Toronto’s most upscale neighbourhoods. Next to the café was Designers’ Walk, a line of high-end decorating stores that catered to the city’s elite. On some days, there was a Jaguar, a Porsche or a Range Rover parked at every meter.

The accused were from what amounted to another world — Lawrence Heights, a rent-subsidized housing project known as The Jungle.

In Jamaica, the boys and their older sister, Donna, had lived with their father, Lloyd Brown, in a village of fewer than 100 people. Then, in 1974, their father left to join his wife, and the children stayed with their grandmother, waiting for their parents to send for them. Donna was the first to come up, in the spring of 1976.

The reality of life in Jamaica was different from the façade erected for the tourists. It was an old-fashioned place, riddled with class divisions. The better jobs, such as teacher and bank manager, always seemed to go to the people with the lightest skin and the straightest hair.

Despite Draconian gun laws, weapons were everywhere. The murder rate was about 10 times that of Toronto. In the mid-1970s, blood-soaked upheavals erupted in which 100 people could die in a single day.

The correlation between IQ and skin colour, the importation of lower IQ family members because of the push for family re-unification, all harbingers of the present day violence that was to come long before gangsta rap raised it’s ugly head.

Posted by Matra on December 31, 2005, 12:17 PM | #

Desmond, I agree that those who say gangsta rap is the root cause of Jamaican violence are trying to ignore the issue of race. However it does seem likely that gangsta culture is exacerbating the problem.  There are already plenty of blacks ready to turn to violence without black American ghetto culture making it look ultra fashionable. It must be difficult enough for decent Jamaicans to raise their kids to be responsible without a gangsta culture on TV, radio, and the street that ridicules them for acting “white”. 

Gangsta rap adds to the racial element (natural enough in a multi-ethnic society) that for the most part doesn’t exist in mostly black Jamaica. In black Caribbean countries with high crime rates the death penalty is used and has widespread support. Recently the army was even sent into a part of Jamaica to curb crime. In Toronto just getting a police presence in some areas results in the cries of “racism” that are so prevalent in black American culture.

Posted by Matra on December 31, 2005, 12:59 PM | #

Desmond Jones:

Barbados mean IQ is 78 compared to a Jamaican and S/African mean of 72. US blacks average 85.

Barbados is at least 80% black, with most of the rest being mixed race. Given the low mean IQ shouldn’t Barbados also be a violent society? Yet according to the International Crime Victimization Survey of 35 countries it’s one of the three countries (with Japan and Northern Ireland) with the lowest crime rates.

As I said earlier, based on personal experience working with immigrants from Barbados, I’ve found them to be very different from Jamaicans. They struck me as old fashioned in a British sort of way. I’d be very surprised if they’re involved in much of Toronto’s gang violence.

Posted by Matra on December 31, 2005, 03:41 PM | #

In addition to the murder of Jane Creba in Toronto on Boxing Day there was another nationally publicised murder in the past week.

On Christmas Day a taxi driver in Nova Scotia was stabbed to death. Normally when this kind of thing happens the media has lots of details about the crime. For instance, if a victim was heard uttering his last words that would be the kind of thing that would be widely reported by the press. None of the national news reports I heard on radio and TV mentioned the murdered taxi driver’s last words but a local newspaper did. Those words were ‘I’ve just been stabbed in the lungs 11 times by a black man. Please send help.’ 

The Chronicle Herald

Posted by Andrew on December 31, 2005, 04:48 PM | #

Senior police withhold the Identity of perpetrators of such crime. For reasons;
1.Not to disclose the ethnesticity of the perpetrator; - So how the hell do you aid identification?
2.Not to create a presumption crime in that specific command is out of control, so it goes largely un-reported and as I suggested in earlier threads- there are TWO daily occurrence books, one of which is factual events reported, and the second is what is reported in crime statistics- two different entities.  Religious leader motivated 90% strike rate of Islamic aided by Socialist political; and that is the truth. The level of Deception is absolute astounding.
3.It exists in Australia, so the genesis probably steams from UK or USA and the epidemic is rife in the Old Western Countries.

Posted by Svigor on December 31, 2005, 07:10 PM | #

Gangsta rap adds to the racial element (natural enough in a multi-ethnic society) that for the most part doesn’t exist in mostly black Jamaica. In black Caribbean countries with high crime rates the death penalty is used and has widespread support. Recently the army was even sent into a part of Jamaica to curb crime. In Toronto just getting a police presence in some areas results in the cries of “racism” that are so prevalent in black American culture.

Blacks seem to like law & order with a heavy hand, just not from non-blacks.

This is yet another reason for separation, so blacks can police themselves as needed and whites can be free of them.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 01, 2006, 02:15 AM | #

My point is, Matra, that even a 6 point deviation in IQ makes a difference. The same question lingers regarding GDP per capita. Lynn and Vanhanen list Barbados GDP/capita at >$12,000. Definately an outlier in their study. Why the difference from say Jamaica, a society also of British legacy and once the wealthiest in the world?  Jamaicans, in my experience are as God fearing, and church going as Bajans. There is something else at play. Barbados has a white overclass working in the financial services sector.

It’s dempgraphics. Barbados developed differently than Jamaica. Blacks outnumbered whites by 3-4 to 1 in Barbados, whilst when slavery was revoked by the British, whites in Jamaica accounted for little more than 5%. Barbados was a stable, mature slave society, tightly controlled by its resident native white elite class, with functioning institutions of its own. Even today whites are a higher proportion of the Bajan population than they are in Jamaica.

Posted by Matra on January 01, 2006, 01:46 PM | #

My point is, Matra, that even a 6 point deviation in IQ makes a difference.

Fair enough, but what about the 7 point advantage violent black Americans have over relatively non-violent Bajans.

Why the difference from say Jamaica, a society also of British legacy and once the wealthiest in the world?  Jamaicans, in my experience are as God fearing, and church going as Bajans. There is something else at play. Barbados has a white overclass working in the financial services sector.

