Cultimulcheralism

Every year, hundreds of thousands of foreign migrants come to Canada for a better life. They leave the countries their cultures turned into cesspools of filth and degradation and come here to enjoy the peaceful prosperous society built by the Anglo-Saxon, Christian culture. Once they arrive, however, many shun contact with other Canadians and stick together in their own little ethnic tribes within our cities. They live, socialize, play and even work only with people who look, act and think like themselves. It is the way things work here in cultimulcheral Canada.

Definition: ‘Cultimulcheralism’ – Cult-ee-mulch-er-all-ism – ‘values shared by a fanatical, ideological, left-wing ‘cult’ which seeks to convert Canada’s founding white Anglo Christian culture into a generic, mushy, meaningless ‘mulch’, while preserving and revering the uniqueness of any and all foreign cultures that come here’.

Now, I have no idea how this fanciful experiment in state-sponsored, cultimulcheral social engineering will turn out. With a few exceptions relating to the criminality and reproductive irresponsibility of certain tribes of people as well as others having unfortunate ties with terrorism, we seem to be doing alright so far. Things are relatively peaceful. People seem to get along. So far, so good. Maybe we’ll be OK in the long run. But, certainly, the odds are against us.

It is a self-evident truth that people of different cultures are usually unable to live peacefully together within the same borders for any length of time. Isn’t it bad enough that the French and English here in Canada still eye each other with suspicion after hundreds of years? Was it really wise to add millions upon millions of people from multiple other cultures to the mix as well, and then give them government grants for the express purpose of helping them preserve their own foreign cultures within Canada's borders while distancing themselves from traditional Canadian culture? Shouldn’t the goal be to integrate immigrants, not segregate them?

All we hear these days are spokespeople from one culture or another demanding concessions and money from the government to address the issues specific to their cultural community. We are no longer a cohesive nation. Rather we are a nation of a hundred cultural solitudes, each jockeying for a position where their culture can receive more government funding and have greater political and social influence. Political parties run ethnic candidates in ridings where large numbers of constituents are of the same culture as the candidate. They know that people will tend to vote for someone of their own color and culture. For Canada’s cultural minorities, it is considered perfectly natural. When white people do it, though, it’s racism.

Recently, in the papers, I read about a Chinese-Canadian running for election in Markham Ontario. He was soliciting votes in an Indian neighborhood. (See, even our neighborhoods are referred to in terms of the ethnic group that lives there.) Luckily for him he had spent many years in India. At one front door an Indian man looked at him skeptically. But when the Chinese-Canadian man spoke to him in Punjabi, the Indian man allegedly smiled and said “Your really are my brother. I have 12 votes in my family that I will deliver to you”. Wow. Speak the guy’s foreign language and ‘presto’, you’re his brother and he’ll vote for you. Pity the poor Anglo Canadian politician who tries to get a vote there. Maybe if we all learned Punjabi we could all be this man’s “brother”. I don’t know about you, but I’m enrolling in a PSL course tomorrow.

And that’s the cultimulcheral Canada that we are building folks. A nation where cultural minorities are encouraged to think of themselves as a foreign immigrant first and a Canadian second. A nation where immigrants expect Canada to adapt to them rather than vice versa.

Cast your eyes around the world and witness the fruits of cultural cohabitation. There’s Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; Muslims and Buddhists in Thailand; Jews and Arabs in the middle east; blacks and whites in the USA; Serbs and Croatians in Yugoslavia; Hindus and Muslims in India; Christians and Muslims in Indonesia; Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka; Vietnamese and Cambodians in Cambodia; Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, race riots in Paris.….the list is endless.. Think about it - time and again, history has shown that whenever large numbers of people of different cultures and sensibilities live together, it seldom turns out well.

And yet, like drunk lemmings, Anglo Christian Canadians and their descendants scramble towards the cliff-edge of cultural extinction and gleefully fling themselves over. Hey, what difference does it make? It’s pretty well all over anyway. White Anglo Christian Canadians have far fewer babies than immigrants and many, many more abortions. In addition, Canada depends largely on immigrants to replace our dying elderly population. In fact we welcome around 250,000 migrants a year. The way things are going, it’s really just a matter of time before the culture and the people that created and nurtured this great nation becomes nothing more than an irrelevant, fringe, minority group. Oh well, at least as a minority, they’ll be eligible for government grants and Charter protection. At least I hope so.

