Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive


Northern Tradition,
White Rebellion, Part 1,
Interview with Paul Fromm

American Dissident Voices broadcast
July 17, 2004
by Kevin Alfred Strom


Today we're pleased to welcome to the American Dissident Voices microphones one of the leading advocates for European people in Canada, Mr. Paul Fromm. Mr. Fromm is one of the most active campaigners for the preservation of our cultural and genetic heritage in that country, and he is also an outstanding activist for the free speech rights of Canadians threatened by Jewish supremacist and Politically Correct censors. He is the head of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform (C-FAR), and the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE).
KAS: Welcome to the program, Paul.
PF: It's very good to be on your program, Kevin.
KAS: I remember meeting you for the first time ten years ago at a private memorial service for the late Revilo P. Oliver in Urbana, Illinois. There were some consequences for you for participating at that service, weren't there?
PF: Yes. I must be somewhat unique in recent history: I was fired a couple of years later, in part for having attended a funeral, actually in this case a memorial for Professor Revilo Oliver. This was held up as one of my great 'crimes,' falling under the accusation of 'showing persistent contempt for multiculturalism and ethnocultural equity,' which apparently are 'core values' of my former employer, the Peel Board of Education.
KAS: One can't show contempt for multiculturalism?
PF: No -- readin' and writin' and 'rithmetic, they're not so important. But multiculturalism and 'ethnocultural equity,' that's serious stuff. (laughter)
KAS: (laughter) Unbelievable. With your publications, your public protests, your Internet bulletins -- with all your work on behalf of traditional Canada and real Canadians and their free speech rights -- you sound like a one-man dynamo. How many online and print publications do you issue?
PF: We have three regular newsletters; one on foreign aid and government affairs generally, called the C-FAR Newsletter, which comes out monthly; we have the Canadian Immigration Hotline, which comes out ten times a year and is larger, and which deals exclusively with immigration issues; and then we have the Free Speech Monitor, which is also a newsletter that comes out ten times a year, and which deals with attacks on free speech in Canada. And I do have two online email lists, one dealing with immigration and one with free speech. So altogether I have five. I'm lucky to have several people who help me, two of them on a full time basis. This work in Canada is clearly beyond the abilities of one person; our problem is we need a lot more people involved.
KAS: Very good. Even in 1994, when I first met you, your career as a free speech and patriotic activist was already well established, wasn't it?
PF: I have been politically active, in terms of organization, since the late 1970s. So you're right, I was already something of an activist. Now when the Peel Board of Education fired me in 1997, I became almost a full-time activist, except for some work on the side -- I still have to pay the bills. So I've been very active for quite a while.
KAS: Can you tell us a bit about your history, and how you came to be active for your race and nation?
PF: It goes back quite a long way. I was always interested in politics, even before I became a teenager. I did a lot of reading, reading about World War II, and in those days I became quite a strong anti-Communist. During the Vietnam War the left here, as I suppose the left in the United States and elsewhere, were very much against the war. So I formed a group along with a number of other anti-Communists called the Edmund Burke Society, and we were active in protesting in favor of the Vietnam War in those days, and against various other Communist initiatives. We had a broad range of beliefs, not simply anti-Communism, but we were pro-free enterprise and so on. What we did that was somewhat unusual was that we were able to span the age barriers: Most of our leadership were young, in their late teens and twenties and early thirties, but we also had a fair number of older people. A lot of groups elsewhere tended to be composed of just the older set, or maybe just young people. We were actually quite successful. For me it was a real training ground. Now the reasons behind the Edmund Burke Society eventually fell apart, but it was a very useful training ground.
I must say that, if I'd had the knowledge I have today, I would probably have been against the war in Vietnam -- but obviously for very different reasons than those of the Communist agitators who were making such a noise back then.
When the 70s came along, I got involved in a number of other groups. Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform was founded in 1979 to try to counter the guilt-mongering of the churches and others who suggested that we had to spend far more on foreign aid and that somehow the Third World was entitled to it because we'd ripped them off. We thought that this was just a complete lot of nonsense and an utter bill of goods.
