I will put it to you. Would it not have been better if Norman Borlaug had never been born? Ditto the architects of cruel compassion like Geldoff and Christian overseas charities? If Mother Nature had the franchise, would she cast her vote for the Borlaug-Geldoff ticket or the Hitler-Stalin (or Mao-Pol Pot or Genghis Khan-Ivan the Terrible ticket?) Is this lethal combination of do-goodism and technological advance the best result for humanity, ultimately? When we go to a city park, we are enjoined “Not to feed the animals”. Is it truly compassionate to keep feeding any species that, given an abundant food source, will not stop over-breeding? How about signs that read, “ Attention Oxfam, Don’t Feed Humans.” “Don’t mow down trees and fill in wetlands to grow more food to feed more human breeders”????
Nature is our life-support system, screw with it, and it comes back to bite you, big time.
I know what my answer is, and it is unequivocal. What is yours?
Tim
Friday, October 23, 2009
THE NDP NOW A MERCENARY ARMY
It was a short summer. It seems like only yesterday that the federal NDP phoned me to ask for money. In fact, it has been three months, and come to think of it, it has become a three month ritual now. A hack phones me long distance from Toronto to ask me if I would “once again” support the New Democratic Party, “as I have so generously in the past”. Where do they retrieve these records, from the Smithsonian? Or maybe it was a commitment made by my doppelganger in a parallel universe. For the fourth time now, I surprised the caller by saying that I do not support the NDP, and don’t plan to anytime in the future. But this time the caller surprised me. She didn’t ask me why or contest my arguments. I was disappointed. I hadn’t harangued anyone for a week now and I needed a fix of nasty.
There was another thing that surprised me too. She had a thick Chinese accent. Something was amiss. I door-knocked for a dozen elections in Vancouver and I know that Chinese with an accent that pronounced are not typically fans of social democracy. Notwithstanding a handful of high profile examples, Chinese faces at an NDP general meeting are as rare as hen’s teeth. Hong Kong, where the vast majority of Vancouver’s Chinese population hails from, is not a socialist hotbed.
I couldn’t resist. I asked her, “I am curious, are you yourself a member of the NDP, do you work for them as a volunteer or did they hire you to phone me? Are you even going to vote NDP?” She answered that she couldn’t vote because she was an immigrant, and not a citizen, and that yes, she was hired to do the phoning on the party’s behalf. This is a significant find. The NDP, and the CCF before them, were characterized by the unrivalled devotion that their vast army of volunteers had for the cause. That volunteerism was their saving grace. Now other party could match it. They could only outspend the NDP by a wide margin.
But times they a-changin’ . The NDP still cries poor, but there is no longer this fabled gap between them and the old line parties in financial resources. Maybe that is because they themselves are now “old-line”. They spin the line of “sustainable growth” just like the Liberals and Conservatives. “Growth is good”, Jack Layton said in 2008, “as long as its benefits are equally shared”. And as long as the NDP can throw some green paint over its growthism. No wonder yuppies love them. They can see their portfolios rise again and carry on living the good life in clear conscience, because growth will continue as ever before.
But gone is that grassroots conviction, that fire that touched so many people and motivated them to pour their energy into the party. It turns out that their kind of social democracy is nothing to write home about. It seems that it is not worth defending. So now the NDP has the dough to fight another day. Enough money to hire someone just out of the airport to due their bidding.
After she concluded telling me that she was still an immigrant, and that was calling from Vancouver, I felt compelled to implore her to vote NDP when she is qualified for citizenship. After all, I said the NDP represents foreign interests, not ours. Too polite to answer back, she abruptly bid goodbye for the night.
Tim
September 16/09
There was another thing that surprised me too. She had a thick Chinese accent. Something was amiss. I door-knocked for a dozen elections in Vancouver and I know that Chinese with an accent that pronounced are not typically fans of social democracy. Notwithstanding a handful of high profile examples, Chinese faces at an NDP general meeting are as rare as hen’s teeth. Hong Kong, where the vast majority of Vancouver’s Chinese population hails from, is not a socialist hotbed.
I couldn’t resist. I asked her, “I am curious, are you yourself a member of the NDP, do you work for them as a volunteer or did they hire you to phone me? Are you even going to vote NDP?” She answered that she couldn’t vote because she was an immigrant, and not a citizen, and that yes, she was hired to do the phoning on the party’s behalf. This is a significant find. The NDP, and the CCF before them, were characterized by the unrivalled devotion that their vast army of volunteers had for the cause. That volunteerism was their saving grace. Now other party could match it. They could only outspend the NDP by a wide margin.