The thing that really astounds me is the willingness, nay, inexplicable eagerness, with which Anglo Christian folk and their descendants have embraced the idea of no longer being the majority in their own nation. It is as though they want it to happen - some sort of masochistic white guilt or latent self-loathing that prevents them from being proud of their own culture. (In conversation, I’ve mentioned to some people I know that white Christians in Europe and North America have built the most comfortable, successful, free nations on earth. I’ve gotten back haughty, indignant retorts mentioning the Crusades or internment during WWII or slavery. Surely, white folk are the only people on earth who hate their own skin color.)

It’s puzzling. Anglo-Saxon Christian values have brought freedom, success and comfort to Canadians. Many foreign cultures, on the other hand, have brought nothing but pestilence, poverty and oppression. And yet, when plotting a course for the future, we refuse to give any deference to the familiar, successful, domestic Anglo Christian cultural model. Rather, we actually encourage newcomers to isolate themselves inside their own ethnic enclaves, ignore the founding culture and adhere to their foreign cultural practices and traditions.

Most rational, normal people in this world tend to want to protect their cultures. In fact, many have and would fight and die to protect them. Here in Canada, however, we white Anglo Christian Canadian folk don’t subscribe to such unenlightened barbarism. We meekly stand aside and barely raise a peep as the traditions and values that made our nation great are slowly marginalized and drowned in a tidal wave of Cultimulcheralism.

What culture in the world has ever participated so willingly in its own destruction? What culture has ever thrown open its borders with the implicit intent and inevitable outcome of reducing its own relevancy within its own borders? I’ve heard of cultural genocide, but cultural suicide? Surely, this must rank as one of the most momentous acts of selflessness and cultural sacrifice in the history of mankind.

A more fascinating study in cultural development (or destruction) you will never find. Anthropologists will have a field day a few centuries from now as they study this baffling deviation from human behavioral norms. The way I figure it, they will be asking each other one of two questions - either: How could these people be so foolish as to willingly give up their position as the majority in a nation they founded? Or: How did they know that this zany social experiment would be such a success? God, I hope it’s the latter.

Harpies, Feminists and Moonbats

I’ve been thinking about trying to explain feminism to my 10 year old daughter. I figure she’s ready. I’m sure some people might think that a man has no business trying to explain a female concept like feminism to a female. And maybe there’s some merit in that argument. But I’m going to take my best shot anyway. After all, it’s important that my daughter at least has a chance to develop a balanced viewpoint about gender equality before today's radical feminists and leftwing moonbats in our schools, universities and media get a hold of her.

And if anyone is suited to convey a balanced opinion on feminism, it’s me. After all, just look at me. I’m an obsolete, anachronistic social dinosaur, just like feminism. I have passed my ‘best before date’, just like feminism. And I admire and respect women, just like feminism.

I’m going to tell my daughter that feminism was born because, years ago, women were considered less than equal to men. In fact it was less than one hundred years ago that women were first allowed to vote in Canada - in Western Canada, to be exact. (Yep. That’s right. Traditional, red-neck, gun-lovin’ conservative westerners were the first Canadians to give women the vote. Ironic, eh?) In addition, women had almost insurmountable obstacles placed in their way when they tried to enter professional and political occupations. Yesterday's feminists fought to break down these barriers. They were heroes.

Today, however, it is a totally different story. A goodly portion of our political representatives are women. The next president of the United States may very well be a woman, either Dr. Condoleezza Rice or Hillary Clinton. (Go Condi! Imagine, a black conservative woman as President. You gotta love that!) It's the same with government ministers, professors, doctors, lawyers, judges and CEOs. The majority of university students are female. Most women work. Many are the bosses of men.

The feminist movement accomplished what it set out to do. And then, something truly unfortunate happened - it was co-opted by socialists. You must have noticed. These days, it's not uncommon to see hard core socialists, disguised as feminists, screaming in the media about some imaginary inequity or other. And most of these groups are tax funded. Many hate men & marriage. And all adhere to the same time-tested formula for stealing our tax dollars. What's the formula you ask. It goes something like this:

1. They scurry around, looking under any rock they can lift, hoping upon hope to find something they can paint as sexism.
2 Then, once a year or so, they pull their tax-funded heads out of their tax-funded behinds and scream “sexist” at the top of their lungs.
3 They release a report full of questionable data and skewed statistics showing how men continue to victimize women.
4. The CBC and other socialist media corporations gushingly rally behind them giving them lots of sympathetic coverage.
5. They send their press clippings to Ottawa along with an application for more grant money.
6 When the cheque arrives they slink back to their tax funded burrows and dream of the day when sperm can be manufactured artificially and all men are dead. At least, that's the impression they give.

