One of our Canadian correspondents, Michael Monastyrskyj, has just started a blog called Dispatches from the Hogtown Front, Hogtown being a nickname for the multicultural city of Toronto. Sample post: The immigration (non-) debate is a test of Canadian democracy

On those few occasions when an intrepid Canadian ventures to suggest immigration policy should be changed, he almost always begins nervously with a demeaning ritual statement to the effect that, of course, his opinions have nothing to do with race. Having sacrificed his dignity to the insatiably ravenous gods of diversity and pseudo-tolerance, he then proceeds to ever so gingerly suggest tightening up the system in one way or another. After which, he is still called a racist.

We’ve added it to the blogroll, and suggest you give it a look.

Re “Rosa Parks: Yawn or Barf?” - In my opinion, the way VDARE.com will be successful is to focus on immigration issues. If you want to blast someone do it on the subject of immigration.

The key constituency to which Rosa Parks was able to appeal were “Disadvantaged Democrats”–a heavily black and poor voting group. These folks are also more opposed to immigration than any major GOP voting group.

I’m a VDARE.com contributor, but I consider myself a leftist. I’m against open borders immigration policy because I think it is overwhelmingly a policy of transfer of assets from poorer and middle class Americans to the wealthy in the US and elsewhere

The net benefits to immigrants themselves are minor compared to these other transfers–and irrelevant to the formation of US immigration policy.

I favor expropriation via taxation of the assets the rich in the US have obtained via open borders–a stand which may be in a practical sense more threatening to the wealthy than anything Ms. Parks advocated. I think part of the reason why open borders returned to the US was that the failure of FDR to fully defang the rich via direct taxation of concentrated wealth allowed them to ramp up such policies again.

I’m not sure what Parks’ stands were exactly. I suspect that the bulk of the funding for her beatification came from white, pro-immigration liberals who feared some of the other options that might develop in the black community (i.e. Black Nationalists like the Nation of Islam –or real leftists like A. Philip Randolph.) Those Liberals also wanted a highly-centralized national policy on stuff like integration.

The thing is, lots of folks loved this lady–if you want to criticize her on VDARE.com, it ought to be well researched. When you criticize her for simply being a leftist, you make it that much harder to create the types of alliances necessary to contain the class warfare-and general madness-of open borders.

Confidently, one may predict in all the media cheering about Rosa Parks will not be mentioning the key fact: she was a radical leftist. As documented by VDARE.com”s lamented columnist Sam Francis. The effect of her activities was to switch the matter of preference: before whites: now, non-whites. What an improvement.