


One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.
Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.
Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?
I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.
Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.
That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.
The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.
How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?
If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.
Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.
My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.
But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.
For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.
Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: mark.mercer@smu.ca
–
Whatcott uttered “thank the Lord” after Judge Marylynne Beaton delivered her verdict.
“I’m very happy with the judge’s decision … and of course I believe she’s correct,” Whatcott told reporters.
LaBarbera, who lives in Illinois and heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was not present, but “I’m sure he’ll be relieved,” said Whatcott.
LaBarbera and Whatcott were charged with mischief on April 14, after distributing flyers and displaying placards with pro-life and anti-gay messages at the University of Regina campus. They were asked to leave, refused and were arrested.
At the time, U of R provost Thomas Chase called the materials “graphic” and “disturbing.”
But “the validity of (their) beliefs are not in issue,” Beaton wrote in her decision.
“I find that the purpose of (their) attending the University of Regina was to communicate information and their actions were passive and non-aggressive,” Beaton wrote. “The university’s response was disproportionate to the peaceful distribution of flyers.”
Whatcott said he plans to return to the U of R in January — “you can count on that, unless I get hit by a car” — with a “flyer special for this occasion.” He aims to visit the University of Calgary campus on Saturday.”
Read complete judgment here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing Ms. Patton and Dr. Chase both testified to the effect that the decision to remove Mr. Whatcott was made to prevent students from feeling discriminated against. This is a sufficiently pressing and substantive objective. Freedom of expression is not an unqualified right. As stated again in the Pridgen decision at para. 124:
The University must be able to place reasonable limits on speech on campus in order, for example, to maintain a learning environment
where there is respect and dignity for all.[68] The means used to prevent students from feeling discriminated against was the removal of Mr. Whatcott and Mr. LaBarbera. I do not accept that the accused’s removal, in order to protect students from the accused’s message, represented a minimal impairment on freedom of expression,” — In this case, the University’s response was disproportionate to the peaceful distribution of flyers and was not reasonable and demonstrably justified.
[69J In summary, I find that the Charter does apply to the University of Regina in this situation. I also find that Mr. Whatcott’s and Mr. LaBarbera’s actions were protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and that the infringement on this right cannot be permitted under s. 1 of the Charter. Given my findings, Mr. Whatcott and Mr. LaBarbera were acting with legal justification pursuant to s. 429(2) of the Criminal Code.
Colour of Right
[70] The Crown has argued that it would be unreasonable to believe that the right existed, as Mr. Whatcott had been asked to leave by campus security several times over the last few years and was denied space by the University of Regina Student’s Union. He therefore knew that his form of communication was not welcomed at the University.
[71] However, Mr. Whatcott’s testimony left me with no doubt that he believed that he had a right to protest at the University of Regina under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Given that he had been successful before various courts in the past, I have no doubt that this belief was reasonable. His testimony also left me with no doubt that he does not think that the Policy applies to him, or perhaps to anyone. He testified clearly that the Policy is “rubbish” and that several universities, including the University of Regina, have abused their rights to exclude people and so do not have that right. However, if his belief that s. 2(b) of the Charter protects his speech is correct, then the Charter would overrule the Policy. Mr. Whatcott understands this principle.
Anti-gay activists Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera demonstrate outside the Regina provincial courthouse ahead of the start of their trial on mischief charges on Oct. 30, 2014.

their conference. “All the IHR has ever tried to do is bring ‘history’ in tune with the facts,” he concluded.The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “
The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America. Still, by including a chapter such as William Lind’s excellent “Who Stole Our Culture,” it is obvious to even the halfway informed reader what civilizational rival they are discussing.
Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.
Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique, where MacDonald describes the broad range of Jewish movements arrayed against the culture of the West, including Christianity.”
The first wave of the assault on Christmas, occurred from the late 1930s to the 1960s, Mr. Fromm explained. In 1934, at the urging of his wife Israel Itkovitz (better known as Eddie Cantor) wrote Santa Claus is Coming to Town. Jule Steyn, a Jewess from Bethnall Green in London, England, wrote the song Let It Snow, and Ivring Berlin, in the late 1940s, wrote the iconic White Christmas. “Now, there is nothing in and of themselves wrong about these songs. They celebrate the externals of the Christmas time, but neatly avoid the core meaning — the birth of Jesus Christ. By the 1960s, many Christian groups were rightly complaining that Christ had been taken out of Christmas: Jesus, Mary and Joseph had been replaced by Santa, Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman,” he added.