And from that, we began to get more and more into the immigration area. I'd become concerned about immigration back in 1972, when the Canadian government allowed in thousands of Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin expelled them. And I thought that was wrong. But the really pernicious effects of massive Third World immigration to Canada didn't become obvious until the late 70s. So about that time we began to publish material on immigration. And as the years have gone on, that's become more and more of a focus of a lot of our activities here.
In 1982, the Canadian government adopted a document something like your Bill of Rights, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a really impressive-sounding thing, guaranteeing all sorts of wonderful rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of belief... blah blah blah. And I welcomed it at the time. But I also was aware, as were a number of others at the time, of certain people we used to run into in the late 60s and early 70s, known as the Maoists -- or, officially, the Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist. They were a little bit like your SDS; they were very violent. They would break up right wing meetings and protest against right wing professors. And their slogan was 'Racists and fascists have no right to speak or organize.' I began to notice, though, that we were hearing very very similar ideas from those in the upper reaches of government and from policy people who were charged with developing what would soon be called 'anti-racist' policies and legislation. So we felt there was a real necessity for a group that would try and stick up for the free speech and free expression provisions of the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the Canadian Association for Free Expression was born.
We now have over 20 years under our belt with this Charter, and we find that it is in many ways meaningless. The free speech protections have been gutted by the judiciary. You could drive an absolute Mack truck through them. So we really find ourselves fighting two parallel battles. One is the battle for free speech. And the other is the battle to maintain Canada as a European country.
KAS: Yes. Speaking of foreign aid, the whole idea seems absurd to me, as an American observer looking at Canada. Here you have, physically, one of the largest countries on Earth, with a fairly small but highly educated population. No country on this planet is more in need of development of its natural resources than Canada. It seems ridiculous for you to give money for Third World nations to develop theirs.
PF: Yes. And if it were just a matter of giving them money to develop theirs, it mightn't be so bad. But in fact, what foreign aid generally is is a transfer of wealth from the working people of a developed country like Canada or the United States to corrupt elite of some Third World country. We have proven again and again that most foreign aid doesn't even go to the intended recipients.
KAS: Indeed.
PF: It's just an utter waste for the most part.
KAS: Why should Canadians, and people of European descent worldwide, be concerned about their future?
PF: There are two things going on simultaneously. One, we have this massive Third World immigration that started out in the late 1960s in both our countries, rapidly accelerated in the 70s and 80s, and by the 1990s became a flood -- or I would say an invasion. So we have our population changing through this government-planned and government-sanctioned invasion. At the same time we have a very low birthrate. I know a US demographer by the name of Leon Bouvier has estimated that sometime around 2050 your country will no longer be a majority European or White country. And I was able to obtain from Statistics Canada exactly the same admission: They said that somewhere around 2050, people of European descent will no longer be a majority in Canada.
One reason that we're declining more rapidly is that we have almost twice the immigration per capita that you do. You started in a somewhat worse position -- some 11 per cent. of your population was Black, and you then added heavy Third World immigration -- and we started with virtually no non-Whites other than a small Native Indian population. For instance, in 1961, the city I grew up in, Toronto, had only one per cent. non-White population. A couple of years ago the New York Times reported it was 60 per cent.! So in about 40 years we've gone from one to 60 per cent. We essentially lost our city.
KAS: That's more like a tidal wave.
PF: Yes, it's a tidal wave. If people are concerned about their children and their grandchildren, even if not for themselves, they should seriously consider that by 2050 , if something doesn't change -- either the rate of immigration or the White birthrate -- this will no longer be a European country. I would like to think that most people would find that a matter of some concern.
And it's not just racial; it's cultural. It's what these people bring to the table in terms of values. I saw a really interesting story in one of the weekend papers here in Canada, moaning and groaning about the refugees in Pakistan who've come from Afghanistan, saying 'Oh the world doesn't seem to care about them,' et cetera et cetera. And the reporter noticed that one of the refugee families that was on its way back to Afghanistan had had, among other things, a roll of deodorant confiscated by the Pakistani authorities because they thought it was a sex toy.
KAS: Ha!
