Reconciliation and the Demographic Predicament of Canada

In Canada, reconciliation with indigenous peoples is foisted particularly upon European Canadians by various liberal voices; activists, university professors, opinion writers, civil servants and political commentators on the television and radio – the same people who suspiciously give just about everyone else a free pass. Themes of “decolonization” and the pernicious influence of historical revisionism are popular among both students in the classrooms and self-fancied Marxist revolutionaries in the streets. These are pronounced elements of Canada’s social and political climate, in which a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, first Prime Minister of Canada and central architect of Confederation, was removed from its post outside Victoria BC’s city hall at a cost of $30,000, and placed into indefinite storage in an act of reconciliation towards indigenous tribes only a few months after a park was named after the founder of Pakistan, a country the formation of which involved the death of millions. It is statistically veritable that Canada is fast-becoming an oriental colony. The information supporting this statement is openly provided by the Government of Canada (see:, who are surprisingly transparent about Canada’s predicament of demographic replacement. Of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been arriving to Canada annually for decades now, as well as the ~350,000 newcomers who will presumably be arriving every year by 2021 onwards, at least 80% or more of them are non-European in origin. Immigration, rather than natural increase from domestic births, is the main driver of Canada’s population growth. These people are not coming here all the way from China, India, the Middle East, Africa and so on, to learn about, befriend and reconcile with indigenous peoples. They are economic migrants who are coming here to build new lives paved over old native hunting grounds and burial sites.

“Reconciliation”, magnanimous in theory yet mostly hollow in application, is a formality in Canadian politics, albeit not without utility. It is an ostensibly benevolent pretext (a charade, if you will) that is leveraged by various leftist radical types (who are often white) in a targeted effort to morally denigrate European Canadians in the spirit of “decolonization”… all while Canada undergoes unprecedented colonization by various non-European groups. Interestingly, groups that proponents of “reconciliation” and “decolonization” never seem to hold accountable for their share of the moral obligation, presumably out of fear for compromising their facade of righteousness with accusations of racism and intolerance. There are serious double standards at play here. It appears that racism and intolerance are only morally reprehensible concepts depending on who they are directed towards. The people who champion “reconciliation” and “decolonization” are not against colonization in and of itself – only its practice by certain groups. As opportunists who have made a business out of politicizing their savior complexes, they exploit the masses’ vulnerability to emotional manipulation, eliciting their support by articulating themselves as warriors in a noble crusade against the group that is, for now, easiest to portray as the monolithic and oppressive majority; European Canadians. You never see them address the indifference of the Chinese in Vancouver towards the plight of indigenous peoples, as the Chinese continue to transform Vancouver into a satellite enclave of China. You never see them address the indifference of the Greater Toronto Area’s Indian communities towards the plight of indigenous peoples, as their numbers swell and they demographically conquer formerly European neighborhoods such as Scarborough. Who will the brave crusaders of reconciliation and decolonization seek to vanquish next, when Europeans lose demographic primacy in Canada circa 2036?

As someone who has taken some time to read a few books on Canadian history, I know, as everyone should, that it was various European groups; the French, British, Scottish, Irish, Germans, Italians and so on, who were overwhelmingly (this is difficult to overstate) responsible for both the design and the physical construction of Canada as a functional nation state; a place worth immigrating to in the first place. Prior to the founding of Canada as a safe and cohesive country, its geography was nothing more than untamed wilderness inhabited by various stone age tribes, who were known to wage war between each other in barbaric fashion. Ample evidence of slavery, cannibalism and even genocide have been uncovered across various parts of the American continent, north and south, pre-dating the arrival of Europeans. Despite their gradual emancipation from a stone age way of life, assimilation into modern civilization has not proven wholly successful for indigenous peoples, who are over-represented in substance abuse, missing persons and incarceration rates. Such a paradigm shift as they have endured would not be handled well by any people. Nonetheless, “reconciliation” will not go beyond kind words for them. It is ultimately up to them to elevate their status in Canadian society, because apart from a handful of benefits in the form of government grants, tax breaks and exemptions, hardly anyone is lined up to help them.

The reality is that the various leftist radical types who advocate “reconciliation” and “decolonization” are pawns who embody the useful idiot archetype. In exchange for a sense of self-actualization and moral affirmation, they fulfill an implicit alliance with the Canadian establishment as defacto enforcers and evangelists of liberal capitalist hegemony, with sprinkles of socialism to placate. The central planners and social engineers of Canada regard “Canadian identity” as an ambiguous label for the citizenry; interchangeable units of economic exchange. Thus, mass immigration serves to import labor, tax payers and voters in an infinite economic growth scheme, regardless of the detrimental effects on the cultural, ethnic and demographic integrity of European Canada. How will indigenous peoples fare any better from this process?

At this point, nobody can reasonably deny the inevitability of awkward discourse and socio-political tensions, uncomfortable at best, inciteful at worst, that will characterize the future of Canada. It will certainly become increasingly necessary that historical revisionism is undertaken to reconcile a future demographic that starkly contrasts against the historical identity of the nation and its founders. The ambiguous definition of what it means to be “Canadian” will fall under increasing scrutiny, and whether or not liberal ideologues can successfully defend against the ever-growing pressure of nationalists, identitarians and disparate group interests, remains to be seen. We are a unique country, in that the indigenous peoples having dwindled from 100% of Canada’s population half a millennia ago, to 4% today, is regarded as the unjustly fruits of oppression, but Europeans decreasing from 98% of the population during Confederation in 1867, or 96% as recently as 1971, to a projected ~20% by the turn of this century?