It’s dempgraphics. Barbados developed differently than Jamaica. Blacks outnumbered whites by 3-4 to 1 in Barbados, whilst when slavery was revoked by the British, whites in Jamaica accounted for little more than 5%. Barbados was a stable, mature slave society, tightly controlled by its resident native white elite class, with functioning institutions of its own.

Couldn’t all those advantages Barbados has had over Jamaica be said about black Americans? They have lived in a white majority country that like Barbados has had well established functioning institutions. The only obvious difference would be that black Americans have, since the 1950s, lived in a weak liberal society that encourages irresponsible behaviour. I don’t believe that’s been the case in Barbados.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 03, 2006, 12:17 PM | #

The American model, IMO, more resembled Jamaica than Barbados. The abolitionists (Lincoln et al) tore down the white institutions of the American South pursuing a course of Africanisation. Howeve, the main issue vis-a-vis American blacks today, is the one LaGriffe outlines in his article ‘THE EFFECT OF URBAN FLIGHT ON IQ DISTRIBUTION’.

He writes,

“Baltimore is typical of many Midwestern and Northern cities, whose demographics were forever changed by the great black migration of the twentieth century. Not unexpectedly we found a cognitive discontinuity at the city line. Surprising, however, was its magnitude. Whereas suburban mean IQs (86 for blacks, 99 for whites) conform more or less to national norms, city IQs are dreadfully low. With a mean IQ of 76, inner-city blacks fall about 0.6 SD below the African American average nationally. More than a third have death-penalty immunity on grounds of mental retardation. The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average. By this measure, whites fared worse than blacks. Both groups are seriously deficient in human capital. Neither is very employable. To compound matters, we almost certainly have overstated urban IQs. City residents constitute a low-IQ group extracted from a more cognitively representative population. Their kids, whose test scores we analyzed, should have regressed toward their racial means, i.e., toward higher IQs. That is, inner city kids are smarter than their parents. Accordingly, our estimates of inner-city IQs are best regarded as upper bounds to adult values.”

Black and white crime is centred, largely, in the US inner cities, especially, black dominated city cores like Camden, NJ, Gary, IN, St. Louis, Detroit or Atlanta. Thus stats show a massive variance between suburban and inner city crime with less than 1 standard deviation in IQ.

In inner city America, black IQ, probably overestimated as 76, falls below the Bajan mean and more likely in line with the Jamaican mean.

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 23, 2006, 12:45 AM | #

You might like this essay I wrote on Ms. Creba:

A Perspective on Jane Creba’s Death

I clearly remember the day Jane Creba died.  I was returning home from a haircut in Toronto’s Chinatown, and as I passed by the Eaton Centre, I noticed that Yonge Street was closed off and several police cars were parked nearby.  A shooting had occurred, somebody said.  I had half a mind to investigate the matter further, but my better judgement prevailed and I continued walking along Dundas Street.

The next day more details about the crime emerged.  A woman had been killed, caught in the crossfire of what appeared to be gang warfare.  Her name was Jane Creba, and she was a fifteen-year-old student at Riverdale Collegiate Institute.  Within a week a memorial was set up at the spot where she was shot, with hundreds of passersby leaving flowers, stuffed animals and other paraphernalia there.

Jane Creba’s death was the 78th murder of 2005, a relatively high number compared to previous years.  People wondered aloud whether Toronto was safe anymore. After all, if Ms. Creba could be shot on a busy downtown street in broad daylight while doing nothing more dangerous than looking for Boxing Day sales, anybody could be shot.  Another fact that stood out was that Creba was White and her shooters were Black.  Memories of the Just Desserts slaying more than a decade earlier, in which a young Greek-Canadian girl by the name of Georgina Leimonis was killed at a popular Toronto eatery during a robbery by several Black youths, came flooding back.  And as in the Just Desserts incident, there was no shortage of commentary on the Creba case.

Like vultures gnawing at a corpse, White Supremacists, not surprisingly, jumped on Ms. Creba’s death to spout off on the supposed dangers of non-White immigration to Canada.  Individuals who hadn’t given a hoot about her during her lifetime suddenly acted as if she were a long-lost sister.  Even American racists like the Stormfront White Nationalist Community sat up and took notice.

But liberals of all colours weren’t above using Jane’s demise to advance their own causes either.  Some blamed the actions of the young men who shot her on former Ontario Premier Mike Harris’ cutbacks to social programs.  “These are the children of Mike Harris” became a familiar refrain.  Racism was also proffered as an explanation.  Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Giese, who is White, suspected that part of the reason for these youths’ involvement in crime was that “for their entire lives, they were made to feel worthless, that they didn’t matter and that if they died no one would hold a vigil or mourn.”

Ms. Giese wrote as well, “Whatever side of the gun they’re on, young, poor Black men are in crisis.”  Indeed, a disproportionate number of the homicides committed in Toronto in 2005 involved Blacks, both as perpetrators and as victims.  Many, though by no means all, of the latter had previous criminal records. This thus begs the question: why are Blacks overrepresented in crime in comparison to their numbers in the population?  The reason traditionally given by liberals - like Rachel Giese - is racism, with poverty and lack of social programs as close seconds.  However, this explanation is belied by the fact that East Asians, who too have faced discrimination in Canada (the Chinese head tax, the internment of Japanese Canadians, etcetera), are on average LESS likely to engage in crime than Whites are.  So while I certainly won’t deny the existence of racism in this country or the possibility it may have played some part in the Creba and Leimonis shootings, something else is clearly going on here.

It is also an open secret that most of the “Black” crime in Toronto is committed by people from the island of Jamaica.  Jamaica, as it happens, has one of the highest murder rates in the world – so much so that it’s lost favour as a tourist destination in the last twenty years or so.  Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente put it this way: “The violent culture of Jamaica sheds far more light on Toronto’s gun-and-gang problem than [Mike] Harris’ cruel decision to shut down the Anti-Racism Secretariat.”

