Interested in what is going on day to day in Canada?  Join the Freedom-Site Mailing Lists, or view the Online Archives Updates Daily!





Save Free Speech Now!

The "New World Order"

by Promajority

I was at C-FAR (Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform) meeting early this winter (1999) when Director Paul Fromm at one point announced that a meeting of the highly secretive "Bilderberg" group was going to take place. The eyes of at least half the audience opened widely and most of them started nodding their heads and looking towards others who were doing the same. Evidently, those who reacted in this fashion had a common understanding of the significance of this group.

The Bilderbergs (also known as the Bilderbergers) are usually spoken of in the context of the extremely popular and rapidly expanding "New World Order" (NWO) conspiracy theory. Hence, it is reasonably safe to assume that those at the C-FAR meeting who did the head-nodding routine are to some extent sympathizers of this conspiracy theory.

C-FAR is Canada's foremost pro-Majority organization so those in attendance most likely support the pro-Majority movement. By pro-Majority is meant a concern over the well-being and interests of Canada's White Majority. Although there is no manifesto outlining the principles of this movement those attending C-FAR meeting would most likely believe that:

-immigration should be predominantly European
-the White Majority should never become outnumbered
-the White Majority should be proud of its Western heritage

And they would most likely oppose:

  • political correctness
  • the promotion of White guilt
  • the promotion of minority victimology
  • the tyranny of minorities
  • holocaust promotion
  • the vilification of the White Majority both past and present
  • quotas (affirmative action) which favour minorities
  • censorship

Granted, this is not a complete list but these beliefs do capture the spirit of the pro-Majority movement. It is extremely safe to suggest, however, that those attending C-FAR would agree with everything on this list. It is also safe to suggest that those who believe that everything this is good flows from minorities and everything that is bad flows from Whites would probably be out of place at a C-FAR meeting.

One thing which isn't as certain, however, is that everyone who believes in the NWO conspiracy theory is sympathetic to the pro-Majority movement.

What is the "New World Order"?
The "New World Order" (NWO) is a term which keeps growing and growing in popularity. Like other widely used terms such as "racist," "bigot" and anti-Semite," it has has been expanded so broadly that its actual meaning is no longer clear.

There is a mania of sorts surrounding the notion of a "New World Order" and seemingly everyone and their grandmother - including a fair number of pro-Majority types - seem to have a take on what it means. Even Ted Turner's WCW Wrestling has a stable of wrestlers known as the "New World Order."

People might think they know what is meant when the term is used when in fact this "consensus" is but a myth. It is a term which has been appropriated by numerous causes, individuals and groups, all of whom place upon it their own spin; they tailor their version of the "New World Order" conspiracy to suit or reinforce either their ideological position or cause.

The term "New World Order" has become a sort of umbrella term which denotes an global omnipotent force, usually a "Money Power," with the twin desire to destroy and control and ultimately create a "One World" state ruled by an oligarchy. Frequently mentioned in conspiracy literature, some of which is heavily circulated in pro-Majority circles, as part of this "force" are, in no particular order: the Bilderbergers, the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Council on Foreign Relations and various combinations of other groups, families, individuals, agencies and institutions.

Anti-NWO-types believe the elites behind the NWO utilize methods which include the age old tactic of "divide and rule," the manufacturing of crises and conflicts, chaos creation, and anything else required to mess up humanity. The interpretations of why this NWO "force" is attempting to dominate and to what end, is where the fun starts.

To pro-Majority activists the establishment of a "New World Order" consists of flooding predominantly White countries with hordes of non-whites along with the implementation of a vehement anti-Western campaign which involves both vilifying and punishing the White Majority. Pro-Majority-types also believe that a major part of this campaign is the attempted elimination of national sovereignty so that the NWO elites can create a "one world government."

This, however, is simply the pro-Majority interpretation of the NWO conspiracy theory. There are many other causes and/or movements which utilize this same conspiracy theory to explain why we're all somehow headed to hell in a hand basket. It is important to realize that there is absolutely no guarantee that these other causes and/or movements are on the same page as the Pro-Majority movement and in some cases might actually be working against it. .