Well, as many here in Canada would say, that is “progress”.

The Internet of Things (IoT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) is coming. This is fact, there is no avoiding it. A technological paradigm shift where all electronics, outfitted with various types of sensory hardware, are interconnected, facilitating the seamless exchange of information. Your television, your smart watch, your mattress, the fucking toaster. Part of the information involved in this ecosystem will be your conversations, recorded, stored in gigantic databases, deciphered by advanced speech recognition software and then categorized according to subject matter, political views and psychological profile. This information will be aggregated to formulate accurate “heat map” visualizations of broader regional profiles according to the aforementioned criteria. This will allow the establishment to efficiently divert state attention to where it is needed for the purpose of social engineering. Maintenance of the self-sustaining system will become as simple as watering plants in the garden. Dissenters can be shut down via mouse click: accounts and services frozen. Social, financial and professional sanctions, and the possibility of involuntary “rehabilitation”. “Progress” and “Equality” will become the greatest pretexts of the 21st century.
Sounds like paranoid schizophrenia, right? Ironically that perception is exactly the sentiment of skepticism on which this concept manifests into reality. The multinational trillion dollar corporations and economic/political elite are pulling for your apathy. Consent to the interests of the ruling class will BE the baseline reference of normality, it will literally *BE the ethos* – the guiding principle, the guiding spirit, the guiding ideal to aspire towards. The pervasive, underlying world view of society at large will be molded towards a magnitude of collectivism never before seen in history, all under the banner of “Individualism”. Your life experience will be relegated to a social credit score (China is implementing this by 2020 – mandatory), federally issued/regulated digital token ledger(s) on the block chain, and the pre-packaged, marketed products and experiences that you can purchase with it (provided your social credit score meets the criteria). You will, fundamentally, have little to no agency unless you completely drop out of the system, in which case your rights might then not be recognized by the state, and you will essentially be considered a useless, disposable asset (non-taxable). Roughly predicting, this will be fully implemented by 2040.
There are historical precedents for all of this, but the rapid advancement of technology is going to accelerate and concentrate it. Facebook already collects and sells your data (likes, interests, groups joined etc) to corporations for marketing purposes. Who knows what else? There’s a reason Mark Zuckerberg was visibly extremely anxious when asked about privacy in a public and recorded setting. The inquiry was like pointing at the tip of an iceberg, but it exacerbated HIS particularly detailed and evidently uncomfortable understanding of the magnitude and implications of Facebook’s potential for (and practice of) violation of privacy. And that’s just Facebook – do you really think it ends there?

How to manage subject populations: A basic primer for the globalist elite class

1. Destroy the people
2. Destroy the nation

3. Achieve the creation of an easily manipulable global consumer base.

How is this achieved? Use every major influential medium at your disposal (Academia/Institutions/Publications, Media, Pop Culture, Film/Television) to ideologically condition subject population(s) over the course of generations, to enjoy both the process as applied to them, as well as the voluntary act, of deconstructing the historical, cultural, and ethnic foundations of their identity. The most advanced state of this conditioning is observed in its capacity for self-sustainability as demonstrated by the willingness of its subjects.

The following can not be stressed enough: By entrenching this ideological subversion within an artificial framework of morality that is, remarkably, at odds with common sense, and ancient patterns seen in nature, evolution and biology, you create a self-sustaining system. A “matrix effect”, where its subjects are now doing the heavy lifting for you. They not only enjoy deconstructing themselves, they attack others for not doing the same.

Everyone wants to view themselves in a positive light. Nobody wants to feel that they are not a good, moral person. This self-reflection weighs on our conscience, for some more than others. Most of us want to fit in, to be part of something greater than ourselves that is seen as “good” and worth pursuing. We fear social rejection. Because of this, we often feel that we have no choice but to play by the rules of the environment we find ourselves within. This environment isn’t only physical, it’s social, it’s political, and it has constraints, boundaries, “no-go” zones, just like a physical environment. Much of these “rules” are artificial. They are artificially constructed and reinforced over a long time by people who don’t have your best interests in mind (though they claim to for good optics and PR). They are clever, they have put the tools for navigating the environment of life in front of you to use in such a way that is conducive to the proliferation of their own success. Not only that, but if you break the rules, your fellow “players” will often turn on you. They’ve been trained to, just as you’ve been trained to turn on them. These rules are carefully rooted in an artificial framework of morality that rewards people for playing by them with a sense of self-affirmation, while encouraging them to attack others who don’t. What are these rules?

The Law Council of Upper Canada just sent a memo to every lawyer in Ontario, which gives us a clue. That they should submit a written endorsement of the following values to exemplify in their legal practice: Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. These concepts are fundamentally ideological, in that they are not generally observed in nature, at least not in the way that we see them applied within human societies, despite our being a part of nature and its systems. Intricate models of reasoning and maintenance are required to sustain them.

They are also well-suited to be used as pretexts. A pretext is anything that can be used as masking agent to hide the true, underlying motive(s) behind something. It’s intuitively reasonable to state that Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion are all agreeable concepts at face value, isn’t it? They do not imply the infliction of harm, or do they? Not upon anyone who espouses them as sacred doctrine of enlightenment, but for those who don’t? There is Hell to pay.