But the attack was heating up, Mr. Fromm explained. Then, quoting Edmund Connelly, he added: “In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over ‘A Neutral Public Square,’and it has been going on for a long time.’Happy Holidays’ and ‘Season’s Greetings’ were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.’ The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.
Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!’ Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.”
Now, we have a concerted effort to remove “Christmas” while all the while wanting us to spend carloads of shekels to give gifts for the feast that dares not say its name. “Luckily, there’s been a strong push back from Christians and others. I urge you to give cards that say, ‘Merry Christmas.'” Mr. Fromm said. “I urge you to return with a stern note any ‘Seasons Greetings’ cards from politicians. Finally, when shopping, patronize stores that mention ‘Christmas’ and, where you can, tell the management of stores that insist on ‘Seasons Greetings’ that you won’t buy their cheap imported Chinese junk, if they won’t acknowledge the name of the date the vast majority of us celebrates. You are not being ‘inclusive’,” he added, ” excluding yourself and your beliefs.”
The evening concluded with a provocative slide show by IHR Director, Tom Berrington. “We are in the period of Kali Yuga, in Hindu mythology, an evil time of turmoil and fever,” he warned: “We are never going back to that golden era of the 1950s of rising living standards and endless opportunity. While there are many forces ranged against our people, we have certain advantages, especially our Faustian creative spirit,” he concluded.


http://www.thenownewspaper.
Tom Zytaruk
The Now Newspaper.
So let me get this straight. Somebody with a politically incorrect belief system who did not share it with the kids he taught or coached should be fired because a person who holds such beliefs must be regarded as a poor “role model”. As one parent said, “You can’t be a Nazi and coach kids’ hockey”.
OK then. Can you be a fundamentalist Christian and coach kids’ hockey? For a great many people, fundamentalist Christian beliefs are politically incorrect. Members of the Law Society in this province, for example, recently voted for a policy that would deny graduates of the Trinity College law school accreditation because of principles thought to be, well, “politically incorrect”.
Can you express support for the Conservative Party of Canada on your Facebook page and coach kids’ hockey? After all, many supporters of the Green, Liberal and NDP parties would consider Conservative ideas, particularly social Conservative ideas “politically incorrect”.
But hey wait, you say. Comparing fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives to Nazis is absurd. Nazism is a totalitarian ideology associated with the commission of some of the most horrendous crimes in human history. But guess what? So is Communism. In fact the “body count” of Comrade Stalin or Mao is many times greater than Hitlers’. Funny though, many people with a Communist past in Canada, like former BQ leader Gilles Duceppe for example, were never held accountable by the media for it. In Canada, being a student Marxist has been treated almost like a rite of passage, a forgiveble stage of growing up. Those with a Nazi past, though, were hounded and deported.

That leads me to wonder. If Mr. Sandau made his Facebook page “a shrine for Communism”, do you think he would have been fired? Would he have been fired if he questioned the estimated number, 8 million, of Ukrainians killed in the Holomodor, which has long been established as a Plan to wipe put the kulaks? A great many, if not most members of the Canadian Communist Party at one time publicly denied that the Ukrainian “Holocaust” happened, but no one demanded that they be fired. No one, I seem to remember, ever stated that you can’t be a Communist and coach kids’ hockey (or teach kids in classrooms, as many of them did).
The double standards and hypocrisy over this issue astounds me. But then again, in Canada, it has become par for the course.
Malcolm Ross—a published anti-semite, was fired from his teaching job in New Brunswick even though he was well regarded by students as a good Math teacher who never shared political views with them. The School Board, as I recall, made the argument that Ross, given his off-hours views, presented students with a poor role model. I don’t recall the Civil Liberties Union rising to his defence. Meanwhile, in BC, the BC Civil Liberties Union defended a teacher in North Vancouver who was fired by a Catholic School Board when it was learned that he was living common law. The Board argued that he was a bad role model for Catholic
Freedom of Speech in Canada? No way! Hockey Coach Fired for Pro-National Socialist Facebook Comments
‘Hockey has been my life,’ Sandau told The Surrey Now, a paper headquartered about an hour’s drive east of Vancouver. ‘My view on the history basically got me canned. A lot of people have no idea about the other side of the story.’