It is essential to understand that this theory was not invented by someone within the pro-Majority movement. Hence, those within the movement who make use of it must share it with other individuals, groups and causes. Those who use it should also, however, be aware that by attaching themselves to this theory they are also, either wittingly or unwittingly, giving credibility to everyone else who has done the same.

Below are examples of some of those who also subscribe to this NWO conspiracy theory but who do not share the same beliefs as those within the pro-Majority movement. The key point is that not everyone who uses this theory, or the terminology associated with it, is necessarily on the same page or working for the same cause. These examples should clearly illustrate that the hysterical opposition to what is called the "New World Order" has produced some extremely bizarre unholy alliances.

Potvin and Kealey
Sue Potvin publishes a Canadian tabloid titled Discourse and Disclosure which features some of the same NWO terminology used by some pro-Majority activists. Potvin is an excellent example of someone who makes use of the NWO conspiracy theory but who is actually working against the pro-Majority movement.

Discourse and Disclosure believes aboriginals (Native North Americans) are the planet's chief (no pun intended) victims and contains an enormous amount of White guilt and rants about not only what Whites have "done" to these sacred aboriginals, but to the world in general. There is also so much ranting about corporations that it's hardly distinguishable from your local Marxist/communist publication.

Potvin used to be allied with fellow anti-NWO activist Glen Kealey. Kealey was a contractor in Canada's capital of Ottawa who claims to have been asked for bribe money by a federal politician in the late 1980's. He went from being a reasonably respected anti-corruption activist during that time to being a conspiracy crank.

Kealey and Potvin, despite their intense opposition to the NWO, promote aboriginal victimology with a vengeance. This promotion is combined with plenty of White guilt and extensive defamation of Western culture.

Constantly highlighting the real, imagined, and/or exaggerated sins of Whites towards non-whites and harping on the alleged atrocities to which minorities have been subjected by "evil" Whites is of course antithetical to the pro-Majority movement. Defining our European heritage and White culture as consisting of nothing more than oppression, destruction and genocide towards minorities is even less acceptable. This type of activity has a highly demoralizing effect on the White Majority and anyone partaking in this kind of thing is working strongly against the pro-Majority movement.

The methodology used to promote aboriginal victimology by the likes of Kealey and Potvin is strikingly similar to Jewish Holocaust promotion. Charges of "genocide" are routinely levied against Whites both past and present and there are repetitive accounts of "atrocities" and the extensive use of "survivor" testimonies. Certain key moments or events are seized upon and hammered to death and presented as the ultimate examples of "human injustice"; examples for which the White Majority is supposed to apologize and feel tremendous shame and guilt.

There are also martyrs of victimhood which are held up as examples of the highest form of humanity. If the Holocaust had Anne Frank, then Kealey and Potvin have Wolverine. Although still living, the latter was one of the leaders of a very small group of heavily-armed aboriginals who occupied Gustuffson Lake in the province of British Columbia in the summer of 1995. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) eventually ended the occupation but not before the likes of Kealey and Potvin made these protesters, and Wolverine in particular, the ultimate symbols of resistance against the NWO. Wolverine and his gang are to the likes of Potvin and Kealey what Bob Matthews and the Order are to fanatical White separatists.

Potvin and Kealey, however, and their anti-NWO ilk view this gang of aboriginal terrorists as extremely courageous "freedom fighters" who dared challenge the might of the NWO elites. Their respective publications feature an enormous amount of tribute to this group and have made a victimological saint out of Mr. Wolverine.