PF: And the reporter, who was a female, was on several occasions chastised by one of the Afghan males for trying to talk to his wife, who was of course wrapped up in a bag, or burka. He said the neighbors wouldn't think well of them if she was seen talking to a Western woman who might be trying to corrupt her with Western ways. Now imagine bringing people like that to Canada. People whose attitude is such that they fear that a roll-on deodorant might be a sex toy, and who have so much contempt for our culture and our way of life that they're afraid that their women will be 'corrupted.' Now I would say that they're certainly entitled to their view of the world, but to bring people like that into a modern First World country is to create a clash of cultures that isn't any good for us. And to further hobble us, our government has adopted this insane policy of multiculturalism, which says that all cultures are equal and no culture is any better than any other. And it says that we're not supposed to impose our ways on others -- that's 'cultural imperialism,' et cetera et cetera. Well, if you bring large numbers of people who have values like those of these Afghanis into our country, it's absolutely a prescription for chaos.
KAS: One of the most memorable descriptions of modern, Politically Correct Canada I've heard is the name you gave it: Absurdistan. What did you mean by that?
PF: (laughter) Well, it's sort of a subtle reminder to a lot of Canadians that we have a very large number of people from the Indian subcontinent here. So it's a play on that, but also a reminder that what we have created here is an absurdity. We had a healthy mix of European people that had built a really fantastic country here. And, for reasons that still need to be fully explored, sometime in the mid-1960s powerful forces in our country decided to change it -- essentially to throw it all away. We had a really vibrant mix of European peoples: the original settler founding peoples, the French, English, Scots, and Irish; supplemented by a lot of European immigration in the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century from the Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Iceland, and so on. We had developed what was essentially a wilderness into a really vibrant country. Canada, with a population of a little over 12 million people, had the fourth largest navy in the Second World War. We had made our mark, small as we were, on the world. And we were, with the coming of this technological age, really about to come into our own. But that began to be frittered away as a result of this immigration and population policy.
KAS: Well, I would call it absurd if I didn't see it as criminal and immoral.
When I was a boy, our family lived in Alaska. And we traveled most years from Alaska to Minnesota and back through Canada for summer vacations. We also visited Quebec for Expo 67. So I have many memories of the natural beauty of Canada and the qualities of her people -- I remember them as friendly, optimistic, hard-working, handsome, and the possessors of a great culture. I could sense that, even at that young age, looking at the great buildings and monuments of your land. They inspired me. It seems such a crime to throw away that heritage for a Third World mélange -- for nothing, really.
PF: You read it exactly right. Expo 67 was the 100th anniversary of the founding of Canada. It was our centennial. The spirit of optimism that was alive during Expo 67 -- the World's Fair that was held in Montreal -- was absolutely electric. I was 18 in 1967 when I went up there. There was a real spirit in the air of optimism -- that we had built a lot and that we were just on the verge of even greater things in the future. Unfortunately, that was really the last hurrah.
Most people didn't realize that decisions had already been made to change the makeup of the country. Our immigration law changed in 1965, which is ironically or coincidentally exactly the same year your country turned its back on its European heritage.
KAS: Isn't that an interesting coincidence?
PF: I was just sufficiently politically aware then to know that the streets weren't filled with people demonstrating and saying 'We're sick of being a European country; we want to make Canada look like the antechamber of the United Nations.' There was no popular agitation or demand for this. This was entirely an elitist decision from the top. I do find it an interesting coincidence that both our countries changed at exactly the same time.
KAS: The same sort of anti-White bias came into existence in Europe around the same time; the British Commonwealth began importing its non-Whites into tiny Britain around the same time. So it's very difficult for me to view that as a coincidence. It seems to me like a coordinated plan.
PF: Yes, I agree with you.
KAS: Another thing I remember from our trips across Canada was the red ensign flag of Canada, flying everywhere; the flag with the Canadian shield in the main red section, and the British Union Jack in the upper left. That flag symbolized a connection, a common heritage of our two countries, the Anglo-Saxon heritage which is still commemorated in Hawaii's flag and which was also used in the American 'Grand Union' flag as well. Now that red ensign has been replaced by the maple leaf flag in Canada, yet you, at your protests and at your meetings, still use the red ensign. What's the reason for that? Can you explain the symbolism of that flag?