But times they a-changin’ . The NDP still cries poor, but there is no longer this fabled gap between them and the old line parties in financial resources. Maybe that is because they themselves are now “old-line”. They spin the line of “sustainable growth” just like the Liberals and Conservatives. “Growth is good”, Jack Layton said in 2008, “as long as its benefits are equally shared”. And as long as the NDP can throw some green paint over its growthism. No wonder yuppies love them. They can see their portfolios rise again and carry on living the good life in clear conscience, because growth will continue as ever before.
But gone is that grassroots conviction, that fire that touched so many people and motivated them to pour their energy into the party. It turns out that their kind of social democracy is nothing to write home about. It seems that it is not worth defending. So now the NDP has the dough to fight another day. Enough money to hire someone just out of the airport to due their bidding.
After she concluded telling me that she was still an immigrant, and that was calling from Vancouver, I felt compelled to implore her to vote NDP when she is qualified for citizenship. After all, I said the NDP represents foreign interests, not ours. Too polite to answer back, she abruptly bid goodbye for the night.
Tim
September 16/09
HOW TO PLAY TO A CROWD AND SELL OUT YOUR COUNTRY
This is demagoguery at its finest. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, author of the watershed Immigration Bill of 1965, a bill which effectively added 100 million more consumers to America, increasing its collective footprint by 33%, kisses up to an Hispanic rally in Washington, DC in 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VIyKVhGuYE&feature=related
Notice how he hits all the right buttons. Hard work. Love of family. The American dream. And standing up for “our” faith, that is Roman Catholicism. Dear God, those anti-Americans in Congress who oppose us even say that priests are criminals for helping illegal immigrants. They say “report to deport”. I say “report and become American citizens!” Rapturous applause.
Kennedy invoked Martin Luther King, who, he pointed out, spoke not far where this rally was taking place, and promised that one day freedom would reign in America. And one day freedom would come to the illegal aliens in America too, the Senator promised. One champion he did not refer to, however, was Caesar Chavez, a hero of Mexican Americans, who in his time, stood at the border to oppose the entry of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Chavez recognized that they threatened the livelihoods of the Mexicans who had come to America legally and worked hard to establish themselves as law-abiding citizens. Nor did Kennedy mention that African Americans are the biggest victims of the illegal invasion, as it is their low paying jobs which have been displaced in greater numbers by the invaders than any other sector of American society. The late African American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan may have been at the King rally forty years ago, but if she had been alive in 2006, she certainly would not have been at this Washington rally cheering on Senator Quisling and his vision of America, which, after all, citing his brother John, was “a nation of immigrants.” That’s odd, I was under the impression that most of the people resident in the United States were born there. About 88% of them in fact. But then, they don’t count. They won’t work for indecent wages.
When Kennedy ended his speech here, he screamed out that “I stand with you, and you, and you!!!!” But he has never stood for the native born workers of American, 5 million of whom lost their jobs in the Bush era to the squeeze play of out-sourcing and the cruel competition of cheap foreign labour. Nor did he stand up for the environment, notwithstanding the environmental protection measures he fought for, for it is the environment which has also born the brunt of the runaway immigrant-driven population growth that his 1965 bill inaugurated. While it broke down discriminatory walls against the entry of good people from non-European lands, it carried within it a fatal flaw. Chain migration. For every immigrant who came in through the third world door, a dozen relatives not of the immediate family were able to follow. In one example, cited by a documentary, one Korean immigrant generated, through sponsorship, some 59 other immigrants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo1m-FylZp4 Kennedy never revisited that legislation to plug that gaping hole. And why would he? When he looked upon that crowd in Washington, he saw votes. In his words, “I see our immigrant future”. A future, no doubt, where, with a solid bloc of Hispanic citizens behind him, his Democratic Party would have a lock on power. The new Amnesty Bill would determine “the future of our economic growth”
Population and economic growth. More and more jobs for hard working people of faith. A vision of unending plenty and fecundity that somehow the Senator and his liberal allies found compatible with their clean environment agenda and pro-Kyoto aspirations. In the cornucopian liberal-left world view, life is never about limits, it is about growing limits, baking a larger economic pie which more and more folks, especially the foreign poor, can share if only it is distributed fairly and equitably.
It is a vision that if dressed up in the clothing of human rights, can beguile a crowd and confuse the issue.
Kennedy was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Best friend that the ADM Corporation, Microsoft and cheap labour employers ever had.
It might have been better had he never been born.
Tim Murray
Sept. 4/09
Notice how he hits all the right buttons. Hard work. Love of family. The American dream. And standing up for “our” faith, that is Roman Catholicism. Dear God, those anti-Americans in Congress who oppose us even say that priests are criminals for helping illegal immigrants. They say “report to deport”. I say “report and become American citizens!” Rapturous applause.