Issue after issue of both of their newspapers feature reports on Gustuffson Lake and various other "examples" of aboriginal victimology. Consider the following:

The question is not whether the Natives were perfect. They were not. They were human...However, they knew something fundamental that we as European settlers did not. They knew the Law of Life. They knew that if they followed it, it guaranteed them life on this planet as long as it existed - a happy life...They never wanted our way of life. They couldn't understand why anyone would want to live our way. When the white man came to this land he saw nothing but opportunity. He came from disease, famine and misery. He died early and unhappy. But he is our hero - the sailor who arrived in paradise but couldn't see it for the greed...From the beginning, Natives helped us to stay alive. They gave us corn and tomatoes - food that was brought back to Europe to save people from starvation. They tried to teach us how to live and stay alive - a lesson we have yet to learn. In fact, the settlers were so impressed with the Natives' style of government that it was the basis for our new democracy. That is why the U.S. Senate sits in a circle. Even our stock market was based on how Natives were trading with the white man...We received free land - land we had never seen before, abundantly rich. We made deals so that the two cultures could exist side by side, without interference. But our words were empty. We killed them and took their land away. We forced them to think how we thought. We murdered, abused and had an almost successful genocide...After all, we were building paradise. (Garamscegi, Laszio. "Ignorance With A Pen Is Deadly For A Nation." Discourse and Disclosure, February/March, 1998, p. 13.)

Towards the end of the article the author of this passage states: "The Natives want to be heard. We should have listened. They tried to teach. We should have learned. Today we can feel their ancestors crying in our bones." (ibid)

Is this author of the article above on the pro-Majority side of things? Is this "look at how terrible Whites are and how noble and pure the aboriginals are" part of the pro-Majority movement? Consider, however, that this publication contains numerous references to the the NWO, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, and various other alleged agencies of the NWO. These same references can be both heard and read at most pro-Majority meetings and within most pro-Majority publications. How and why do so many pro-Majority activists borrow from the same conspiracy theory as someone such as Sue Potvin who promotes minority victimology and White guilt?

The August 1998 edition of Discourse and Disclosure featured an article a front page article written by Sue Potvin titled "Canada's inhumanity to man." The "inhumanity to man" reference is of course one of the most famous phrases associated with the holocaust. The article, however, is not about the holocaust, but is instead about what was "done" to aboriginals. The victimological methodology, however, is extremely similar to how the Jewish holocaust is promoted.

This lengthy article, almost three entire tabloid-sized pages, features over two tabloid-sized pages of accounts of how aboriginals "suffered" in residential schools. These accounts were taken from the First Nations Health Commission titled Breaking the Silence. Since the mid-1800's until the late 1960's/early 1970's aboriginal children in Canada were placed in residential schools many of which were run by the Catholic church. The article states:

The study opens the reader's eyes to the shocking emotional, physical, sexual and spiritual abuses suffered by generations of First Nations people, including deprogramming of children of children in a lengthy effort to separate them from their culture, language and familial structures by forced assimilation to the alien white culture - to the lower fringes of the dominant society. (Potvin, Sue. "Canada's inhumanity to man." Discourse & Disclosure. August 8, 1998, p. 2)

What are we supposed to make of a member of our own White Majority referring to our culture as "alien" and uttering statements such as "the lower fringes of the dominant (read White) society"? (brackets mine)

The last part of the article features the heading which could have been taken right out of the holocaust lexicon: "Survivors seek justice." Of course, the very holocaust-like concept of the "survivor" could not be avoided and not surprisingly also involves demands for compensation:

But according to a brief reference in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper last May 11 (1998), the federal government is facing more than 1,000 lawsuits involving about 15,000 victims, seeking at least $8 billion since the apology given by Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart earlier in the year. (Ibid, p. 21)

Apologies, never-ending accounts of "survivors" which only get worse and more frequent with the passing of time, demands for compensation, where does it end? The minority victim industry just keeps growing and becoming increasingly determined to vilify Whites and make minority suffering the center of the moral universe for the White Majority. It's one thing for minorities themselves to promote this kind of victimology but when fellow members of the White Majority such as Sue Potvin and her anti-NWO crowd take part in it it's time to make sure they don't become confused with being part of the pro-Majority movement because they happen to oppose the NWO and the Bilderbergers. Shared enemies do not necessarily make allies.