Nonetheless, I can’t let Whites completely off the hook for many of the problems within the Black community.  At this point, though, much of the blame lies not with the White Supremacists – whom, let me be clear, I find odious – but with White so-called “progressives.”  The latter, albeit unintentionally, have set in place a series of social trends that have proven disastrous to the Black population (not that they’ve been good for Whites).  I cite here the writings of a young Asian-American man named Arthur Hu.  He chastises liberals for “promoting drugs, promiscuity and abdication of personal responsibility.”  Take the issue of drugs.  One of the men involved in the Just Desserts case was reported by witnesses to have been high on something when he fired the shot that killed Georgina Leimonis.  A good number of the gang-related shootings in Toronto have involved conflicts over drug deals or dealers’ “territory.”  As one poster to a website stated, some young Black men get involved in selling and distributing illegal substances because there is an eager and willing market for them - consisting primarily of upscale Whites.  But who promoted the use of drugs as “cool” and “hip?”  Think of White progressives like Timothy “Expand Your Consciousness” Leary or the marijuana-loving glitterati of Ithaca, New York.

I do not, by the way, support the “War on Drugs.”  For one, I think it’s both futile and wastefully expensive, and two, in a democracy we should be free to make foolish decisions.  It’s something else, though, to openly encourage people to make foolish decisions or condone their doing so.  For instance, it’s perfectly within my rights to dance naked on my balcony in minus 20 Celsius weather.  I would also hope that if I ever showed any inclination to do such a thing, the people who claimed to care for me would tell me how incredibly stupid I was being.  So by glamourizing drugs, liberals have done Blacks (and Whites, for that matter) no favour.

To end on a more upbeat note, some members of the Black population are taking measures to stem violence in their community.  Here the Black church has a proactive role to play.  Much attention was given to the visit to Toronto of Eugene Rivers, the African-American minister responsible for the “Boston miracle,” a series of faith-based programs that reduced crime rates in that city dramatically.  Even before Rivers’ trip to Toronto, however, a number of Black pastors in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood had stepped forward to urge gang members to lay down their guns.  It is in the hands of individuals like these, who are literally “on the ground” and who don’t necessarily subscribe to dogma of any political stripe, in which the Black community’s problems have the best chance of being resolved.

Posted by ben tillman on June 23, 2006, 01:22 AM | #

Interesting, but you are misusing the term “White Supremacist”.  Those you descibe as such are simply people who see clearly enough to recognize that self-defense is always morally right.  There is no reason - other than a desire to take Canada away from its natives - to support immigration or castigate “White Supremacists”. 

Are you an “Emilia Liz supremacist” because you believe your body belongs to you?  Hardly. 

Immigration by government fiat is precisely the same as legalized rape of a woman.

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 23, 2006, 01:15 PM | #

Ben, who are Canada’s natives?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2006, 02:03 PM | #

“who are Canada’s natives?”  (—Emilia Liz)

In the sense in which Ben was using the word, Canada’s natives are, broadly speaking, mainly the Anglo-Saxons and French Canadians—along with smatterings of other Europeans such as Italians, Greeks, Slavs, Germans, Swedes, Lithuanians, and so on—whose forebears inhabited Canada in, let’s say, 1960 (I forget what year the People’s Soviet Socialist Republic of Canuckistan opened its borders to unlimited numbers of non-whites but it was around the early 60s if memory serves—if it was earlier, the late 50s for example, change 1960, above, to 1955).  If you want to talk about “who was here first” we can do that, Emilia, but be prepared for an infinite regression back to the blue-green algae.

Emilia, do you feel there are different human races?  Or do you feel we are all a single race, “the human race,” and the idea of distinct races is unscientific and illegitimate, essentially a lie cooked up by racists and white supremacists in order to subjugate non-whites?  Do you believe there’s such a thing as “the white race,” also called “the Caucasian race,” or do you believe what used to be called “the white race” (used to be called that before mankind became enlightened) was an unscientific fiction?  Do you believe there are genetic differences between white men, Negroes, and Chinamen or do you believe they are all genetically identical with one another as groups, with no group genetic differences detectable?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 02:06 PM | #

Emilia-how about Moose,Bear and Caribou?And throw in a few Otters,Wolves,and grey foxes-Happy now???

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2006, 02:39 PM | #

I’ll add that, as I’ve said here recently a couple of times, I’ve come—over just the past three or four months—to view true Euros and True West-Central-African Negroes as different human species, not different human races.  Categorizing them as different species, which I now believe is the proper categorization, changes nothing else but the taxonomic categories each belongs to.  It changes nothing we now know about True Negroes and nothing we now know about Euros.  Its sole effect is the acknowledgement that the two groups belong to separate species, and, following from that, things such as that today as in the days of the Neanderthals there are more than one species of human living side-by-side.  Acknowledging them to be different species by itself says nothing whatsoever about their relative worth, their relative humanness, or anything having to do with relative inferiority/superiority as humans, exactly as acknowledging grizzly bears and polar bears to be different species by itself says nothing whatsoever about their relative worth, their relative bearness, or anything having to do with inferiority/superiority as bears.  It says merely that the two are different enough as humans to be considered separate species.  That they are not so classified taxonomically is purely political.  During the latter 1800s a portion of the scientific community considered them properly classifiable as different species.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 02:42 PM | #

If rats are eating your foodstuff,what do you do-you call an exterminator. If termites are chomping your house,what do you do-you call an exterminator.If roaches are contaminating your kitchen,what do you do-you call an exterminator.The solution to Toronto’s problem seems self-evident.Now,if only we could apply this sensible approach inDetroit,NO,Atlanta ,DC,Gary,St Louis,et.al.we would live in a more peaceful world with less niggers.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 03:05 PM | #

FRED-nice tap-dancing-I’m impressed!Show a femur to a decent forensic analyst ,and they wil tell you the race-show them a skull,and even the most incompetent will susceed all the time.Nigger hair has no cortex,which even apes do,and cranial capacity is always a dead give-away.To all who say “we are equal”,I say maybe to you,but not to me-what’s your point?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2006, 03:40 PM | #

The point is that, for some, the loud and constant expression of compassion is a pleasurable experience.  Why let a bunch of facts get in the way of it?

