No ideological dissent is allowed in Canada on the supposed blessings of diversification and that’s why the individuals working for Century Initiative (CI) include conservatives, liberals, socialists, environmentalists, feminists, Muslims, and corporate heads. Each person serving CI is the full package, for high profits and high salaries, for massive population growth and ecological beauty, for feminism and Islamization, all in one scoop. The corporate consultant Dominic Barton, the main guy at CI, has just launched ‘All In’, a ‘HeForShe’ approach to gender equality as Director of McKinsey & Co. Doug Saunders, super feminist beta male, relishes the image of a Canada and a Europe packed with hyper-patriarchal Muslim and African males working for corporations.
CI ought to be congratulated for meeting what Robert Putnam called “the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies…to create a new, broader sense of ‘we’.” Everyone at CI is a “we” without outsideness. That is the goal of diversity: to eliminate oppositions, differences, boundaries, contrasts, by including everyone inside each European-created country, every race, culture, religion. This “we” will bring an utopia of prosperity and togetherness without violence.
The diversification program is so entrenched in every Western school, political party, and business that its advocates appear to embody in themselves a polite and truly inclusive “we” in their approach to politics and interpersonal relations. Those who disturb this “we” are excluded from politics for fear that they may promote an outside that is not supposed to exist. The most radical experiment ever imposed on a people, without democratic consent, must appear to be moderate and reasonable.
Andrew Coyne, a sometime conservative, libertarian, feminist, and a fan of Justin the small potato, has endorsed the 450,000 increase in immigration numbers. I can’t remember anything Coyne has ever written or said. His views have never disturbed anyone. He does not like left and right labels. He is a “we” writing and working for every side, Globe and Mail, National Post, Maclean’s, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Saturday Night, and CBC. Century Initiative has a most pleasant article by Coyne, Increased Immigration Is Good For Canada — And The Reasons Aren’t Only Economic.
Imagining he is a man of letters, Coyne cites Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Stephen Leacock to back up his argument. Relying on quotes rather than books is common among lawyers. Advocates of diversification also like to cite seemingly supportive statements from great men to enhance their credibility. Coyne says that Laurier and Leacock expressed optimistic thoughts about the opportunities high levels of immigration would offer Canada for great nation status. There is a problem, though: neither one of these men would have endorsed the current suicidal program of diversity.
|Man of the Past: Wilfrid Laurier wanted a Canada for “Us” without “Them”|
Here’s the passage he cites from Laurier:
For the next 75 years, nay the next 100 years,Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come…There are men living in this audience…who before they die, if they live to old age, will see this country with at least 60 millions of people.
It is “not a coincidence,” says Coyne, that Laurier said this at a time of high immigration. He wittingly forgets to tell us that the years Laurier was Prime Minister, 1896 to 1911, were years when Canada was viewed by the entire establishment as an exclusive Anglo-European nation, when the Chinese head tax was increased (in 1900 and in 1903), when Laurier took a number of measures to prohibit the entrance of Blacks into Canada, and when liberal Laurier insisted that Indians were “unsuited to live in the climatic conditions of British Columbia and were a serious disturbance to industrial and economic conditions.”
|Man of the Past: Stephen Leacock believed that only his “Us” Anglos could build a Great Canada|
What about Stephen Leacock? Coyne offers another little quote in which Leacock, apparently, envisioned a Canada with open borders “that will make us 10 millions tomorrow, 20 millions in our children’s time and a 100 millions ere the century runs out.” Again, he wittingly suppresses Leacock’s well known view that only Anglo Saxons were racially fit to build Canada. He did not mind a little dose of southern and eastern Europeans:
I am not saying that we should absolutely shut out and debar the European foreigners, as we should and do shut out the Oriental.
There are two standard reactions against these “racist” views. One is to denounce them and then go about downgrading, or even removing, Laurier and Leacock “from all kinds of honor rolls.” The other response, the preferred one in the polite circles Coyne inhabits, is to pretend they never said this by ignoring and rewriting their biographies so as to make them fit into a progressive pattern according to which these otherwise progressive men were “unfortunately” voicing the accepted views of their time, views they would have readily rejected if they had been born in our “we” times.
Not just in Canada, but across the West, the history of Europeans is being falsely rewritten to create the impression that their nations were always immigrant nations, which are only now living up to their ideals of inclusiveness, by pursuing a program of diversification in which there is no outsideness. Coyne chastises the populism of Trump and of European immigration restrictionists for pursuing an “Us versus Them” politics that is incapable of making subtle distinctions between, say, ordinary Muslims and extremists. This inclusive journalist with a self-identified “disciplined mind” dislikes in particular the “contempt” populists have shown for “the whole notion of expertise.”
Fake Arguments Versus Japanese Arguments
The reason ordinary Canadians mistrust your expertise, Coyne, is they are seeing through a program that is radically altering the ethnic character of Canada premised on the exclusion of Eurocanadians, and only Eurocanadians, from affirming their identity and history. They are realizing, through their astute reading of newly released scientific research, that ethnic groups are naturally inclined to pursue their collective interests, and that only Europeans tend to be more individualistic. They are seeing through your misuse of Laurier and Leacock to promote a program that these two great Canadians (without a disciplined mind?) never endorse but indeed rejected in the strongest “Us versus Them” terms. They are realizing, moreover, that the very pretenders of an inclusive politics have created a totalitarian order that excludes and denounces the majority of working and middle class Whites who are feeling like strangers in their own homelands.
Finally, they are realizing that the “reasons” Coyne offers (in his CI article) on the supposed benefits of massive immigration are bogus and devoid of expertise. He says that a population of 100 would make Canada second to the United States among the G-7, since these countries are projected to have lower levels than 100 million. How can one assume so nonchalantly that the other G-7 nations, which currently have far larger populations than Canada, will simply decline demographically when their inclusive journalists and leaders are likewise telling their populations the same absurd argument that they need to keep accepting hordes of migrants to survive economically?
The same difficulties hold for Coyne’s other argument about the supposedly more “talented and ambitious people” that Canada can attract by increasing immigration from 300,000 to 450,000: the other G-7 nations, except “Us versus Them” Japan, are trying to entice talent from the Third World, which, as we have noted before, is a “brain drain” policy premised on sucking out of poorer nations their most talented individuals.
Questions for Coyne: Why are inclusive men so afraid to encourage their domestic populations to have more babies and to produce talented individuals at home the way the Japanese are openly advocating rather than lazily trying to steal talent from elsewhere and recklessly carrying a cultural Marxist experiment? Why don’t we think in the same disciplined way as the Japanese leadership which has openly stated that an aging population is “not a burden, but an incentive to boost productivity through innovations like robots, wireless sensors and artificial intelligence” without immigration?
This is why ordinary Canadians don’t trust our current elites and wannabe experts: because they don’t reason properly through the issues, but are instead deceptively trying to make Canadians feel that the only solution to an aging population is massive increases in immigration and constant harassment of Canadians about their alleged racism if they don’t agree with this preposterous idea.