And so the foundation of the self-sustaining system of ideological subversion is built with these pretexts. Generations of ideological conditioning through the media and schools, coupled with cherry-picked historical precedents that support its narrative, have given way to a readily available set of terms that can be used to slander and silence dissidents. Everyone is familiar with these terms: Racist, Fascist, Bigot, Intolerant, Xenophobe(ic), Far-Right, Nazi, Hate. Sometimes more nuanced examples such as “Fear” and “Ignorance” are used, but the function is all the same. Anyone who challenges the program of the elite class to use hyper-individualism at a micro level to achieve consolidated collectivism at a macro (global) level, stands to receive these searing brands. Antifa, and other leftist radicals, will employ violence to defend this program, while, ironically, claiming to be against its authors. Your friends, family, and neighbors will shun you if you are found to oppose this program. This is the self-sustaining system.

If you are a white European, the deconstruction of the historical, cultural, and racial foundations of your identity has been enshrined as a moral imperative, because it stands in the way of achieving a globalist consumer utopia where distinction is seen as a force of oppression that must be mitigated, if not erased.

In-group preference is discouraged among the masses, while practiced by the elite.

Thor and Loki begin their journey to Giant Land (Gylfaginning, The Prose Edda)

“Tell me, has Thor never been in a situation where he encountered so much strength and power that he was overwhelmed by might or magic superior to his own?”

High replied, ‘I expect that there are few others who could answer your question, even though many situations have seemed difficult to Thor. Although some things, because of their power or their strength, have prevented Thor from being victorious, there is no need to tell about them, not least because everybody ought to keep in mind that there are so many examples where Thor is the mightiest.’

Then Gangleri said, “It seems to me that this time I have asked something that no one can answer.”

Just-as-High replied, ‘we have heard reports that seem unreliable to us, yet here, close by, sits the man who can give a true account. You can trust what he says because he has never spoken falsely, and he will not start now.’

‘Then Gangleri responded: “I will stand here and listen for a solution. Otherwise I call you beaten, because you are unable to answer my question.”

Third then spoke, ‘It is obvious that he wants to know these tales, even though we take no pleasure in telling them. You, however, must now keep quiet.’

‘It started when Thor the Charioteer was travelling with his goats, accompanied by the god called Loki. Towards dusk they came to the house of a farmer and arranged lodging for the night. In the evening Thor took his goats and slaughtered them both. They were then flayed and carried to the pot. After they had been cooked, Thor and his companions sat down to their evening meal. Thor invited the farmer and his wife and children to join him. The farmer’s son was named Thjalfi and his daughter was Roskva. Next Thor spread out the goatskins away from the fire and said that the farmer and his household should throw the bones on to the skins. Thjalfi, the farmer’s son, took the thigh bone of one of the goats and, wedging in his knife, broke the bone to reach the marrow.’

‘Thor stayed the night, and just before dawn he got up and dressed. He reached for his hammer Mjollnir and, lifting it up, consecrated the goatskins. The goats stood up, but one of them was lame in its hind leg. Thor noticed this and suspected that the farmer or one of his household has mistreated the goat’s bones. Then he realized that its thigh bone was broken, and there is no need to make a long story of it. Everybody can imagine how frightened the farmer became as he watched Thor’s eyebrows sink down low over his eyes. The small part of Thor’s eyes that was visible was a sight that alone could have killed. Thor’s hand clenched the shaft of the hammer until his knuckles whitened. As might be expected, the farmer and all his household began to wail. Begging for mercy, they offered in return everything they owned. When Thor saw their fear, his anger passed. Calming down, he took from them their children, Thjalfi and Roskva, as compensation. They became Thor’s bond servants and follow him ever since.’

Thor encounters Skrymir in the forest

‘Thor left the goats behind and began the trip east into Giant Land, all the way to the sea. From there he continued out over the deep ocean. When he came to land he went ashore, and with him were Loki, Thjalfi and Roskva. After they had traveled a little while they came to a large forest. They continued walking that whole day until dark. Thjalfi, who was faster than anybody else, carried Thor’s food bag. They were low on supplies.’

‘When it became dark they looked for a place to spend the night and came across a very large hall. At one end was a door as wide as the hall itself, where they sought quarters for the evening. But in the middle of the night there was a powerful earthquake; the ground heaved under them and the house shook. Thor stood up and called to his companions. They searched and found a side room on the right, towards the middle of the hall, and they went in. Thor placed himself in the doorway, and the others, who were scared, stayed behind him further inside. Thor held the hammer by its handle, intending to defend himself. Then they heard a loud noise and a roaring din.’

‘At sunrise, Thor went outside and saw a man lying in the forest a short distance from him. The man snored heavily as he slept, and he was not little. Thor then thought he understood the noise he had heard during the night. He put on his belt of strength, and divine power began to swell in him. But just at that moment the man awoke and quickly stood up. It is said that for once Thor was too startled to strike with the hammer. Instead he asked the man his name, and the other called himself Skrymir.’