Meanwhile back here on planet earth where normal people live, the rest of us just sigh and shrug. It’s almost worth paying out of pocket to get these harpies to shut up for awhile. They have degraded and tarnished the word “feminist” to such a degree that most women these days wouldn’t be caught dead using it to describe themselves.

Feminism used to be about equality. Now it’s about having and keeping the advantage. Like in child custody cases, where dads almost never get custody; and in incidents involving violent crime, where women perpetrators are almost always given lighter sentences than men and then incarcerated in much more comfortable surroundings.

Feminism used to be about busting down barriers. Now it’s about busting men’s balls. Like when they teach young women that "marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women" and any sexual encounter with a man is akin to allowing the man to rape them. (I'm not making this up, although in a rational world I would have to.)

Feminism used to be a movement that welcomed women of all political and social opinions. Now it’s a movement run and populated mostly by loony, hard-core, left-wing moonbats.

Feminism used to be all about the rights. Now it’s all about the left.

In fact, these days, when feminist groups speak out, it is often about matters relating to something other than women. Most times they seem to be more interested in suff like: bigger government, state-funded multiculturalism, affirmative action, limitless immigration, higher welfare rates, the environment, differentsexuality, the evils of America or some other so-called progressive initiative that has nothing to do with the advancement of women's rights. (Kinda like how socialist union leaders are always supporting hard-core, left-wing causes that have little to do with their union mandate.) Many feminist groups, it would seem, are now focused on much loftier social engineering goals. It is almost as if they subconsciously know that, in order to get the attention of the public, they have to broaden their focus because most women just aren't buying into the nonsensical "females are victims" BS they are selling.

I mentioned Condi Rice earlier. Now, you would think that feminists would be thrilled to have a women as Secretary of State and in line for the Presidency. But they're not. Feminist groups despise her. Know why? Because she's a conservative. A few years ago, a newly crowned Miss America - Erika Harold - gave a few speeches to students in which she promoted sexual abstinence. Feminist and homosexual groups went through the roof. Know why? Of course you do. These days, if you want the support of the feminist movement, it's not enough be a woman, you also have to be a left-winger just like them.

Now, you may be wondering why feminism shifted its focus from promoting women’s rights to promoting socialist doctrine. Allow me to speculate. Ask yourself this: what do virtually all socialists, communists and people on the political left have in common? Right. A shared belief that equality of outcome must be assured for all and government must support us all from cradle to grave.

It was a no brainer, really. Today's feminist movement had to embrace left wing ideology because today's feminism depends on having a big, strong, generous government to punish anyone who doesn’t toe the equality line and to hand out oodles of dough to fund programs that benefit women and punish men. The road to their prejudiced version of equality is not free. It’s a toll road. And we all pay the toll so that they can promote their radical, socialist, feminist ideology.

And the cost is in the $billions. The number of Canadian women’s groups who get tax dollars are legion. Expensive media campaigns casting men as abusers and villains are quite common. Unabused women take the children and leave their spouses simply because they are "unfulfilled" and are given a subsidized apartment and government cheque. Costly Commissions, Tribunals and various bureaucracies respond to all complaints regarding equity, regardless of how frivolous. High priced, state funded daycare encourages women to let the government care for their children while they pursue more ‘fulfilling’ work. And for every subsidized day care space they use, we all pay through the nose. And then there’s the multi-billion dollar gun registry boondoggle, which was spawned because feminist groups pressured Canada’s Liberal government after Muslim lunatic Marc Lepine massacred 14 female engineering students in Montreal. Lepine was a monster. He does not represent all men. No more than Karla Homolka represents all women.

Feminism used to be a proud movement of visionaries with a noble cause. These days, feminism is, for the most part, nothing more than a movement of radical, left-wing splinter groups sowing the seeds of anarchy and unrest while slurping down copious amount of tax dollars from the public trough. Feminism was once something worthy of our respect. Now it’s something worthy of our suspicion.

That’s what I’ll be teaching my daughter. Any good parent would.

Fathers, Feminism and Parental Responsibility

They used to call them bastard children. The ones with no father. They were pitied. Their mothers were shamed. Their families were disgraced. Needless to say, there were not a lot of these kids around in most communities. Social pressure and strongly held religious beliefs discouraged bastardy. Fathers stayed with their families. Mothers did too. And - guess what - except when parents died, virtually all children had both a father and a mother. Unlike today.