PF: That flag, as far as we are concerned, is the flag of the real Canada. And as a technical point, it was never actually delisted as Canada's flag. They added the maple leaf flag, and most people consider that the new flag of Canada, but the old red ensign was never decommissioned or delisted -- so it is also an official flag. This change was made in 1965 -- isn't that coincidental? -- the year they changed the immigration policy.
My analysis of that is that when you're about to utterly change a country, you don't want the old symbols around, because the symbols will clash with the new order you're trying to create. Their criticism of the old red ensign was that it stressed our European heritage -- you've got the Union Jack in the top left, which correctly emphasized the fact that our legal system and our political system derives from Britain. Of course, multiculturalism is very uncomfortable with that: We're supposed to believe that everybody contributed equally; the natives of the Congo, the denizens of Samoa, all contributed every bit as much to Canada as the founding European people. So the old symbolism was inconvenient.
Also the crest was filled with reminders of our European heritage -- it contained the crests of the French, the Irish, and the Scots; and then the three maple leaves joined together at the bottom of the crest, which were originally green maple leaves, symbolized the founding European peoples. This can be read a number of ways, but the founding European peoples -- the French, the English, and then the others who came later, all united to create the one.
It was a very powerful and very dramatic flag. I believe that the real reason it was changed in favor of the new one was not to have a reminder there of what Canada was.
KAS: Does the red ensign still fly anywhere in Canada?
PF: Oh, yes. We fly it at all our protests, we fly it at meetings, and a lot of our members wear it as a cap badge or a jacket badge. We've got a lot of young people, and it's become the symbol you'll see from coast to coast. And other young people who look at it know what it means. And it's interesting that it is most popular among people who were born long after it had stopped being used as Canada's flag.
KAS: So, in a way, it's a symbol of both tradition and rebellion.
PF: Yes, exactly. A symbol of tradition and rebellion. A little bit like the battle flag of the Confederacy is in your country.
KAS: And some people say the same thing about the Betsy Ross flag in the United States, the thirteen-stars-in-a-circle flag...
PF: Right.
KAS: Paul, you've been very active in protesting the outrageous treatment of Canada's most famous, and obviously and unquestionably innocent, political prisoner: Ernst Zundel. We've interviewed official Zundel spokesman Mark Weber many times on this program, so our listeners are probably familiar with the case, but they may not be familiar with your role in organizing on Mr. Zundel's behalf. What have you and your supporters been doing recently?
PF: I have kind of a mixed role. I was his first legal representative. When he was deported to Canada and faced an immigration hearing, he had not yet been able to secure a lawyer, so I represented him. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had a fair deal of legal experience. Since then, the Canadian Association for Free Expression has been helping to line up witnesses, and making sure that there's always a good contingent of supporters in the courtroom. Every time he makes an appearance, we fill the court with supporters as silent witnesses to the injustices that are being done. I've been involved in raising money for him, and of course we've also put on protests. We've had demonstrations outside the prison on a fairly frequent basis. In fact, another one is coming up on the 25th of July. Those spread among supporters to some other cities: We've had protests outside the office of the minister in charge of security in Edmonton on several occasions this past spring and winter.
A lot of my work is to try and inform supporters across Canada and also in the United States about the case, in person. It's one thing to read about it and quite another to have someone explain it to you live and be able to answer your questions. I've made by my count six appearances in the first six months of this year, 2004, in the US, and possibly three dozen talks across Canada in that period of time on this topic. I see myself as an information source for people who are interested in -- and may be likely to support -- Mr. Zundel.
KAS: How can people find out more about your efforts, and also about this protest coming up on the 25th of July?
PF: They can visit our Web page, which is , or they can contact me personally at
KAS: What about people who don't have access to the Internet?
PF: For people who want to contact us by mail, it's Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3, Canada.

* * *

Donations to Ernst Zundel's defense may be sent to the same address.
Be sure to be listening next week to the conclusion of this interview with Paul Fromm, in which Paul and I will be discussing the tragic effects of non-White immigration, the attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of thought in Canada, and the precedent-shattering 'Hands Off the Internet' protest which Paul organized and which took place outside a synagogue. That's all next week, on American Dissident Voices.


For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Please also visit, and Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.




Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.