‘”And I do not need,” he said, “to ask your name. I know you are Thor of the Æsir. But, have you dragged away my glove?”‘

‘Skrymir then reached out and picked up his glove. Thor now saw that during the night he had mistaken this glove for a hall. As for the side room, that was the glove’s thumb. Skrymir asked if Thor wanted to have his company on the journey, and Thor said yes. Then Skrymir took his food bag, untied it, and started to eat his breakfast. Thor and his companions did the same thing elsewhere. Skrymir next suggested that they pool their provisions, and Thor agreed. Skrymir tied together all their provisions in one bag and threw it over his shoulder. He went ahead during the day, taking rather large strides. Later, towards evening, Skrymir found them a place for the night under a great oak tree. Skrymir then told Thor that he wanted to lie down to sleep – “but you take the food bag and prepare your evening meal.”‘

‘Next Skrymir fell asleep, snoring loudly, and Thor took the food bag, intending to untie it. There is this to tell, which may seem unbelievable, but Thor could not untie a single knot, nor was he able to loosen any of the straps. None was any looser than when he started. When Thor realized that his effort was being wasted, he became angry. Gripping the hammer Mjollnir with both hands, he strode with one foot out to where Skrymir lay and struck him on his head. But Skrymir awoke and asked whether a leaf from the tree had fallen on his head and whether they had eaten and were preparing to bed down. Thor replied that they were getting ready to go to sleep. They then moved to a place under another oak, and it can truly be said that it was not possible to sleep without fear.’

‘In the middle of the night Thor could hear that Skrymir was sleeping soundly, the forest thundering with the sound of his snoring. Thor stood up and went over to him. Quickly he raised the hammer and with a hard blow struck Skrymir at the midpoint of his skull. He felt the hammer sink deeply into the head. But at that instant Skrymir awoke and said: “What now? Has some acorn fallen on my head? What’s new with you, Thor?”‘

‘Thor quickly moved back and said that he had just awakened, adding that it was the middle of the night and there was still time to sleep. Then Thor resolved that, if he could get close enough to strike a third blow, he would arrange matters so that this meeting would be their last one.’

‘Thor now lay awake watching for Skrymir to fall asleep. A little before dawn, hearing that Skrymir was sleeping, Thor stood up and, running towards Skrymir, raised his hammer and, with all his might, struck Skrymir on the temple. The hammer sank up to its shaft, but then Skrymir sat up, brushed off the side of his head, and asked:

‘”Are there some birds sitting in the tree above me? It seemed to me as I awoke that some leaves or twigs from the branches had fallen on my head. Are you awake, Thor? It is time to get up and get dressed. You don’t have a long way to go to reach the stronghold, which is called Utgard. I have heard you whispering among yourselves that I am no small man, and you will see still larger men if you go to Utgard. Now I will give you some good advice: do not act arrogantly. The retainers of Utgarda-Loki will not tolerate bragging from such small fry as you. Your other choice is to turn back, and in my opinion that would be the best thing for you to do. But if you intend to continue, then head for the east. My path now leads me northward to those mountains that you can now see.”‘

‘Skrymir took the food bag and threw it on his back. He turned sharply and headed north into the forest, leaving the others. In this parting, there is no report that the Æsir mentioned they were looking forward to meeting him again.’

Thor reaches the stronghold of Utgarda-Loki

‘Thor and his companions continued on their journey, traveling until midday. Then they saw a fortress standing on a plain, and it was so big that in order to see over it they had to bend their necks all the way back. They approached the fortress, but the front entrance gate was shut. Thor went to the gate and tried to open it, but after struggling to open the stronghold, they finally had to squeeze between the bars. Entering in his way, they saw a large hall and approached it. The door was open, and inside they saw many people sitting on two benches; most of them were rather large.’

‘They went before the king, Utgarda-Loki, and greeted him, but he took his time in noticing them. Then he said, grinning through his teeth: “News travels slowly front distant parts, but am I wrong in thinking that this little fellow is Thor the Charioteer? Surely there is more to you than meets the eye. Tell me, companions, in what skills do you think you are capable of competing? No one can stay here with us who does not have some skills or knowledge greater than other men.”‘

‘Then he who stood at the back of the group, the one called Loki, spoke up: “I have skill in which I am ready to be tested. No one here in the hall will prove quicker than I am at eating his food.”‘

‘Utgarda-Loki answered, “That would be an accomplishment, if you are up to it, and feats such as that will be put to the test.”‘

‘Next he called out to the end of the bench to the one who was called Logi [Fire] and told him to come forward on to the floor and pit himself against Loki. Then a trough filled with meat was brought in and set on the hall floor. Loki placed himself at one end and Logi at the other. Each began to eat as fast as he could, and they met in the middle of the trough. Loki had eaten all the meat from the bones, but Logi had eaten not only the meat but also the bones and even the trough. To everyone it seemed that Loki had lost the contest.’

‘Then Utgarda-Loki asked in what the youngster could compete. Thjalfi replied that he would run a race against whomever Utgarda-Loki chose. Utgarda-Loki called that a fine sport, but said that Thjalfi would have to be very quick if he intended to win. Utgarda-Loki made it clear that the matter would quickly be put to the test. Next Utgarda-Loki stood up and went outside where there was a good running course over the flat plain. He called a little fellow named Hugi to come to him and ordered him to run a race with Thjalfi. They ran the first race, and Hugi was so far in the lead that he turned around at the end and faced his opponent.’

‘Then Utgarda-Loki said, “Thjalfi, you will need to exert yourself more if you are to win the contest. Yet it is true that no one else has come here who seemed to me faster on his feet than you.”‘

‘Then they began to race for a second time. When Hugi came to the end of the course he turned around, but Thjalfi was behind him by the distance of a long bow shot.’

‘Utgarda-Loki then said: “I think Thjalfi knows how to run a good race, but I have no faith that he will win. Now comes the test; let them run the third race.” When Hugi reached the end of the race and turned around, Thjalfi had not even reached the midpoint of the course. Everyone then said that the contest was over.

