GETTING OUR ACT TOGETHER ON REFUGEES

If you had a hard time figuring out Dr.William Rees, who confessed to us that Canada had an immigration level that was too high “under present circumstances”, yet is in favour of a wide open door for tens of millions of climate change refugees that would blow the door right off our carrying capacity as a nation and will not publicly state his stance on immigration, then go figure these contradictory statements in the Daily Mail by James Lovelock: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541748&in_page_id=1770

"At some point, we are going to have to say Britain is a lifeboat. If any more people come on board then we will sink.

That is great. Lovelock is using the lifeboat analogy. Finally the top environmentalist in the UK notices that 61 million people is too many for an island of 61 million acres. But then he pulls a Dr. Rees. He says this:

However, immigration is also a natural form of selection, he argues. Those who are prepared to travel will be the survivors.
"We should be selective and those brave, enterprising healthy people coming over in cockle boats from Africa should be the first we let in.
So James Lovelock, like William Rees, speaks with a forked tongue. We have a carrying capacity for immigrants, but a wide open door for refugees. A lifeboat with limited seated capacity for regular passengers, that somehow morphs into an aircraft carrier when tens of millions of third world swimmers turn up.
If environmental leaders are not clear about our carrying capacity, how can we expect those in government to be clear about it? How can we expect those in government to repel a foreign invasion of human locusts who would come in their tens and twenties of millions to descend upon us and pick our environment clean, consuming everything left that might sustain us, aided and abetted by self-loathing fifth columnists who place the survival of foreigners over the survival of their own countrymen and the remnants of biodiversity left here? If we do not form a population plan now, and a steely resolve to defend it, a future Canadian government may be stampeded into dropping our borders and surrendering our birthright due to a misguided mixture of defeatism and misplaced compassion. Lovelock-ism and Rees-ism must be replaced by Garrett Hardinism. Soppy Buddhism and soft Christianity must be replaced by Lifeboat Ethics.
My Prescription? Take the money that is spent on Canadian Foreign Aid, that is, on promoting third world misery through higher fertility rates, and the money spent on pro-growth propaganda, that is the CBC, through slanted coverage of Multiculturalism and immigration issues, and instead deploy that money toward rebuilding the Canadian Navy to World War II levels, which when it finished the war as the world’s third largest navy. Once at that point, quadruple it, and arm the Coast Guard while you are at. Then issue a Shoot To Kill order.
So far the rest of the world has had the impression, a correct one, that we are a soft touch. Just jump in a rusty freighter, run it aground off the west coast of BC, and our Coast Guard and naval vessels will do nothing but help you. They will help you aboard , give you blankets and mugs of tea and we will spend months processing your claims as refugees on shore at taxpayers expense. Too bad for Hitler that policy wasn’t in effect in 1939. The whole Wehrmacht could have come in rusty freighters and been given mugs of tea by naïve Canadians. Imagine what it is going to be like in several decades under Gore’s or Lovelock’s scenario with just 40 million refugees from the city of Shanghai alone, or 300 million across the hemisphere. No, the Canadian Navy should greet these refugees the way passengers in the lifeboats from the Titanic greeted swimmers who threatened to capsize them by climbing aboard. They should club them. If they won’t turn back shoot them down like ducks in the water. The Canadian Navy in those circumstances should greet them no differently than the English Navy greeted the Spanish Armada. As invaders. Do our pacifist friends in the Green party have an alternative? Perhaps we should meet them with tambourines, Buddhist chants and quotes from the Delai Lama. Or wait for the Second Coming of Christ to provide loaves and fishes for the 10-12 billion people here after are oceans are all stipped mined, our water depleted and soils exhausted.
Callousness? Cruelty? To whom? When there is not enough to go around, letting everyone through the door is cruelty to everyone. Read Jean Raspail and his Camp of The Saints That is my nightmare. If Lifeboat Ethics is cruel, so is triage medicine. If you don’t have the stomach for it, pity. My parents generation did. Not only were my uncles ready for a Japanese invasion while in the forces, but so was my mother. She carried a rifle and would have shot anyone who stepped on the beach to threaten her family or her country. She was not a globalist. Neither I am. Go ahead and play the race card. But 40 million White refugees would sink us just as surely and just as surely I would resist them.
It may seem hyperbolic to speak of these things now in the context of 2008. But the RCMP has secretly composed contingency plans for the mass accommodation of climate change refugees. That the Canadian public is assumed to be agreeable to any such accommodation is outrageous. As with immigration issues, they have never been consulted. Tens of thousands of Canadians died to ensure that this country was not invaded in the last war. Why would the authorities believe that this generation would want to lie down and surrender this country to the rest of the world or to listen to voices who sing the same tune as those in the 1930s, that we can’t defend ourselves, so we might as well give up?
Look at countries who have their backs to the wall now. Third world countries face resource shortages and population pressures that North Americans, Australians and Britons seem destined to face in the not too distant future. Mexican border guards routinely shoot Central Americans who illegally attempt to cross the border into Mexico and inflict the same damage on their society that the Mexican exodus has on the United States. India has spent almost two billion dollars on a fence to prevent Bangledeshis from migrating into northern India and putting pressure on that precious hinterland. Stopping massive migrant flows has nothing to do with racism, with white oppression over people of colour. It has every thing to do with the interdiction of a human monoculture across the globe that would wipe out the last pockets of bio-rich territory on planet earth.
The two things we now about refugees is that today they are just a trickle, but soon they will be a tsunami. If not from climate change then from resource shortages and wars. And secondly, they have an ecological footprint. To pretend as progressives and environmentalists do that they should be treated as some special class of people apart from other migrants is a fiction. The biosphere makes no distinction between refugees, skilled migrants, unskilled migrants, illegal migrants, legal migrants, English or non-English speaking migrants. To say as some in SPA do that business class migrants spur economic growth and are more ecologically damaging is false. Unskilled refugees incur more social costs which governments try to recover through economic growth rather than politically unpopular tax hikes.
If one reads the post-mortems on the Fall of France, what one concludes is not that the Germans defeated the French by superior force of arms. Indeed , the French and the British out-numbered Hitler’s forces in many areas. No. What defeated France was the attitude of defeatism which preceded the outbreak of the conflict. The French believed in the inferiority of their society and culture. They felt they were weak and adrift. Germany was strong and had a purpose. The France of 1940 describes us. As Raspail described the West. Full of self-loathing. We feel we don’t have a right to survive. So let’s turn over our nation to them. That is what is this xenophilia all about. It is not about compassion. It is not about having the moral high ground. It is about where we choose to direct our compassion. For like oil or water, there is only so much to go around. The idea that the love of untold millions of strangers should supersede the love for our own land and the species both human and non-human that require it in better repair than it currently is violates common sense and even the basic tenets of Christianity (1st Timothy 5:8). And we pay university professors to indoctrinate our children with this garbage and subsidize our state media to spread it.