Causes of Quebec mosque terrorism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

My blame list for the Quebec mosque terrorism, in order of importance:

1. The increasingly unjust and authoritarian enforced class hierarchy in Canada, which attacks all in all of us: our very minds, families, communities, cultures, personalities, freedoms of expression, privacy, independence... using all the state institutions of education, media, law, enforcement, surveillance, health... (We become maintained zombies without independent thought or feeling.)
2. Together with Canada's vicious foreign policy of global exploitation and war aggression, aligned with US dominance-imposition mass crimes and military threats in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Eurasia...
3. Specifically, the Quebec state and corporate media (prominently including Radio Canada CBC) campaigns that constantly and heinously vilify Muslim cultural and political independence that is rightly critical of the Quebec state, as exemplified by the unending barrage against Adil Charkaoui [1].
4. The Canadian state use of "Security Certificates" that destroys Muslim families and communities across the country, and that serves the state's political and propaganda agendas without any societal benefit. (And the associated "security" assault-campaigns against Muslim communities.)

Endnote

[1] See my analysis of this example of many: Denis G. Rancourt, "Vicious media mobbing of Adil Charkaoui, in Quebec", Veterans Today, 2015-04-20.

Brutal reality about the immigration-policy motives of dominant states

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I'm going to express this controversial generalization.

The omnipresent propaganda of immigration is just that: propaganda. Immigration is virtually always solely to benefit the host country. It is never an act of charity, except incidentally for its propaganda value. Family reunification included.

Immigration reception by aggressor nations is a mechanism to recruit collaborators in geopolitical campaigns in some cases, economic policy in others, and an aggression by theft of human resources in still others. In addition, immigration loss is generally harmful to the attacked country, and as such can be a weapon of war. 

The question should not be how to "help" with immigration, which is a deceptive question, but rather how to stop covert and overt military and economic aggression led by the "free world", and how to actually help populations in the regions where they are devastated by both foreign regime-change designs and brutal globalist-led economic exploitation.

Impulsive Trump/Obama policies [1], therefore, if applied as actual bans, are harmful to the USA and will not last or even mostly not be implemented. Such is the cruel reality of empire dominance. Trump is a master manipulator of public sentiment but he will soon settle down regarding immigration.

Endnote

[1] See the excellent analysis: Seth J. Frantzan, "Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you", January 28, 2017.
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Socio-Political Analysis of the Racism Charge against Outing of Racism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

(This article was first published on Dissident Voice.)

When one is critical of the human-rights violations of the state of Israel, there follows a vehement charge of “antisemitism”. When one supports institutional measures to counter systemic racism, there follows a charge of “reverse racism”. And when a white person is critical of a black person’s apparent support for systemic racism, there again follows a charge of “racism”.

In all these examples, a charge of racism is levied in response to words used to criticize actual physical racism occurring on a spectrum from outright violations of personal safety to exclusion from status and resources.

The reason that such fallacious responses have sting is because there is a strong cultural taboo that racist language is as nefarious as violent physical racism itself. In present middle-class Western society, there is a pathological extreme intolerance against any expression that has cognitive similarity to racist expression.

The said taboo is not as present in the working-class because the economically stressed classes live a high degree of physical and status discrimination themselves. This discrimination is a higher priority to them than identity-tied system-ideology maintenance via personal investments in language policing.

The said taboo is poison because it precludes needed frank discussions and arguments about actual physical racism and hierarchical dominance. It also contributes to creating a class divide between those manipulated to adopt the identity politics of language purity and those who have less to gain from self-censorship and who “fucking need to speak”.

Thus, the taboo against racist and racist-sounding language is of great utility in enforcing an excessively totalitarian social hierarchy. Therefore, the said taboo is systemically promoted and enforced by major institutional instruments, including universities and the legal system.

In a healthy democratic society, free discussion between individuals and classes reigns and shapes a sustainable distribution of power and status. In a defective society, totalitarian encroachment is enabled by class divisions and by suppression of free expression. And there can be runaway encroachment when there are feedback pathologies such as when criticism of racism itself is reflexively tainted with the stigma of racism, or when social-media comments lead to terminations of employment, and so on. Excessive and widespread correctness policing is a recipe for disaster.

In that limited sense, the Trump and Brexit phenomena may well be expressions of natural societal repair mechanisms against runaway totalitarianism, rather than causal factors towards “fascism”. The said phenomena may be “indicators” of totalitarian encroachment by being indicators of responses against totalitarian encroachment (loss of democracy, globalization).

If so, the more the establishment bosses attempt to impose and leverage class-based containment against free expression and free political participation, the greater the danger of large future negative consequences for society as a whole.


Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. Read other articles by Denis at Dissident Voice.