Re: If You Think Mass Non-White Immigration Was the Work of Ethnic White Politicians then it is About Time You Climbed Down from The Naive Tree.
- From: Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:34:51 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 4, 10:25 pm, Jon Schild <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Go peddle your bigotry elsewhere.
The problem is, of course, that this kind of evil bigotry is built on
half-truths, and these are deadlier than outright lies.
It's certainly true that Jews tend to be liberal, and they disapprove
of the kind of nativism that led to pogroms in Russia and, of course,
to the Nazis. Is this a surprise? And, of course, should they be
blamed for that?
Just yesterday in Canada, the headlines noted a report showing the
large extent of recent immigration to Canada.
Canada's economy hasn't rebounded from the increase in unemployment
levels that began in 1968. Several provinces - Quebec, Ontario, and
Alberta - some years back actually *repudiated* existing signed
collective agreements with labor unions! In Ontario, this even
happened under the *NDP* government of Bob Rae, and was called the
"Social Contract". Jean-Jacques Rousseau, no doubt, was turning in his
grave.
Ordinary working-class Canadians hardly need more competition for
jobs. It's true that there has, recently, been some upsurge of
opportunity in the oilpatch, although that has been accompanied by
distortions in real-estate values.
I don't think Canadians want a country that is torn by dissension and
conflict, and that is a consequence of having people who think in
different ways. Different cultural backgrounds can contribute to this.
There was a news story from the same day about how Canadians who
worked for gun control were honored. The crime rates in Canada were
much lower than they are now back in 1962, and we didn't have gun
control then.
So, instead of taking the risk of disarming Canadians, which might
make it possible for a politician who gets the police and armed forces
on his side to become a dictator, why not find out what changed in
Canada between now and 1962, and change it back? Aside from
immigration from non-traditional sources, which began in 1968, there
was also the abolition of the death penalty - a policy whose
irresponsibility is more apparent now that we are menaced by
terrorism. (Terrorists have been known to take hostages and demand the
release of their imprisoned comrades.)
Farmland in Canada hasn't increased in productivity at anything like
the rate at which silicon chips have become more powerful. In fact,
there are doubts about the sustainability of Canada's current
agricultural output, because some of the productivity of Canada's
farms is due to the use of artificial fertilizers, made from oil.
Which, as we all know, is a non-renewable resource; there is only so
much in the ground, and then it will run out, and there will be no
more. (The fact that new oil reserves are still being discovered does
not disprove this. The Earth has a finite radius, and its volume may
be calculated from this. And certainly no one claims that except for a
thin shell of solid land, the whole Earth is entirely made of oil. And
even if that were true, then it would be the oxygen in the atmosphere
that would run out first before all that oil could be burned.)
Since Canada is a country, like the U.S., with wide-open spaces, and
most other countries are more crowded (i.e., Japan, China, France)
Canada doesn't have the option of becoming, like Japan, a country that
lives by exporting manufactured goods, and imports food with the money
earned from this. Instead, Canada has to feed itself, and then do its
part by exporting food to the feed the rest of the world.
Obviously, then, the risk of Canada becoming a net food importer
cannot be taken. Canada should ensure it is able to feed itself from
what it can grow in a sustainable, natural manner, forever and ever
(at least until the Sun gets ready to go off the Main Sequence, that
is).
Given the threat of the Sun going off the Main Sequence, of course,
Canada and the United States and Europe should be working hard to
advance their technological level. Here is one area where immigration
is not a bad thing, but makes a positive contribution. More people
where they have access to educational services, a larger economic and
industrial base, means faster progress. Immigration would not be a
divisive issue in a prosperous, dynamic, growing Canada.
So we should be building nuclear power plants right and left.
(Saskatchewan has many important Uranium mines.) While it is not
economically competitive right now, we should start investigating how
we could expand Canada's supply of farmland through building multi-
story greenhouses on non-agricultural land, for example in the
Canadian Shield, or in areas of permafrost.
Since we can't force other countries to buy Canadian exports of
manufactured goods, and countries like China can undercut us in price
- and places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea can do the same to a
lesser extent as well as leaving nothing to be desired in quality - we
could start by growing all our own coffee, chocolate, sugarcane and
banannas in greenhouses, since these are crops Canada's climate isn't
suitable to growing otherwise. This would avoid problems about
unethical trade harming Third World countries.
But all this growth comes at a cost - it makes it more difficult to
resolve the great historical injustice that haunts Canada. The more
immigrants we let in, the more complicated and difficult it will be to
give Canada back to the peoples of the First Nations. That is, to
those unfamiliar with Canada's current politically-correct
terminology, to give Canada back to the Indians.
Canadians are a generous, tolerant people. So there would be no fuss
about immigrants as long as it was very clear that the government was
handling the matter in a responsible, statesmanlike fashion.
That there was not even the slightest suspicion that immigration was
being allowed above an optimum level to satisfy Big Business trying to
weaken trade unions for the sake of export competitiveness.
That there was not even the slightest suspicion that immigration was
being allowed above an optimum level to change the outcome of
electoral contests in some constituencies, or interfere in the balance
between Canada's French and English communities.
That all planning connected with immigration was done from a long-term
perspective, so that everyone concerned is asking themselves - will
the descendants of the people who lived in Canada in the year 1950,
when they greet, say, the year 802,701, still be living in the same
placid, comfortable country in which they are still the overwhelming
majority, as their ancestors did in 1950? (Actually, hopefully, by
then, they would be living in a placid, comfortable Britain, and a
placid, comfortable France, because by 802,701, the country should
have been given back to the Indians long ago, unless we aren't even
trying.)
I think that if these conditions are satisfied - and short-term crime
and security concerns are also properly attended to - then only the
die-hard bigots would be making a fuss about immigration! But surely
it must be admitted that there is some room for doubt that this is
currently the case?
And as long as there is this room for doubt, then the enemies of
democracy who try to sow Nazi poison to conquer Canada and the United
States for their foreign ideology will have some success in their
malign efforts.
Thus, to defeat the racists, we should be making sure that they have
no leg to stand on. We should have a sound and responsible immigration
policy that serves our own country's best interests.
John Savard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Lois Bujold a bit of a juvie writer?
- Next by Date: Re: Top 3 Tech?
- Previous by thread: Re: If You Think Mass Non-White Immigration Was the Work of Ethnic White Politicians then it is About Time You Climbed Down from The Naive Tree.
- Next by thread: Re: If You Think Mass Non-White Immigration Was the Work of Ethnic White Politicians then it is About Time You Climbed Down from The Naive Tree.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