Today, siring fatherless children is looked upon as an esteemed career choice in our welfare housing communities. Many women have multiple children by multiple men and live better on our generous welfare system than many working people. The men take little responsibility for raising their children, brag about how many they have conceived and bask in the glory of their studhood.

Meanwhile, their sons grow up to be marginalized, angry, fatherless young men with a penchant for filling each other with hot lead. The daughters drop a few babies before age 18 and spend their days watching Oprah and looking out their apartment windows at the suckers standing in the rain at the bus stop headed for work.

It didn’t used to be this way. But, over the past few decades, our society has changed dramatically. And not for the better. The twin scourges of socialism and radical feminism have swarmed across our landscape like the wretched, festering locusts that they are. And when they arrived, it was game over.

The scourge of socialism brought with it a free apartment and monthly cheque to any female who has a functional uterus and decides to use it. This state-sponsored, sex rewards program hasn’t exactly lessened the plague of fatherlessness. If anything, it’s been a major contributing factor, as should be expected.

And then there’s the second scourge – socialism’s sister – radical feminism. Thanks to this nifty social construct, women are no longer viewed as men’s sexual superiors. Now they are merely men’s equals. Men used to have to wait until after marriage to partake in their wife’s wondrous gift. Women held all the cards. Not any more. Now men can usually get whatever they want after a few dates. It’s no longer a gift to be anticipated, cherished and given in return for a lifelong commitment. Now it’s like a burger picked up at the drive through. You know the old saying about buying the cow? Is it any wonder there are so many children born to single mothers these days?

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the pandemic of promiscuity and bastardy sweeping across the face of our society and have decided that men should take no responsibility for it at all. After all, it’s not their fault. Consider that the problem of single motherhood and absentee dads has only been around for 30 – 40 years in our culture. Over those years men haven’t changed much. In fact men haven’t changed much since they were clubbing females over the head and dragging them into caves. They’re just doing what they’ve always done – trying to get women to have sex with them. The only difference is that now women are letting them have their way a lot more. And as a result of these bad decisions, a lot more unattached women are getting pregnant and sentencing their kids to a fatherless life.

And it’s not men’s fault. Really. Think about this – the only thing that men contribute to the creation of life is sperm. That’s it. It is the woman alone who has the capacity to create life inside her. And it is the woman alone who has sole dominion over that life for the first nine months of its existence until it comes forth into the world. If the woman wants to terminate this burgeoning life while its in her belly, she can do it and the man has no say whatsoever. After all, it’s her body, isn’t it? And isn’t he just a sperm donor with no rights at all?

However, once the woman, in her generosity, allows the baby to be born, everything changes. All of a sudden, this baby becomes the financial responsibility of the sperm donor – a poor wretch who had no rights at all up until that point. Why is this? If a woman has sole control over her body and all that grows in it, despite needing sperm to create what grows in it, why does she not have sole responsibility for what comes out of her body, despite needing sperm to create what comes out?

Women know the risks when they have sex. They know that pregnancy could occur. And yet, when they engage voluntarily and casually in sex solely to satisfy their own selfish carnal desires, and the natural outcome occurs, they expect the sperm donor to support their illegitimate offspring, even if he’s made no commitment to them or to a relationship.

Thankfully, I am in a stable, loving marriage. My children live under the same roof as I do and receive my love (and lectures) everyday. I believe the nuclear family model to be the most elegant, efficient, effective and successful social construct in the world. I also believe that men who abandon their mate and children are scumbags, as are women who purposely exclude fathers from their children's lives. Children conceived after a commitment has been made should remain the father’s responsibility. However, the same should not hold true for men whose sperm produce children in the bodies of women who demanded no commitment from them prior to conception.

As noted above, men today are much the same as the men who lived one hundred years ago when virtually all families stayed together and virtually all children had a father. They haven’t changed. Women have. And society has. Nowadays, men find themselves in a world where the carnal candy store is open 24-7. And no one in society is slapping their hands when they reach for the bon bons before paying for them. And when they feed their faces, they aren’t actually stealing anything. They are just partaking of what is freely offered by a equal and willing partner – a partner who has chosen to ignore the risks to her future, her body, and the future of any life that is conceived in her body. And if a woman gives her body freely to a man who has made no commitment to her, knowing full well what the repercussions could be, why should the woman not take full responsibility for those repercussions? And why should the man have to take any responsibility at all?