Nick, the exterminator thing is kind of close to the bone ... unless you are seriously proposing reintroducing the rope for horse-thieves.  In that case, it’s an interesting political argument though maybe a tad nineteenth century.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 23, 2006, 03:53 PM | #

“FRED-nice tap-dancing”

Nick, I see exactly what you mean about tap-dancing but I wasn’t trying to tap-dance.  Species classification is cold hard science.  Classifying different species of seal, butterfly, deer, bat, trout, ape, owl, eagle, whale, oak, maple, bamboo, clam, or virus is by itself in no way to assign greater or lesser worth or to make any insinuation of inferiority/superiority in regard to one of the species so categorized, relative to any other.  That an American chestnut is a different species of chestnut from a Chinese chestnut, or that a gorilla a different species of ape from a gibbon, by itself in no way implies relative inferiority/superiority or any difference of worth.  Classification of species is a purely scientific undertaking based on degree of anatomical/physiological/behavioral difference, ideally of course with all politics left strictly out of the determination.  If there are differences of worth (for example, the native American chestnut is smaller than the Chinese chestnut and not resistant to chestnut blight so might be said to have, in those regards, less worth where certain criteria are concerned though perhaps greater worth where certain other criteria are concerned) they are extrinsic to purely scientific species classification.  Same with Euros and True Negroes.

Posted by JB on June 23, 2006, 10:10 PM | #

Emilia, how can we make our country better by adding jamaicans to it ? Or pakistanis ? Or all the others ?

Emilia Liz:

So while I certainly won’t deny the existence of racism in this country or the possibility it may have played some part in the Creba and Leimonis shootings, something else is clearly going on here.

racism in Canada ? there’s institutionalized racism against whites with Trudeau’s folly of multiculturalism but that’s about the only real racism one could find here. I’ve never heard whites around me express racist opinions in public or even in private. This country is unmanly and politically correct.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 24, 2006, 01:41 AM | #

The point is that, for some, the loud and constant expression of compassion is a pleasurable experience.  Why let a bunch of facts get in the way of it?

GW-you mean like masterbating to a video of your family being butchered?And just what was wrong with 19th century justice-there was no “catch and release"then,and we appear to have prospered up to now.Maybe,I’m just too old for this one-world crap,but it appears to me that rational,educated,and worldly men are better equiped to steer this boat we call society.NOT THE DOO-DADS PONTIFICATING DAILY ON MSM !

Posted by EC on June 24, 2006, 11:37 AM | #

JB, Matra and all other Canucks, have you seen the Saturday Star’s grovelling fawnfest over the “new Canadians” and where they will be taking Canada?  Disgusting and pathetic all wrapped into one.  My condolences.

Posted by Matra on June 24, 2006, 01:52 PM | #

Thanks for the heads up EC. I think the multiculturalists are showing some signs of panic in the aftermath of the Toronto bomb plot arrests.

Here’s an excerpt from a Toronto Star article published last week about the difficulties of reporting on the World Cup in Toronto because of its diversity:

Four years ago, a British syndicated columnist covering the World Cup suggested Korea didn’t deserve to be in the semifinals because the team had benefited from dubious calls by referees.

The column was published in a Toronto paper — not this one — and instantly precipitated a torrent of angry phone calls and emails from an outraged local Korean community. Surprised editors, who considered strong opinions a staple of lively sportswriting, ignored the demands for a retraction.

That was until the boycott. Since many of the convenience stores in Ontario are operated by Korean-Canadians, the newspaper suddenly became as difficult to find as Mats Sundin in Sweden. With newsstand sales plummeting, the publisher wrote what amounted to an apology — and the boycott was lifted…

Already one reader has expressed her “great disgust and repugnance” with the Star’s World Cup coverage. We published a dramatic photo of Iran’s goal against Mexico even though the Mexicans won the game 3-1. “I thought there was no racism in Canada. Sadly, I can see a glimpse of it now. This façade, I realize, is finally beginning to show.” The reader signed off with “Viva Mexico.”

Full article

So showing an Iranian scoring against a Mexican is racism. But if the paper had shown a Mexican scoring against Iran maybe the Iranian community would’ve accused the paper of humiliating them!

As for the crybaby Koreans, I think we can assume every editor and journalist in the city walks on eggshells when covering Korea and Toronto’s Korean community.

Diversity is strength!

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 26, 2006, 09:57 AM | #

Well, as far as I’m concerned, Canada’s natives are the Aboriginals.  They were the first ones here.  So I don’t see how a third-generation Canadian of Chinese descent is any less “Canadian” than a third-generation British-Canadian.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 26, 2006, 01:35 PM | #

Wrong Emilia.  The difference is traditional conquest.  Force legitimises occupation.  The taking of the land area that is Canada was accomplished by force of arms, and the defeated tribes thereby ceded their rights to the land.  Present-day immigrants to Canada are there on the sufference of the Anglos (and the French in Quebec).  There has been no war, but also no debate and no consent, so legitimacy does not attach.  Anglo- and French-Canadians are free to re-assert their moral right to their lands in Canada at any time of their choosing.

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 26, 2006, 02:11 PM | #

Wrong, GW. Try resisting. See if force doesn’t immediately floor you.

Anglo- and French-Canadians are free to re-assert their moral right to their lands in Canada at any time of their choosing.

Sure, GW. They’re in possession of the instruments of coercion. Keep thinking that.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 26, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

Not

wrong, Emilia.  You had said that you don’t see why aliens (Chinese) have the same right to Canada as Anglo- and French-Canadians, and I have told you.  Now you retreat into a faux-moral posture to avoid the logic of my statement.

But morality is not on your side, either.  The aggressor today is the immigrant.  Accordingly, leftist universalism employed in the interests of the immigrant is morally inferior to the jus naturale which I claim.

Like all ethnics using anti-Anglo politics you clothe your own racial particularism in universalism, since that provides the luxury of being able deny Anglo particularism without appearing hypocritical yourself.  But I know you are a hypocrite, Emilia.

Have a nice day.

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 26, 2006, 08:44 PM | #

GW, you Nazis and ethnic cleansers lost sixty years ago. You former-SS officers have got to wake up and move on, and enjoy a few hatred-free years at life’s end. Nazis never moved the levers of power in Canada and never will, and in fact both of my grandfathers fought to defeat Germany. The claim by right-of-conquest is empty, not better than the Indians’ claim by right-of-discovery. Now we live in harmony with them, along with immigrants who contribute to our nation. We have no need of you crazies telling us how to run our nation, and I’m sure other nations don’t either.