Kealey's tabloid is similar to Discourse and Disclosure so there's no point quoting from it. However, an article in the Ottawa Citizen which described his marriage in 1994 on Parliament Hill (the location of Canada's federal legislature) does an excellent job in revealing Kealey's aboriginal worship. Kealey was married in aboriginal attire and had the ceremony conducted by Ojibway medicine man named Tom Mattinas. The marriage was not recognized by Canadian law but to Kealey this mattered little:

The way I look at it, this country was better off before the explorers came. Think about the societies that were here. They had no crime, interest-free loans, and would actually give things of value to each other. There was no need for welfare because they cared for each other. (Ottawa Citizen, June 23, 1994, p. B3)

In other words. The "greedy white man" came along and made a mess of aboriginal paradise. Is Kealey helping helping us rekindle pride in our European heritage and ancestors?

Kealey has also associated himself with an aboriginal named "Splitting the Sky" who, according to a poster for a September 25, 1997, meeting at SFU Harbour Centre in Vancouver was identified as a national spokesperson for the "Free Wolverine Campaign." The topic of the meeting was "Exposing and Opposing the Fascist Right" and it also featured Alan Dutton of the Canadian Anti-Racism Education Research Society who just happens to be one of Canada's most prolific anti-Majority activists. To Dutton and his ilk the "Fascist Right" is anyone involved in the pro-Majority movement. .

 "Splitting the Sky" is also known as John Hill who was described in the September 24, 1997, edition of the Vancouver Sun as follows:

Native Indian rights activist John Hill ... served a sentence for killing a guard during a 1971 convict uprising [in New York]. Hill now lives in Surrey (British Columbia) and goes by the name Splitting-the-Sky ... When the RCMP released the names and criminal records of those involved in the Gustuffson stand-off, they said Hill had convictions for petty larceny, attempted murder, second-degree assault, supplying contraband to a prisoner and possession of a dangerous weapon. Hill was serving time in New York's Attica Prison in 1971 when a bloody uprising occurred over living conditions and he allegedly killed a guard with a two-by-four. He was sentenced to 20 years to life but his case was championed by some politicians and activists. ...

While pro-Majority-types work diligently to re-establish pride in our ancestors and Western heritage, the likes of  Kealey and Potvin and their ilk are doing the exact opposite. To them the European presence in North America is rooted in shame and genocide and there's little, if anything, of which to be proud. To them White=NWO and therefore White is bad.

What on earth are some pro-Majority activists doing by borrowing from the same NWO conspiracy theory which is also used by pathetic minority racists such as Potvin and Kealey?

"You're a Nazi/Fascist!"
Another sign that Discourse and Disclosure is not part of the pro-Majority movement t is its tendency to label those they don't like, or with whom they disagree, as either a "fascist" or a "nazi." This is a tactic often employed by liberal/socialist/progressive/anti-racist/far-left/communist/Marxist-types towards pro-Majority activists and most certainly not by these activists themselves.

Mike Harris is the neo-conservative leader of the Canadian province of Ontario. He has cut government spending in numerous areas and of course promotes a "free market" agenda. To the liberal/socialist/progressive/anti-racist/far-left/communist/Marxist-types Harris is nothing short of a political heretic and to Discourse and Disclosure he is no less:

When Adolph Hitler planned his European wars of aggression, his line of generals were consulted as to his tactics. Nevertheless, it was ultimately Adolph himself who made the final decisions. Likewise in Ontario, Mike Harris may consult with his cabinet. But like Adolph, he alone makes the purely ideological statements that are translated into policy...The tyranny by which Adolph Hitler terrorized Europe is the manner in which Harris would implement the neo-con agenda for Ontario. (Rodvik, Robert. Discourse and Disclosure, February/March 1998, p. 13)

The province of Alberta's premier Ralph Kleim, who is ideologically similar to Harris, was referred to as the following: "Alberta's experience with the Bilderberger consorter Klein offers a lesson for Ontarians. No sooner did the Klein proto-fascists take power than they demanded (among other anti-union policies)..." (ibid)