‘The posts contained extreme and objectionable material believed to be incompatible with an important purpose of our minor hockey association: ‘To promote and encourage good citizenship,’ association president Anita Cairney said in a release. ‘The (hockey association) requires that our coaches present themselves as positive role models for our children athletes.’ …
The Surrey Now quoted an unidentified parent: ‘You can’t be a Nazi and coach kids hockey.’
A Facebook page under Sandau’s name was pulled down late Wednesday afternoon. Before it disappeared, it was a curated library of sympathetic Nazi images and commentary. One of the most recent posts had been made on Tuesday, featuring a photograph of an undated Nazi rally under the caption: ‘Not too many speakers get the attendance of over a million people from far and wide…’
‘I was doing a good job and I wasn’t trying to impose my political beliefs or anything on anyone,’ Sandau told CTV. “From the time I stepped onto the parking lot of the arena to the time I left, I was all about hockey and trying to help the kids get better.”
Sandau, a 33-year-old resident of Langley, B.C., told The Surrey Now he considered himself ‘a big history buff,” and claimed of the Holocaust: ‘There is no such plan, there was no idea.’
‘These people died from typhus,’ he told the paper. ‘The Germans were actually doing their best to save these people. These people were not that evil as we’re told.'” (National Post, November 5, 2014)
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
|
|
British Columbia Lawyers Just Voted to Discriminate Against Christians
|
VICTORIA, BC. October 18. The 29th annual George Orwell Free Speech dinner was held her today, drawing free speech supporters from all over British Colmbia and from as far away at Ontario and Texas. Keltie Zubko , editor of Friends of Freeom Newsletter of the Canadian Free Speech League and wife of the late free speech champion Doug Christie, is keeping this annual tradition alive. It was an emotional event and a moving and proper tribute to a man who was a giant in the free speech movement in Canada for over 30 years.
The meeting preceeding the dinner was chaired by law student Jeremy Mattock. He recalled: “I worked with Doug for three years and he inspired me to work for a better, freer, more just society.
He discussed the persecution of the planned Trinity Western University law school. “This would be a Christian university and encourage lawyers to be Christian servants of their clients. However, there have been efforts to prohibit future graduates of Trinity Western Law School from getting articling jobs (essential before being called to the bar). The philosophy of Trinity Western is to ask students and faculty to refrain from excessive use of alcohol and drugs and to maintain traditional Christian standards of sexual morality,” he explained. “Yet, many lawyers want to prohibit such people who voluntarily agree to such restrictions from even practising law.”
He warned: “There are increasing and dangerous restrictions on who can and cannot speak out. Evangelist and author Bill Whatcott was fined $17,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for expressing the traditional Christian view on homosexuality.”
“How long will it be,” he asked, “before expressing the traditional Christian view on marriage could land you in jail or be excluded from polite society?”
And, he warned, “web publisher Arthur Topham (radicalpress.com) may face jail time for making available on the Internet what’s available in some bookstores and libraries, books like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Germany Must Perish. But the government does not go after bookstores or libraries. It goes after the little guy, like Arthur Topham.”

Victoria lawyer Barclay Johnson who wound down much of Mr. Christie’s law practice and represented CAFE in its appeal to Federal Court in the Marc Lemire Sec. 13 case, joked about wearing an Hawaiian happy shirt. He said that crime rates in Canada are falling but police forces keep growing. “Between 2001 and 2012, policing costs rose 8.7% but crime fell 26.7% and police work load decreased,” To justify their expansion and the huge bite they take out of local budgets, police are increasingly in the revenue collecting business. Police salaries are huge. “The average salary for a policeman in Victorias is $96,000 per year,” he said.
]]]]
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, gave the keynote presentation about the present state of free speech in Canada. “Sometime next year,” he said, “the B’nai Brith and Richard Warman Sec. 319 ‘hate law’ charges against Arthur Topham will go to trial in Quesnel. Topham is a fearless terrier and will not give up.” CAFÉ has been helping him financially and will continue to help him in this evil case, where he is being prosecuted for material posted on his website radicalpress.com, includingThe Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Germany Must Perish (a hateful book providing a blueprint for genocide of the German people) and Israel Must Perish, a clever Topham spoof of the previous book. For the prune-faced, humourless politically correct, it was a SATIRE, meant to expose and criticize Germany Must Perish,” Mr. Fromm chided.