Posted by Desmond jones on June 26, 2006, 10:10 PM | #

Emilia Liz,

It appears Canada’s aboriginals don’t share your vision of harmony.

Railway Blockade Set for June 29!

Press release, June 13, 2006

Ultimatum meets Ultimatum! As Premier Dalton McGuinty and Minister of Indian Affairs Jim Prentice pull out of the Six Nations/Caledonia land claim with ultimatums that the “barricades must come down,” First Nations across Canada are issuing their own ultimatums. Last week, 100 Ontario Chiefs walked to the site of the land claim dispute and issued their own warning to Canada. Today Union of British Columbia Chiefs issued full support to Six Nations. In Manitoba, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, representing 64 First Nations, passed a resolution supporting a 24-hour railway blockade set for June 29th 2006, “to force the Canadian government to establish a reasonable time-frame for settlement of land claims.”

“What pisses me off when I watch the Caledonia violence” said an angry Chief Nelson, “is the immigrants to our lands didn’t bring the diamonds or other resources from Europe in their little wooden boats, yet they have the gall to demand we, the owners of the land and resources, must now pay taxes to them on top of their theft.”

He means you paleface!

Gee, how can we forget? Those Injuns were just pumping out the ‘diamonds and other resources’ when Europeans arrived. No the European ‘immigrants’ only brought Anglo-Saxon rule of law, democracy and the scientific know-how to develop a barren savage land unearthing the riches unknown to Chief Nelson’s forefathers. In addition, the good Chief’s people, who are 2% of the Cdn population are 18% of Canada’s incarcerated, with an even more disproportionate share of the noble savage represented in the violent and sexually deviant crime community. They’ll be happy to shove a little harmony up your ass, you purdy white thing.

Any noble savages in your neighbourhood, sweetie?

Posted by EC on June 26, 2006, 10:36 PM | #

Emilia’s grandfathers fought a war where they thought their freedom was at risk.  Hence the willingness to go to a foreign land to risk their very lives to solidfy that very freedom for their progeny, like Emilia.

Now, their granddaugter is so indoctrinated by the lies of the Marxists(spearheaded by Trudeau himself) that she is willingly giving up that very freedom in the form of speech (hate laws), association (guised under white flight and white enclaves),  education (cost, competiveness, quotas), employment (quotas, nepotism) and so on.

She doesn’t realize that her grandparents lived in an nearly all white country and that was the intent from the onset and how they wanted it though thought it was superfluous to verbalize it.  Only after the slow and methodical tinkerings of the nefarious few and powerful has that changed.  I would venture to guess that if they could see how their fight against the evil Nazis would turn out, they would have dropped their arms right then and there.  It really isn’t a guess on my part because I have spoken to enough seniors who vocalize this very thing and are so distraught at the direction their countries have taken.  Emilia’s egalitarian conviction not withstanding.

I don’t know what race Emilia is nor where she lives, however in my travels to Toronto, it is a wasteland of third worldism.  Several burbs have been ethnically cleansed of whites as we speak.  What strikes me so very odd is that there are quite pricey areas of real estate filled with closet racists due to their diligence in keeping them white by hook or by crook.  Most in these areas continue to toot the tolerant party line and when elections roll around, one sees the sea of red political party signs(Liberal for those unaware) on the front lawns.  I think to myself…reap what you sow you ignorant motherfuckers.

Emilia, look up Kennewick man and shut the hell up about your aboriginal mewlings.

Posted by EC on June 26, 2006, 10:40 PM | #

Desmond, there is enough evidence coming out that indicates the aboriginal derelicts were not the first indigenous people of North America.  Europeans were.  When do I get my tax free casino?

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 27, 2006, 12:48 AM | #

A full scrubbing of the offending ethnic group solves every problem, says “Fred Scrooby”. . . 

The BNP’s winning slogan: We’re the majority til 2050. Let’s vote the minorities off our island, before 2051 has us packing.

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 27, 2006, 12:53 AM | #

A full scrubbing of the offending ethnic group solves every problem, says “Fred Scrooby”. . . 

The BNP’s winning slogan: We’re the majority til 2050. Vote the minorities off our island, before 2051 has you packing.

Posted by Sigurd on June 27, 2006, 01:11 AM | #

It’s amazing to me that people like Emilia even show up in forums like this.  What could she possibly have to gain from it? Likewise, what is gained from responding to her?  She can’t imagine she’s winning converts. And she’s not here to explore her own feelings. Like us, her mind’s pretty set. Could it be simply, as she cynically implies, that “might is right” (after all we “Nazis” lost some 60 years ago) and she’s come to rub our noses in it. 

If this is true, it says a bit about her character.  I wager she’d be as loyal a slogan, parroting minion to any “Nazi” come to power, provided, of course, she qualified racially.  And still from our “powerless position” it seems, strangely, we have ten times the power to mock her, than she us.  What explains this?

Our flimsy words alone seem to contain power.  Whereas, what powerful words does our enemy have? The mawkish, tired old “I have a dream speech” he plays on our alleged “national” radio during our only remaining sacred holiday? He has nothing but mindless, brute, censorious, waning power.  To such an extent, that when his minions come to mock us they leave frustrated and concerned about the health of “democracy” and “tolerance” and we, having seen the true strength of our enemy, are left smiling, as contented as ever.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 27, 2006, 01:56 AM | #

Too true EC. Even GW does not rake in the lolly that rolls into Rama.

Based on her last post, it appears she is Chinese and is just counting the days until whites are a minority and can be ethnically cleansed. Why then do vismins like EL come here? It appears, like the earlier visiter, Mitchell Datanaut, it’s the only place they can speak the truth. They talk of living in harmony with their white friends, and how they are American/Canadian, or that they don’t care about India/China. At MR they can pronounce upon their true hatred of whites. If you hang with your lib white friends you toe the lib party line. You can’t tell them of your underlying seething hatred of whitie and how you can’t wait for the day of retribution. That freedom, that unburdening of soul, can only be accomplished at a site like MR.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 27, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

Perceptive, Desmond.