The point is not that Harris and Kleim are "good guys" and that they should be beyond criticism. Neither premier can be categorized as sympathetic to the pro-Majority movement, but this tactic of referring to politically-incorrect politicians on the right as "fascists" or "nazis" is how our enemies attempt to discredit pro-Majority activists such as Paul Fromm and pro-Majority columnists such as Doug Collins. Those who engage in this type of name-calling are not our allies by any stretch regardless of how strongly they oppose the NWO and the Bildberbergers.

David Butterfield
Sadly, Potvin and Kealey are by no means the only anti-NWO activists who have jumped on the minority racist bandwagon. David Butterfield is a monetary reformist and anti-taxation crusader based in the western Canadian province of British Columbia. He heads a small organization called The Shareholders of Canada. Butterfield believes both income tax and the dreaded 7% federal Goods and Services Tax in Canada are illegal. Tax reform is something most pro-Majority activists would welcome so if we were to evaluate Butterfield on this basis not only would he not qualify as an enemy of the pro-Majority movement, but would probably even garner some support amongst us.

However, one evening during the fall of 1997 a Butterfield supporter suggested I watch a video which featured one of Butterfield's lectures. In the video Butterfield railed against taxation which was not surprising. However, he suddenly shifted his talk to aboriginal (Native North American) affairs and shockingly started railing against his European ancestors:

Now of course the First Nations people wanted self-government. That's what was promised to them 125-130 years ago, more than that, actually. In the first treaties that were written between the Crown and the First Nations People, of course all of these treaties, every single treaty, that was ever signed between us invaders of this country and the First Nations people, has been violated by the white man. So these guys have been given pretty bad treatment all the way down the line and we've caused their whole culture, their whole society to be destroyed, alright, and unjustly, alright, because we're all the same. It doesn't matter what the colour of our skin is, it doesn't matter what language we speak, alright, we're all the same. We all have the basic same needs and desires and we're all of that same energy force; that positive creative life force energy. We're all equal. We're all actually part of each other, alright. Cause that's what our driving force is within us all, so we have to remember that we have to put aside our differences and start thinking more about our similarities and the things that are similarly affecting each one of us, alright. (Video featuring David Butterfield, July 13, 1997, Perth, Ontario. Shareholders of Canada) (bold mine)

Could Martin Luthor King have stated it any better?! It's also strange that Butterfield laments the lack of self-government for aboriginals yet then proceeds to preach about how "we're all the same" and that "we all have the same basic needs and desires." If this is so then why should the aboriginals require self-government? Usually a group pursues self-government because the people in question feel that their "distinct" needs are not being met within the current political and social structure so if "we're all the same" then why would aboriginals or any other groups want a government which is "separate"?

Besides this obvious contradiction, references to the "white man" as an "invader" who did little else but destroy aboriginal culture clearly demonstrates that Butterfield's is not a part of the pro-Majority movement. On the contrary.

John Turmel
John Turmel is listed in the Guinness World Book of Records as having contested more elections than anyone else on the planet. He is an ardent monetary reformist who strongly advocates participation in LETS (Local Employment Trading Systems). Turmel is adamant that a transition from the current economic structure to LETS-based one, which would include an "interest-free" currency, would essentially solve all of the worlds problems - racial or otherwise.

Turmel's opposition to the NWO is so intense that he has travelled great distances to demonstrate where the infamous Bilderbergers have held meetings.

In the early 1990's Turmel formed the Abolitionist Party and entered the 1993 Canadian federal election. The author examined the platforms of both the mainstream and alternative parties and decided that all of them fell well short of pro-Majority principles and figured that a vote for Turmel was the best way of making a statement against the Establishment. What was wrong with a candidate who was challenging the banking system and promoting a barter system based on an interest-free currency? Wasn't Turmel, the strongest anti-Establishmentarian on the ballot, the best option given that none of the other parties had taken a hard line on immigration and continued to pathetically pandered to minority lobby groups? After all, Turmel was vocal in his opposition to the NWO and the Bilderbergers, as are many pro-Majority types, so why not vote for him?