‘Utgarda-Loki asked Thor what feat he wanted to show them, as so many tales were told about his exploits. Thor answered that he would most like to pit himself against someone in drinking. Utgarda-Loki said that this contest could easily be arranged. He went into the hall and called to his cupbearer, telling him to bring the feasting horn from which his retainers usually drank. The cupbearer quickly brought the horn and placed it in Thor’s hand.’

‘Then Utgarda-Loki said, “It is thought that drinking from this horn is well done if it is emptied in one drink. Some drain it in two, but no one is such a small-time drinker that he cannot finish it in three.”‘

‘Thor eyed the horn, and it did not seem to very large, although it was rather long. He was quite thirsty and began to drink, swallowing hugely and thinking that it would not be necessary to bend himself over the horn more than once. When he had drunk as much as he could, he bent back from the horn and looked in to see how much drink remained. It seemed to him that the level in the horn was only slightly lower than it had been before.’

‘Utgarda-Loki then said, “Good drinking, although not all that much. I would not have believed it if I had been told that Thor of the Æsir would not have drunk more, but I know that you will drain it in a second drink.”‘

‘Thor gave no reply but put the horn to his mouth and resolved to take a larger drink. He struggled with it as long as he could hold his breath and noticed that he could not lift up the bottom of the horn as much as he would have liked. When he lowered the horn from his mouth and looked in, it seemed to him that the level had gone down even less than it had in the first try, although there was now enough space at the top of the horn above the liquid to carry the drink without spilling it.’

‘Utgarda-Loki asked, “What not, Thor? Are you going to be so brave that you will take one sip more than is good for you? It seems to me that if you want to take a third drink from the horn, then it will have to be the biggest. But among us here, you will not be known as great a man as the Æsir call you, unless you give a better account of yourself in other contests than it seems to me you are doing in this one.”‘

‘Then Thor grew angry. Placing the horn to his mouth, he drank with all his might, continuing on as long as he could. When he looked into the horn he could see at least some difference. Then he gave the horn back and would drink mo more.’

‘Utgarda-Loki said, “Clearly your strength is not as great as we thought, but will you still try your hand in other contests? It is obvious that you are not going to succeed here.”‘

‘Thor replied: “I will make a try at still another game. But when I was home among the Æsir, I would have found it strange if such drinks were called little. What sort of contest will you offer me now?”‘

‘Utgarda-Loki replied, “Here among us, little boys do something that is thought a rather small matter: they lift my cat off the ground. But I would have thought it possible to propose such a think to Thor of the Æsir if I had not already seen that your strength is much less than I had thought.”‘

‘Now a grey cat, and rather a large one, jumped out on to the floor of the hall. Thor approached it, and, placing his hand under the middle of the belly, started to lift up the cat. But as much as Thor raised his hand the cat arched its back. When Thor had reached as high as he could, one of the cat’s paws was lifted off the ground. Beyond this effort, Thor could do no more.’

‘Then Utgarda-Loki said, “This contest has gone as I expected it would. The cat is rather large, whereas Thor is short and small compared with the larger men among us here.”‘

‘Thor replied, “Although you call me little, let someone come forward and wrestle with me! Now I am angry!”‘

‘Utgarda-Loki looked over the benches and replied, “Here inside, I do not see any man who would find it dignified to wrestle with you.” Then he went on, “But wait, first let us see. Call my nurse, the old woman Elli, to come here, and let Thor wrestle with her, if he wants to. She has thrown to the ground men who seem to me to be no less strong than Thor.”‘

‘Next an old woman walked into the hall. Utgarda-Loki said she should wrestle with Thor of the Æsir. The story is not long to tell. The match went this way: the more Thor threw his strength into the grappling, the more steadfastly she stood her ground. Then the old crone showed her skill. Thor lost his footing and the contest grew fiercer. It was not long before Thor fell to one knee. Then Utgarda-Loki intervened. He told them to stop the contest, saying that there was no need for Thor to challenge others to wrestle in his hall. By then it was late at night. Utgarda-Loki showed Thor and his companions to places on the benches, and there they were treated well for the rest of the night.

Utgarda-Loki reveals that Thor was deceived

‘In the morning, at first light, Thor and his companions stood up, dressed, and prepared to leave. Utgarda-Loki then came in and had a table set for them. There was no lack of hospitality as to food or drink. When they finished eating they turned to leave. Utgarda-Loki stayed with them, accompanying them as they left the fortress. At their parting, Utgarda-Loki asked Thor how he thought the trip had gone and whether Thor had ever met a man more powerful. Thor replied that he could not deny that he had been seriously dishonored in their encounter: “Moreover, I know that you will say that I am a person of little account and that galls me.”‘

‘And Utgarda-Loki replied, “Now that you are out of the fortress, I will tell you the truth, for, if I live and am the one to decide, you will never enter it again. On my word, I can assure you, that you would never have been allowed to enter if I had known in advance that you had so much power in you, because you nearly brought disaster upon us. I have tricked you with magical shape-changings, as I did the first time when I found you in the forest. I am the one you met there. And when you tried to untie the food bag, you were unable to find where to undo it, because I had fastened it with iron wire. When you next struck me three times with the hammer, the first was the least, yet it was so powerful that it would have killed me had it found its mark. But when you saw a flat-topped mountain near my hall with three square-shaped valleys in it, one deeper than the others, these were the marks of your hammer. I had moved this flat topped mountain in front of your blows, but you did not see me doing it. It was the same when your companions contested with my retainers. And so it was in the first contest undertaken by Loki. He was very hungry and he ate quickly. But the one called Logi was wildfire itself, and he burned the trough no less quickly than the meat. When Thjalfi ran against the one called Hugi, that was my mind, and Thjalfi could not be expected to compete with its speed. When you drank from the horn, you thought it was slow going, but on my word that was a miracle I would never have believed could happen. The other end of the horn, which you could not see, was out in the ocean. When you come to the ocean you will see how much your drinking lowered it. This is now known as the tides.”‘