I think perhaps, also, that the very existence of a righteous, dissident worldview is a shocking affront to these folks.  If we were burning crosses and books, and bouncing around in neat uniforms or whatever it would be fine for them.  They could write us off according to the usual narrative, and stoke up their own little fires of hatred with a really satisfying sense of justification.

Everything they learned up til now tells them its OK to hate the white man.  Outcrops of righteous dissidence like this blog are gross imperfections in the pattern and hold a terrible, disquieting fascination for some of them.  They come to slaughter us with their magic spells because they must.

Posted by JB on June 27, 2006, 09:25 AM | #

If Emilia is white we can presume she attended a high school, college or a university with a large non-white population and she was pressured by the teachers and the ‘diverse’ environment into repressing any healthy instincts and ethnic preferences. And then she went on to study sociology or psychology and she was assigned one or two books like these :

http://www.penguin.ca/nf/shared/SharedDisplay/0,,214132,00.html

In the United States, for example, there is still official commitment to a country that is based on recognition of the so-called American way, which means that in its melting pot approach, all ethnicities have to give up their official recognition and become simply American.

Canada has decided to go a different route by becoming officially multicultural. Indeed, through official multiculturalism, Canada attempted to correct some of the historic wrongs that it had helped to perpetrate on the modern world. Two such wrongs concerned me in this book. One is the previous commitment to making Canada a “white man’s country” and to present Canada as a part of Europe in the Americas. The second was to help practically and ideologically with the setting up of apartheid in South Africa. These two wrongs eventually led, in the 1960s, to a Canada that was really a failed state, a country that appeared to have no real future unless there was a radical change in the dominant views of who is a Canadian, who can become a Canadian, and what should be the role of Canadians in international affairs.

If she has a degree in one the soft sciences then she doesn’t know anything about human nature, racial differences, history, politics, etc.

The education system has dumped knowledge and the search for knowledge and has forbidden individuality. It’s causing a lot more harm than good.

Matra:

Diversity is strength!

the new face of Canada according to the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=1151071158868

EC:

Desmond, there is enough evidence coming out that indicates the aboriginal derelicts were not the first indigenous people of North America. Europeans were.

but they didn’t survive. Like it or not might is right when you’re faced with two choices, life or death.

Sigurd:

Could it be simply, as she cynically implies, that “might is right” (after all we “Nazis” lost some 60 years ago) and she’s come to rub our noses in it.

she wraps her preferences in universalistic and moralistic terms but she knows the only way to change or maintain anything is through power and she’s afraid that if we tear down the iron curtain that stands between reality and the white population of this country whites will change their minds and use their numbers to change the politically correct policies she was told are irrefutable.

If they weren’t afraid of whites we would be invited in newspapers, on radio programs and TV shows to debate the albophobes.

Posted by JB on June 27, 2006, 09:29 AM | #

EC:

She doesn’t realize that her grandparents lived in an nearly all white country and that was the intent from the onset and how they wanted it though thought it was superfluous to verbalize it.

MacKenzie King said in 1947:

There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.

that Canada was for whites was an overt policy until it all changed in the 1960s:

http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/community/siemiatycki2.html

For much of the 20th century, Canada’s immigration policies were explicitly racist, seeking to establish a “white settler” society (Stasiulis, 1995: 198). Canada’s Immigration Act of 1910 specifically provided for the prohibition of “any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada” (Walker, 1981: 94). A year later Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier’s government applied the law to exclude “any immigrants belonging to the Negro race” (Alexander & Glaze, 1996: 26). Almost fifty years later, the Immigration Act of 1952 reaffirmed that immigrants could be barred from Canada because of their “ethnic group” identity, their “geographic area of origin”, or their “probable inability to become readily assimilated” (cited in Walker, 1981: 94). Strangely, these guidelines were used to exclude blacks who had been living in Canada since the 1700s.

(...)

An opinion poll of the day showed nearly 60% of Canadians in agreement with the proposition that immigration to Canada should be more difficult for some groups than others (Winks, 1997: 436). It was a view held and expressed with particular vigour by Canada’s director of immigration—the senior civil servant overseeing the country’s immigration policies who wrote in 1955:

  “It is not by accident that coloured British subjects other than the negligible numbers from the United Kingdom are excluded from Canada. It is from experience, generally speaking, that coloured people in the present state of the white man’s thinking are not a tangible community asset, and as a result are more or less ostracized. They do not assimilate readily and pretty much vegetate to a low standard of living. Despite what has been said to the contrary, many cannot adapt themselves to our climatic conditions” (Carty, 1994: 217).

Because whites did not regard blacks as ‘a tangible community asset’, another group of 20th century prospective immigrants was met with the response: ‘none is too many’. Rooted in racial and racist stereotyping and prejudice, Canada’s immigration welcome mat remained reserved for white Europeans and Americans. In 1960 for instance, not one of Canada’s 27 immigration offices outside North America was located in the Caribbean or Africa (Troper, 1993: 266).

When Canada finally globalized its immigration policies in the 1960s, opening itself to migrants from around the world, it was motivated less by ethics than by economics. With Europe’s own postwar recovery now complete, fewer migrants were leaving the continent. Canada’s own booming economy needed new supplies of labour. International trade and diplomacy considerations also came into play. Canada’s stature in international arenas such as the Commonwealth and United Nations was being undermined by our discriminatory immigration provisions. For a variety of pragmatic reasons therefore, Canada amended its Immigration Act in 1962, specifying that henceforth every prospective immigrant would be considered “entirely on his own merit, without regard to race, colour, national origin or the country from which he comes” ( Winks,1997: 443). Five years later, on Canada’s 100th birthday year, the details of an entry-by-merit approach known as the ‘points system’ was introduced which would transform Canadian society in very short order. The new guidelines meant that all prospective immigrants, regardless of country of origin or identity, would be assessed on the same objective considerations related to their education, occupation, employment prospects and knowledge of English or French.

