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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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...
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
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
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com , or they can contact me
personally at firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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.