“This is a crucial case,” Mr. Fromm warned. “We hope to discredit the ‘hate law’ and challenge its application to the Internet. Interestingly, the first two impugned books are freely available at libraries and at some bookstores. Once again, the law is being used to silence the independent, the little guy.”
Good news: The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has entered the fray on Arthur’s behalf and is circulating an on-line petition urging British Columbia Attorney General Suzanne Anton to withdraw her consent to this “hate law” prosecution.
” In New Brunswick, we will soon go to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in the matter of the McCorkill will,” he said. Robert McCorkill, a retired chemistry professor willed the U.S.-based National Alliance his collection of rare coins and artefacts, valued at upwards of $250,000. The free speech hating Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama objected about this support for “White supremacists.” Ottawa lawyer and frequent human rights complainant Richard Warman alleged the bequest was contrary to “public policy.”
“The next thing we knew,” Mr. Fromm recalled, “Isabelle McCorkell (yes, different spelling), the professor’s long estranged sister, who had made no legal moves since his death in 2004, surfaced and challenged the will seeking to have it overturned as ‘contrary to public policy.’ Umm, was someone whispering in her ear? Almost immediately, the New Brunswick Attorney General, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith sought and obtained intervener status. CAFÉ intervened on behalf of the estate.”
“In June, we were stunned by the decision of Mr. Justice Grant to invalidate the bequest,” Mr. Fromm reported. The reason: the bequest was contrary to public policy; that is, the NA’s views were politically incorrect. For good measure, without even a charge or trial, much less evidence or a defence, the judge found that the National Alliance was guilty of violating Canada’s ‘hate laws.’ This decision puts the boots to property rights and freedom of belief and MUST be appealed. We must win this case or the right to bequeath your property to whom you will may have to pass the litmus test of political correctness,” he warned.
“There is a visceral hatred for Christians on the part of most of the political and legal establishment in this country,” Mr. Fromm argueed. He pointed to last year’s decision in the Whatcott case where the “cultural Marxists on the Supreme Court of Canada” basically ruled against public expressions of traditional teaching on homosexuality. Homosexuals are now a designated “vulnerable minority” although the militant homosexual lobby has won almost every battle it has fought. “The Supremos ruled that not scientific truth, not sincerely held religious belief, not political discourse nor hoest opinion were defences against the accusation of exposing a privileged minority to contempt. Quite simply they hate Christians,” Mr. Fromm warned a subdued audience.
And, the appalling harassment of Christian crusader Bill Whatcott continues. Mr. Fromm recounted Mr. Whatcott’s latest run is with cowardice and censorship. “He sought to organize a meeting on Christian morality in the modern world. He had a lawyer vet a proposed ad in the Regina Leader-Post. The Leader-Post refused to run this tasteful and non-inflammatory ad. Thus, it would be hard to advertise his meeting. Mr. Whatcott then ran off and distributed 5,000 leaflets advertising the meeting to be held in Lee’s Funeral Home. The press contacted the home and asked whether they were comfortable with protests. The management, who agreed with Whatcott’s conservative Christian morality, promptly collapsed and cancelled the meeting, much to the delight of the Leader-Post. The Delta Regina, on seeing the publicity, reneged on its booking. Mr. Whatcott then lined up St. Athanasius Ukrainian Catholic Church. It too wimped out fearing negative publicity. Thus, a conservative Christian cannot find a venue and cannot publicly advertise a meeting to discuss morality vis a vis homosexuality and abortion.”
“Many Canadians have only the vaguest commitment to free speech. Businesses often are utter cowards and censors. We have a lot of work to do, not just in protesting to those businesses that trampled on Mr. Whatcott’s rights but in trying to turn more Canadians on to freedom. Doug Christie always said: ‘It doesn’t matter what is in constitutions or Charters of Rights and Freedoms; you only have the rights you are prepared to FIGHT for,’ he concluded.
Vienna, Virginia. October 11, 2014. Three participants in last weekend’s much harassed Future of Europe Conference in Budapest delivered their accounts and explanations to a meeting of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR).
Author F. Roger Devlin and Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, explained the sequence of events. About two weeks before the conference, socialists and the former communist party in Hungary spread wild alarm about the meeting of “White supremacists”.| A media frenzy followed.