Persisting Prejudices: A Few Points on Immigration
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=1200

On the surface it seems like a lot has changed, immigration-wise, since the early 20th century. While a 1911 amendment to the Immigration Act banned “any immigrants belonging to the Negro race,” modern immigration now champions the ideal of a multicultural Canada. In 1903, Chinese immigrants were forced to pay a 500 dollar head tax at their port of entry; in the past decade, Chinese and South Asian immigrants have made up the majority of new Canadians.

But despite the apparent improvements, critics of Canadian immigration policy argue that immigration policies, while perhaps not overtly racist, still unfairly favour certain groups. Policies continue to support European and British candidates through surreptitious measures that undervalue non-European educational achievements. Canadian policy also penalizes immigrants who cannot immigrate directly into Canada, but must first stop in the US. All in all, the deck is stacked against immigrants of colour. How much has Canadian immigration policy really advanced?

(...)

Morton Weinfeld, McGill sociology professor and Chair of the National Board of Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, emphasises the relative health of Canada’s immigration system. “Canada’s immigration policy compares well to other countries today as well as Canada’s own past record. Since the post-war period, the composition of immigrants has gone from mostly European to a much more diverse demographic,” Weinfeld says.

Although immigration policy has greatly improved since the beginning of the 20th century, Weinfeld admits that it is by no means perfect. “There are still racist biases within immigration policies,” he attests.

“In general, American and European applicants – especially those from the U.K. – score higher on the evaluations than people from Asia and Africa. Credentials tend to be more readily accepted for those coming from Europe and the United States. There are attempts to establish equivalencies, but inevitably, there is a bias.”

Posted by Matra on June 27, 2006, 01:33 PM | #

Fred Scrooby,

It doesn’t surprise me to read about that brutal murder near Antwerp’s Central Station. I’ve been there twice in recent years and the area near the (beautiful) train station is dangerous. Venturing east of Central Station or going anywhere near it at night can be bad for your health. No wonder the working class whites there vote Vlaams Blok/Belang.

Desmond Jones:

Based on her last post, it appears she is Chinese and is just counting the days until whites are a minority and can be ethnically cleansed.

Maybe she’s just upset about the Chinese head tax. As to her essay, maybe the Boxing Day shootout was a little too close to Chinatown for comfort.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 27, 2006, 04:35 PM | #

Looks like EL is white afterall.

Dear Tomasz,

Hello. I’m sorry to be so late getting back to you. I just didn’t think anybody would take the time to comment on something I wrote. So for doing so, I thank you.

When I say Asians are statistically less likely to engage in crime than are Whites, that’s a fact. If you think facts are racist, that’s fine, but a fact is a fact. I got that statistic from a study showing that in Ontario Asians are disproportionately less likely to be incarcerated than are members of other races (a similar study for all Canada showed the same thing). Now notice I said “statistically.” That is, some Asians do commit crime; many (most, in fact) Whites do not. I even feel bad reporting this fact because of the many wonderful White men I know - my father, brother, cousins, friends - who would never even dream of breaking the law. But on AVERAGE - note I said “average” - Asians are less likely to be involved in crime than are Whites. Get that fact through your head.

Tomacz, I didn’t blame White Supremacists for the death of Jane Creba. I just think it’s somewhat hypocritical that though when she was alive they probably didn’t give a piece of what my cats put in the litter box about her, suddenly on her death they’re acting as if she were a long-lost sister. Yes, I find White Supremactists odious; I don’t hide that. No, I don’t think they’re responsible in any way for her death, but I think their reaction to it was somewhat disgusting. I said there was a “possibility” racism might have played a role in her death, not that it actually did.

I hope I’ve clarified myself.

Posted by: Emilia Liz | June 13, 2006 05:26 PM

Posted by Emilia Liz on June 28, 2006, 03:22 PM | #

Somebody else is posting under my name (unless the poster is also named Emilia Liz).  Yes, I’m white.  No, I’m not ashamed of it or feel “guilty” about supposedly oppressing people.  I generally find White supremacists and people who cry racism at any opportunity two sides of the same coin.  I’ll remove myself from this forum because I don’t have reasonable discussions with people like that.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 29, 2006, 07:29 PM | #

More on Canada’s white/aboriginal harmony:

ANTI-CANADA DAY RALLY
Saturday July 1, 2006
12 Noon @ Oppenheimer Park
(Powell & Dunlevy, 1 block North of E. Hastings St. in DTES Vancouver)

Drumming & Singing * Speakers
Community Feast * Take the Streets

This is a CALL TO ACTION.

Canada portrays itself as a “peaceful multicultural” society when in fact, Canada is responsible for an ongoing assault on the identities, lives, and lands of the Original Peoples of these lands. In light of recent mainstream media smears and intimidation tactics and police/military threats against the Six Nations people, lets us demonstrate once more that our peoples do have power when we stand together and communicate with our feet and our shouts in the streets of Vancouver, in the occupied territories of the Coast Salish.

These, including numerous other systemic issues, will be discussed and the subjects of focus in how we can shame Canada and improve the situation of all of our peoples:

Over 500 dead and/or Missing Aboriginal Women across Canada;
Routine police abuse, racism & violence against Indigenous Peoples;
Indigenous Peoples in Canada have the highest rates of cancer, aids/HIV, tuberculosis, and other diseases;
Indigenous peoples have the highest levels of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and imprisonment;
Indigenous peoples have the highest suicide rates in Canada;
Indigenous lands & territories remain under attack by government and corporate forces;
Canada is guilty of the attempted genocide of Indigenous peoples;
Canada is guilty of the theft of Indigenous lands;
No Olympics on stolen land (and get the fu*k out of Haiti & Afghanistan).

Which follows on the heels of last years hate crimes in Saskatoon:

Via several callers to John Gormley LIve today, the level of violence by Indian gangs in Saskatoon is escalating - and it’s being directed towards whites at random, often as part of gang initiations. The latest attack occured in front of Mac’s store on Canada Day, sending at least one young teenager to hospital, and injuring 10 to 15 others.