‘Utgarda-Loki has still more to say: “I thought it no less a feat when you lifted the cat. Truly all those who saw you raise one of the cat’s paws off the ground grew fearful, because that cat was not what it seemed to be. It was the Midgard Serpent, which encircles all lands, and from head to tail its length is just enough to round the earth. But you pulled him up so high that he almost reached the sky.”‘

‘”It, too, was a real wonder that you remained on your feet for so long during the wrestling. You fell no more than on to one knee, as you struggled with the crone Elli [Old Age], and no one accomplishes that after reaching the point where old age beckons, because no one overcomes Old Age. As we part, I can truthfully say that it would be better for us both if you never come again to meet me. Next time I will defend my stronghold with similar or other trickery, so that you will not get me into your power.”‘

‘When Thor heard this account, he gripped his hammer and raised it into the air. But, when he was was ready to strike, Utgarda-Loki was nowhere to be seen. Then Thor returned to the fortress, intending to destroy it. There he saw a broad, beautiful plain, but no stronghold. Then, turning back, he journeyed until he came once again to Thrudvangar. In truth, it can be said that from then on he was determined to find a way to confront the Midgard Serpent, and later on that happened.’

‘Now I believe that no one else could have given you a truer account of this journey by Thor.’

The Exploitation of Power Struggles

It’s not necessarily so much about the relationship between oppressor and oppressed, as it is the potential for exploiting and leveraging these natural or systemic struggles from a tertiary position for the purpose of furthering one’s own ends.

Individuals derive a sense of self-actualization from appropriating and responding to the struggle and suffering of others. Conglomerates improve their social capital by doing the same thing (think public relations, advertisements). You may have heard these acts referred to as virtue signaling, or moral posturing. This is the mechanism that explains why social justice warriors and their varieties are in most cases driven by fundamentally selfish motivations. It also explains why they are destructive, because it empowers them with the moral authority and agency (in accordance with the uninspired consensus of the status quo/Overton window) to attack any individual or entity that doesn’t meet their subjective and often arbitrary standards of what is “just” and “fair”.

What’s really fascinating, though, is when one or many individuals inadvertently become pawns in a scheme greater than themselves. The term “useful idiot(s)” comes into play, and in this case, refers to those (SJW’s, liberal protesters, Antifa, etc) whose actions and the results of which become funneled upwards, and are disproportionately beneficial not to themselves, but rather some institution with a political agenda. I imagine dimly lit rooms with long tables surrounded by shadowy figures, who rub their hands together, reveling in the satisfaction of knowing that the “kind”, “just”, and “benevolent” masses are doing the heavy lifting for them.

What we are left with, ironically, is a caste of slave drivers who are unaware that they are slave drivers, nonetheless working for their masters; the unseen class of top-level oppressors.

Election Day in France


The management class successfully tricked you into deriving moral affirmation from the act of supporting the erosion of your history and heritage, through their use of economic pretexts, various logical fallacies such as unrefined emotional appeal and moral equivalency, as if efforts to preserve and ensure the continuity of the cultural, ethnic, historical, demographic, and geographic basis of one’s identity are “literally Hitler!”, and the systematic implementation of radically unchecked and unbalanced liberal and progressive ideologies into the institutional structure of the nation for the purpose of creating a social climate that is conducive to the proliferation of hyper-capitalism on a global scale to the benefit of society’s elite class of the social hierarchy, while those who constitute the deliberately consolidated mass of consumers were not conscientious enough to realize that their idea of being a “good”, “moral”, and “normal” person was in many ways actually a carefully drafted blueprint that they were prescribed to follow for the effect of strengthening someone else’s capital and in-group strategy, while weakening their own.

They get off so hard when you discount this concept as a “right-wing conspiracy theory”, because you’re doing their work for free. Radicalized forms of liberalism and progressivism are primary mediums of the establishment’s conduct. These ideologies and their constituents can be easily leveraged as pretexts to achieving elite-model forms of economic prosperity, because they intuitively appeal to the masses’ evolutionarily hardwired penchant for minimal resistance and immediate gratification, thus allowing the few to elicit the support of the many with relative ease. Few consider the cost of “progress”. Regressive progress is a counterintuitive concept that international corporations and oligarchs want to keep obfuscated. To them, there’s nothing greater than the ability to sell to a consumer base any variety of delicious poisons that keeps them coming back for more. Their wet dream is to program a moral and ethics-based Pavlovian response in people to not only desire, but enjoy the transition into rootless, identity-robbed, blank and interchangeable units of economic exchange.

Don’t be a useful idiot.

Big Lies: How Globalists use pretexts to destroy nations

When governments cite “low birth rates” and an “ageing population” when they call for mass foreign immigration, please be informed that these are pretexts. A pretext is when you cite a reason for doing something that isn’t actually the real reason. I’ve been following geopolitics in Europe for a while now, and have seen (and am still seeing) many EU officials parroting this rhetoric. It’s important to understand that these politicians do not have the interests of the average every day citizen in mind. They are corrupt sellouts who are beholden to clandestine globalist interests. They are colluding to apply the model of corporate consolidation to different people and nation states for the sake of economic efficiency, because when these things, in all their unique beauty, are reduced to interchangeable blank slate units of economic exchange, their jobs as members of the management class become much easier.