The rightist government of Viktor Orban, facing municipal elections, caved in and ordered its interior minister to take all legal measures to shut down the conference. The convention centre where the meeting was to be held cancelled its contract. The hotel where people who registered through NPI were to stay cancelled reservations.
Although Hungarian nationalist party Jobbik had been a key planner of the event, they quickly folded, announcing that they had not known that the National Policy Institute (NPI), the organizers were “White supremacists,” an allegation which is false. Another organizing sponsor Arktos Books also folded.
Key participants, including Alexander Dugin, a former advisor to Vladimir Putin, were denied visas. On the Monday before the conference, NPI founder Bill Regnery, arriving in Budapest from London, was arrested, deported and slapped with a three year ban from the Schengen countries.
On the night before the conference was to occur, about 50 participants were in a Budapest pub. Riot police burst in and checked everyone’s ID. Some were searched. About 30 were detained and taken to their hotels for further investigation. Richard Spencer, the NPI organizer was taken off to jail, held until Monday and then deported. He, too, has been slapped with an arbitrary three year ban from the Schengen countries — all the EU, except England and Croatia.
Nevertheless, an intrepid Jared Taylor and a Hungarian contact salvaged the conference. A restaurant was arranged or Saturday night. About 100 attendees gathered clandestinely and heard short after dinner talks by Mr. Taylor and Professor Tom Sunic.
Well, concluded Paul Fromm, ” we came to Budapest to discuss ‘the future of Europe’ and we saw first hand that the future will have to be fought for. It is a life and death struggle between the Cultural Marxists who are engineering the genocidal replacement of Europeans by the Third World and nationalists or Identitarians who wish to preserve the national characteristics of their lands and who want to keep Europe European. The methods of the Cultural Marxists involve repression,” he concluded.
IHR Director Mark Weber had also been in Budapest and offered a broader explanation of what had happened. “Before an earthquake takes place,” he said, “there are powerful movements of forces within the earth. Last May’s political earthquake was the election to the European Parliament of a large number of nationalists and Euroskeptics like Marine LePen’s National Front, UKIP in Britain and Jobbik in Hungary, This caused an unprecedented level of anxiety in the U.S. and European political establishments.”
The election results showed the bankruptcy of both conservative and socialist parties. They ignore chronic youth unemployment and seem helpless before the greed of multinationals. “People sense something is wrong,” Mr. Weber said. “Europeans are dying out and, with each passing year, America is becoming more and more unrecognizable — a Third World country,” he added.
Germany is Abolishing Itself, a recent book by a long-time member of Germany’s socialist party and former Governor of the Bundesbank, Thilo Sarrazin sold more than 1.5-million copies and set off shockwaves. “This reasoned and logical book and its author were furiously denounced by the media and the political establishment. Sarrazin stresses deep rooted social, economic and genetic problems,” Mr. Weber explained. Germany is threatened by a low birthrate. The Golden Age of German’s post war economy is ending. The income of the average worker has not increased in 20 years.
For the post war years, each generation is one third smaller than the previous one but people are living longer. ‘Germans,” said Mr. Weber, “live self-centred lives. There is a dull fatalistic sense of a future where Germany will decline as will the population’s intelligence and skill. Intelligence is 80 per cent determined by genetics. We know that the average intelligence level in the West has been declining. And the average immigrant to Europe is less intelligent than the average German.”
However, the U.S. works to break down active ethnic solidarity world wide. “The Americanization of Europe means the ethnic extinction of Europe,” Mr. Weber warned. “Without Europeans, Europe is just a geographic designation. There can be no real Europe without Europeans. The central fact of American history is that it was founded and developed by Europeans,” he explained. “If it had been founded by Africans, it would be like Haiti’. You cannot a society like Denmark with a population of Mexicans.”
“The breakdown of the West,” he stressed, “is the result of radical egalitarianism and individualism. A 100 years ago, the whole world, with the exception of Japan and Ethiopia was dominated by Europeans. Today, Europe cannot or will not even protect its heartland.’
“The end of World War II was a catastrophe for the West. French author Celine saw the Axis forces as the bulwark of Europe against the egalitarianism of Soviet Communism,: Mr. Weber said.
“A nation that embraces an ideology not rooted in reality will not survive nor does it deserve to,” he concluded.