One parent described arriving on the scene to overhear “this is what you get for celebrating the day you stole our land”. Another caller described an separate incident in which members of the Indian Posse pulled two of his co-workers out of a truck and knifed them.

Though Gormley tried hard to redirect comments from the racial angle to the more PC “disaffected youth” euphanism, it didn’t work very well - the parents whose children have been the targets of the attacks weren’t playing that game. As one remarked - if there were large gangs of white teenagers swarming Indian kids at a First Nations event to earn their gang colours, it would be national news.

Posted by toronto gangster on January 07, 2007, 08:32 PM | #

what i want to know is how people of mixed races feel about all the hate toronto white people have toward blacks.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 07, 2007, 08:40 PM | #

What I want to know is why there are Africans in Canada at all, and why white Canadians should sit back and watch with alacrity while their cities are turned into alien places.

Posted by toronto gangster on January 07, 2007, 08:49 PM | #

although i do not wish death on anybody it’s good that that shooting happend last year because now we get to see how sick some people are. the youths involved in the shooting where not out to kill little girls they were just trying to survive in a dog eat dog world and unfortunately there was a loss of inocient life. but the responce was exterminate the black race?
a little extreme. we now see who are the animals. hitler is not dead he lives in the white people of toronto. they are just looking for an excuse to kill someone. how many inocent people die when bombs drop in the middle east. you don’t know because you don’t care. we need to take there not so suddle hints and go back to africa before they kill us all

Posted by Matra on July 11, 2007, 10:57 PM | #

Most immigrants live around Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. However with the explosive economic growth in Calgary that city has started on the road to diversity.

Calgary police are trying to piece together five stabbings that happened within a single hour, at five different locations across the city.

One woman died from her injuries, but the other four victims survived.

Police believe the stabbings were carried out by one group of men, and have started a city-wide search for the suspects.

“At this point we are aware of three to four black males, in a vehicle that has been described as a light-coloured, newer, small, four-door car,” said acting Staff Sgt. Patty McCallum, who works with the homicide unit.

The first incident happened just after 4 a.m. Wednesday, when a woman was attacked outside a liquor store.

She collapsed on a bench at a nearby bus stop, where police and paramedics found her. But she later died from her injuries, becoming Calgary’s 15th homicide of the year.

Shortly after the first incident, a man was stabbed in the same neighbourhood. He banged on the front door of resident Rene Decoteau, pleading for help.

“It was after four in the morning—I looked at my watch after I heard him,” Decoteau told CTV Calgary.

“He was banging on the front door, hollering for someone to get an ambulance and the police.”

Police then responded to three more stabbings in the next 45 minutes.

A 42-year-old man was attacked in northeast Calgary around 4:30 a.m. He ran to a nearby store to call for help, leaving behind his backpack. Another incident followed 10 minutes later, just blocks away.

The final victim, a woman in the city’s south end, was stabbed at 5:16 a.m.

Police said none of the victims knew each other. But despite the apparent random nature of the attacks, McCallum urged the public to stay calm.

“When was the last time, when have we ever had this happen before? I can’t suggest that any person walking about is at a higher risk,” she said.

Lisa Marks lives across the street from the first stabbing, but said she has never had a reason to worry about her safety.

“There are lots of different types of people walking around all the time,” she said. “But I do my own thing and they do their own thing.”

http://tinyurl.com/3yapns

Posted by Bulawayo on July 14, 2007, 03:39 PM | #

Wow.
Quite a lot of sick white supremacists in this posting forum.
I am laughing out loud!

Your ‘white” civilization is sinking
Under its own dead weight.
You’ve had your way with the planet now
For 500+ years
But you’ve botched it.
Botched it badly.
Goodbye to your unsustainable way of life.

That must really hurt.

Instead of owning up to your own failures
And making the change you need to make,
You look for people to blame.

When Rome went they blamed the
Goths and Visigoths, the Gauls and
the Vandals and all the other “Barbarians”.

Now who do you blame?
You can’t say the jews, because it’s just too
embarassing what happened the last time those
of your ilk went down that path.

So who do you blame?
The Africans.
The Chinese.
The Original Natives.

Yeah,
the people you’ve had your way with for half
a millenium.  Yeah, it’s all their fault.  If it wasn’t
for them, you’d be able to go on living the way
you’ve been living.

You guys are Pathetic.

Go on,
Weep.
Moan.
Gnash your teeth.
Lash out.
Maybe it will make you feel better for a while.

It probably won’t though.

More likely you’ll die choke on your hate filled
vomit.

Anyway,
good bye to you and your bankrupt civilization.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
And say hello to all the other dead civilizations when you
get to Valhalla:

The Babylonians, the Romans, and the 1000 year Reich.

Bye-Bye!!!!

Posted by James Bowery on July 14, 2007, 05:38 PM | #

Nice to see you being honest to a little extent, Bulawayo.

But you see, if we hadn’t let people like you into our countries then we wouldn’t be having these difficulties.

Yes, we’ve got our own problems like parasitic elites pumped up by parasitic foreign toadies and sycophants—and they do all sorts of nasty things to many people such as—- US—but then the only reason they are able to be so destructive is that, unlike an African tribal chief with 320 wives, they have a technological civilization built by us to abuse until we look up from our hard work long enough to figure our they’ve coopted and lied us to death with the help of folks like you.  Folks who would never in a million years give up the gifts of science and technology—carrying capacity—we built.

So, Mr. Parasite, you may think you are taunting us but you are merely confirming that which more and more of us come to understand ... that you are not capable of understanding the means by which you came to be and that we, creating those means, can bring them to their end if they threaten us.

Posted by Reader on July 14, 2007, 06:35 PM | #

Bulawayo,

Fess up and admit that you are really Leonard Pitts.

Reader

Posted by JB on July 14, 2007, 08:17 PM | #

So who do you blame?

we do blame the jews

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-immigration.html

good bye to you and your bankrupt civilization.

and you’re telling us that from where exactly ? Africa ? nah. I bet you live in the West because our traitors let your parents in.

Hey if we’re so bad why are you living among whites ? And why aren’t we the ones building rafts and trying to immigrate in Africa ? I heard you guys have exquisite cuisine and beautiful beaches