Turmel recently contested a federal by-election in Windsor, Ontario, which is across from Detroit. One of Turmel's election stops was at a candidates meeting sponsored by a group called "Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women." The following was taken from his web site and was his response to a question on immigration policy:

I responded like I once did in my infamous CITY-TV MUCHMUSIC bear pit (during 1993 election) that any objection to immigration stems from "not enough jobs." Once the Local Employment-Trading System bank guarantees everyone a well-paid job, no one will object to opening the immigration doors while plenty of Canada is still empty. But remember that when those oppressed get their own LETS national banking, they won't be in such a rush to escape anymore. No one minds someone of another color beside him at the work bench as long as everyone's getting paid...So personally I would open the doors to all refugees from oppression having the banking system that LETS them WORK turn all the unpopulated parts of the country into a garden.

So those who oppose an open immigration policy only do so because there "aren't enough jobs"? If Turmel wants to open the doors and let "everyone" into Canada then wouldn't the "garden" of which he speaks necessarily be a multiracial one? While pro-Majority activists are trying to keep Europe and North America from being swamped by non-white immigration Turmel is talking about "opening the doors" to Canada! What pro-Majority activist in his/her right mind would advocate that any Western country "open its doors" to the the world?!

I figured that since Turmel was the most anti-Establishment of the candidates and since he vehemently opposed the NWO and the Bilderbergers that he was the best choice on the ballot. In fact, his position on immigration was worse than that of any other party!

By no means is this article suggesting that everybody who makes references to the "New World Order" or the "Bilderbergs" is a minority racist such as Sue Potvin. But what is being preached here is caution. Do not automatically assume that those who subscribe to this theory or who use some of the terminology (i.e. Bilderbergers) are necessarily on the side of the pro-Majority movement.

I have attempted to make some supporters of Potvin, Kealey and Butterfield understand the pro-Majority perspective but my efforts proved futile. Those who promote minority racism and White guilt deserve nothing less than our contempt even if they happen to believe in the same Bilderbeger-dominated NWO conspiracy shared by some of our pro-Majority colleagues.

Those who were nodding their heads at the aforementioned C-FAR meeting must keep in mind that those with whom they share this belief in the NWO conspiracy are by no means necessarily their allies. In some cases, as we have seen in this article, they could easily be their enemies.

It is important to emphasize, however, that this article has by no means intended to refute the standard NWO conspiracy theory. This theory has been around for a very long time and was not invented with the pro-Majority movement in mind. Those within our movement who make use of it have simply tailored this theory and placed their pro-Majority stamp on it. Besides, either refuting or proving a conspiracy theory is about as possible as refuting or proving the existence of God.

It is, however, extremely odd that so many pro-Majority-types would embrace the same theory, or at least use the same terminology, as minority racists such as Kealey and Potvin. It's incredibly bizarre that people with such conflicting views would borrow from the same theory. Someone is obviously espousing the wrong theory for their cause because these disparate positions are essentially irreconcilable. There's also no way we pro-Majority-types can claim the New World Order conspiracy theory as our own because our movement didn't invent it.

Hopefully, this article has demonstrated that not everyone who opposes the NWO, or who uses the standard language of this conspiracy theory (Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and so on), is necessarily on the same page as those within the pro-Majority movement. Those who were nodding their heads at the aforementioned C-FAR meeting when Director Paul Fromm mentioned the term the "Bilderbergs" should pay particular attention to this point.

Are you a Writer?  Submit you pieces to be included on the Controversial Columnists Page!  Just E-Mail it to 


The Freedom-Site has been online since 1996 and served over 10 Million Visitors

Your Donations = Our Survival
C.P.N., 152 Carlton Street, Suite 545, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2K1, Canada
Please send what you can to help keep our website operational