Deconstructing their pretexts is easy. If low birth rates and an ageing population really are such urgent issues that justify the mass foreign immigration that they call for, all one needs to do is consider a few things.

On average, in western countries it costs over 10 times more to integrate people of foreign background than it does people of similar background. People of foreign descent are also over-represented within social welfare usage statistics. If these statistics aren’t true, then you’re depleting donor nations of their best and brightest in a one-sided exchange that harms them in the long term. There are many, many other examples of the negative effects of this, such as culture clash, and the formation of insular enclaves within society that reduce civic participation, trust, and communication. I encourage you to do your own research on all of the aforementioned points.

Rather than systematically implementing population replacement in draconian fashion under the cover of pretexts, the required funding (which is absolutely massive) can rather be allocated towards providing state-subsidized incentives for stimulating healthy birth rates across EU member states. Interestingly, there are historical precedents for this, but in Europe’s case they’re not always politically correct.

Back in the 1930’s National Socialist Germany was doing this. The Germans were having so many babies, that Hitler became obsessed with the acquisition of “Lebensraum”, meaning “living space”, and that was part of the reason why Germany began invading neighboring countries. Because the allies won the war and subsequently ingrained their narrative within western consciousness, one might as well argue that virtually everything associated with German National Socialism has thus become synonymous with the universal definition of evil. As a result, the not so far-fetched idea of governments literally paying their citizens to have sex and bear economically viable numbers of offspring (I know, so radical, right? So extremist™) has become a sort of taboo by association.

The gut reaction to this from most people is typical and shortsighted. It’s usually something along the lines of “omg u *insert usual buzzword* i’m calling the police please send help!”. They’re completely missing the point, reacting from base emotional whim, and in doing so, doing the work of the globalist establishment. Corporations, big government and institutions love when you rush to defend their weaponized hyper-liberal orthodoxy. They want you to be a cog in their self-maintaining machine. Don’t be a useful idiot.

The takeaway from this isn’t “Hitler was right, let’s restore the Third Reich!”. The point is a universal truth equally applicable to any given example of a nation; that in this case, the future of Western Civilization doesn’t lay in foreigner’s wombs. The notion that Western Civilization has to partake in such one-sided exchanges out of necessity if it is to survive in any meaningful sense, might as well be considered a form of madness. When it comes to population replacement via mass immigration, you don’t see the donor nations asking for mass influxes of European migration to secure the future of their country. If you can’t see how actually believing the pretext-laden rhetoric of those traitorous EU officials is a completely backwards and defeatist way of thinking, I feel sorry for you. You should feel sorry for yourself for having allowed yourself to be conned into believing a big lie.

Meditations on the end-game of Liberals and the Left

Walls divide, but they also preserve. We run our mouths about tolerance, virtues, and morality. We also use them to destroy matter and consume life.

Liberals and leftists can be just as polarizing. They want a world characterized by radical egalitarianism, absolute tolerance, and inclusiveness, and yet they’re apt to resort to violence and savagery when others don’t bend the knee to accommodate their idyllic world view. This is because their sense of moral supremacy, which in turn derives from their self-righteous belief that they are “right” in accordance with objective reality, grants them entitlement and allows them to suspend decency in favor of doing whatever it takes to achieve and maintain the way they think things ought to be. I would argue that the main driving force of their cause is a sincere desire to violently defend  weakness, and perpetuate low-stress/low-resistance lifestyles.

My problem with this is that proponents of this philosophy have no clear vision of an end game. While the “level playing field” they desire is arguably a good environment to facilitate collaboration, it also fosters competition, and by extension, domestic conflict, which is of course undesirable. Furthermore, the scary thing about that, is that if their level playing field doesn’t lead to conflict, then you have a new problem to deal with altogether. Integration requires the removal and suppression of borders, those points of demarcation that clearly distinguish peoples and cultures. One would be hard-pressed to argue that multiculturalism and diversity do not inevitably see to the erosion of distinction, for when in close contact for long periods of time, such things as peoples and cultures inevitably change each other in a mutual exchange. This leads to an eventual “leveling out”, a bell curve distribution of normality that defies the very “diversity” that liberals and leftists claim to embrace and aspire to. If this outcome is not true, then the only alternative remaining to deduce is that of the former assertion. That tribalism and in-group preferential behavior is so innately part of us, that social friction from insular co-habitation in an inevitability. This kind of power struggle is not immune to the eventual outcome of “victory”, by way of force, or by way of majority influence. At least one or more parties involved have to compromise. Someone has to lose ground.

When liberals and leftists fight for “equality”, what they’re really fighting for is a paradigm of existence that both facilitates and perpetuates conflict and chaos. Traditionalists, conservatives, and right-wingers differ from this in that they support the implementation of checks and balances in order to assure the preservation and continuity of ways of life. This can be referred to as order, something that many liberals, leftists, (as well as their anarchist/Antifa counterparts) seem to have an aversion to.


Over two millennia ago, Sun Tzu wrote on the importance of forming strong alliances. Alliances have been the hallmark of virtually every successful military campaign in history, whether on a micro level from soldier to soldier, or the macro between different states. Sun Tzu wrote that alliances must be handled in a dynamic fashion, as circumstances are always changing, therefore it is important to recognize when alliances have outgrown their usefulness. Nonetheless, they must be sought in order to guarantee maximum effectiveness in the pursuit of conquest. In operations of any nature, collaboration introduces more variables, more ways of doing things, and therefore greater results. This applies not only in the context of war and politics, but other facets of life such as business or personal social life.

Unfortunately the potential of alliances often goes overlooked. There are many organizations that in spite of their mutual interests with other organizations like them, continue to operate in an insular fashion. This is perhaps primarily the result of stubbornness and poor communication. What sense is there in overlooking the opportunity to support others who are in a position to reciprocate, and thus form synergistic partnerships? And yet this is exactly what I am seeing to some degree within the Canadian traditional/right/nationalist scene. It’s not as bad as it could be, there are early-stage signs of networking and collaboration coming into motion. In fact, even now I would speculate that the long-term prognosis is good, because I have personally witnessed several instances of this taking place. But I will say, it’s about time. There is still much progress to be made.

Here in Canada, but particularly within the major metropolitan city zones of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), we live within the “belly of the beast”. The “beast” being the cosmopolitan machine of Cultural Marxism that weaves and destructively overlaps economic fluidity with historically rooted and tangible things like race, culture, and heritage. If you want to learn more about Cultural Marxism, this is a good starting reference. The pervasive nature of the status quo’s belief in radical egalitarianism is an all-encompassing ethos, however artificial and uprooted from reality it may be. It is reflected in almost every major form of cultural perpetuation. The media, institutions, and political establishment endorse it dogmatically as a rule.

This is the context within which the aforementioned traditional/right/nationalists within Canada operate against. This is why alliances are important. While it is important for individuals and the organizations they comprise to avoid the risk of becoming centralized, and therefore easy to target, the inverse of this must also be avoided. Numerous islands of incohesive tangents can not effectuate the kind of change necessary to ward the threat of Cultural Marxism. If the West is to retain its character, it must be undertaken by those willing and able to champion the art of communication and diplomacy.

In closing, I would emphasize the importance of practicing the weeding out of those who serve only to discredit the struggle against Cultural Marxism. The establishment, media, and institutions are always looking for convenient straw men, that is, useful idiots who serve as liabilities to be exploited to the detriment of the traditional/right/nationalist ethos. It is imperative that care be taken in the approach and vetting of those who are intended to serve in the pursuit of ideals greater than oneself.

The 2016 American Presidential Election

Those who avoid politics deserve to be ruled by their inferiors. That having been said, this cycle of the American election is unfortunate, in that neither side of the political spectrum has a particularly viable candidate.

There is a saying though, and it goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Anyone who has put in at least a small amount of effort will know that Hillary is the biggest anti-American globalist shill possible. Her top five campaign donors are all radical neo-liberals beholden to foreign interests, among other commonalities that have historically not been aligned with American interests. Leaks confirm her desire for a world characterized by open borders and free trade. She has publicly lauded Angela Merkel’s nationally suicidal policy of border dissolution.

The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund, masquerading as a charity, used to launder money for illicit purposes. The BBC themselves report that of the 13 billion dollars raised internationally for the Haitian earthquake relief fund, only 10% went to the Haitian government and Haitian organizations. The rest went to various non-Haitian organizations. Hillary Clinton, herself, played a sizable role in overseeing how these funds were managed and diverted. The Clinton Foundation’s relatively modest portion of these contributions, 30 million, mirrored this in that much of the funds were sent to a number of companies receiving contracts in Haiti, who also happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI rightfully investigated her to discern whether or not she handled classified information on the private email server inside her New York home, located outside secure government facilities. This would be an illegal act, well outside the acceptable protocols for someone acting as a Secretary of State. She willfully, knowingly impeded this investigation by deleting around 33,000 emails during the process. This constitutes the obstruction of a federal investigation. What is she hiding? Again, let off the hook.

She’s been tied to complicity with pedophiles and accused rapists (Bill Clinton, numerous times).

I could go on, but I want to make a point. In accordance with the findings of numerous research studies conducted by neuroscientists across the world, it has been found that emotions and “gut feeling” play a sizable role in the decision making process. Think about how many Americans hold a short-sighted preoccupation with the novelty of seeing the first female president being elected. This is directly in line with the extreme progressiveness that the western (publicly acceptable) status quo has been indoctrinated with for decades now, but particularly the past ten years or so. For many, it’s not so much that Hillary actually IS the ideal candidate to lead the world’s greatest military power – she’s not – as much as it is the following:

This new, regressive social justice warrior reactionary-ism against the principles of nature and tradition, that is obsessed with revolting against her state-appointed straw man: Donald Trump. A man who is most-often maligned on the basis of his tone, mannerisms, approach, temperament, and things he says. Because in 2016, feelings are paramount above all.

But Hillary? The case against her is almost inverted, and based most often, not on trivialities, but on things she has actually DONE. Tonight we will all stand by and watch a little over half of a once great nation, collectively elect the woman who will continue them along the trajectory to social and demographic fragmentation.

The America we know today, as fleeting as it is, was not founded by immigrants – it was founded by colonists. There is a difference. Learn it, and then watch it fade away beyond the point of no return, as we tread on the ashes of the world our ancestors built, towards the creation of a brave new one. A world based on historical revisionism, lead by a plutocratic globalist hegemony bent on redefining your identity into a rootless consumer, not with loyalty to family or heritage, but to that of the state, who will have little in common with its new consolidated populace.