Kennedy invoked Martin Luther King, who, he pointed out, spoke not far where this rally was taking place, and promised that one day freedom would reign in America. And one day freedom would come to the illegal aliens in America too, the Senator promised. One champion he did not refer to, however, was Caesar Chavez, a hero of Mexican Americans, who in his time, stood at the border to oppose the entry of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Chavez recognized that they threatened the livelihoods of the Mexicans who had come to America legally and worked hard to establish themselves as law-abiding citizens. Nor did Kennedy mention that African Americans are the biggest victims of the illegal invasion, as it is their low paying jobs which have been displaced in greater numbers by the invaders than any other sector of American society. The late African American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan may have been at the King rally forty years ago, but if she had been alive in 2006, she certainly would not have been at this Washington rally cheering on Senator Quisling and his vision of America, which, after all, citing his brother John, was “a nation of immigrants.” That’s odd, I was under the impression that most of the people resident in the United States were born there. About 88% of them in fact. But then, they don’t count. They won’t work for indecent wages.
When Kennedy ended his speech here, he screamed out that “I stand with you, and you, and you!!!!” But he has never stood for the native born workers of American, 5 million of whom lost their jobs in the Bush era to the squeeze play of out-sourcing and the cruel competition of cheap foreign labour. Nor did he stand up for the environment, notwithstanding the environmental protection measures he fought for, for it is the environment which has also born the brunt of the runaway immigrant-driven population growth that his 1965 bill inaugurated. While it broke down discriminatory walls against the entry of good people from non-European lands, it carried within it a fatal flaw. Chain migration. For every immigrant who came in through the third world door, a dozen relatives not of the immediate family were able to follow. In one example, cited by a documentary, one Korean immigrant generated, through sponsorship, some 59 other immigrants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo1m-FylZp4 Kennedy never revisited that legislation to plug that gaping hole. And why would he? When he looked upon that crowd in Washington, he saw votes. In his words, “I see our immigrant future”. A future, no doubt, where, with a solid bloc of Hispanic citizens behind him, his Democratic Party would have a lock on power. The new Amnesty Bill would determine “the future of our economic growth”
Population and economic growth. More and more jobs for hard working people of faith. A vision of unending plenty and fecundity that somehow the Senator and his liberal allies found compatible with their clean environment agenda and pro-Kyoto aspirations. In the cornucopian liberal-left world view, life is never about limits, it is about growing limits, baking a larger economic pie which more and more folks, especially the foreign poor, can share if only it is distributed fairly and equitably.
It is a vision that if dressed up in the clothing of human rights, can beguile a crowd and confuse the issue.
Kennedy was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Best friend that the ADM Corporation, Microsoft and cheap labour employers ever had.
It might have been better had he never been born.
Tim Murray
Sept. 4/09
"Jobs That Americans Won't Do"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0901/p08s01-comv.html
With millions of native-born people desperate for income, those jobs presumed to be too menial are now acceptable – a point to remember in the immigration debate.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
Christian Science Monitor
from the September 1, 2009 edition
With fewer jobs for Americans these days, are there fewer jobs that Americans won't do?
The answer will influence whether Congress decides to grant amnesty to some 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, perhaps by next year.
Most illegal workers in the US are Mexicans who mow lawns, clean motel sheets, butcher hogs, pick strawberries, and otherwise toil away at tasks that, as George W. Bush once said, "Americans won't do." And they often are paid less than the minimum wage.
A widely held assumption in Washington's debate about immigration is that native-born Americans avoid menial and dirty work. Laid-off autoworkers wouldn't really wash dishes at a Denny's or milk cows on a dairy farm, would they? Such a notion has long helped justify a flow of foreign workers into the US – or possibly an amnesty for those hiding from the law.
Recent recessions have been short enough that jobless Americans who rely on government benefits waited for a "good job" to return. But this "Great Recession" has been long and deep. The unemployment rate has doubled from 4.7 to 9.4 percent, and it may keep rising into next year. Many layoffs appear permanent as whole industries have collapsed and new fields, such as clean energy, are slow to emerge. The percentage of Americans "mal-employed" – working below their skill or education – is higher than in recent recessions.
With people desperate for income, downward mobility may be on the way up. News reports show long lines of applicants for a janitor's job or for work at a factory after a federal raid clears out the illegal workers.
Maybe it's a myth that Americans won't take certain jobs. In fact, a study by the Center for Immigration Studies used 2005-07 data to look at 465 occupations. Only four had a majority of immigrants in them: plasterers and stucco masons, agricultural graders and sorters, personal appliance workers, and tailors and dressmakers.
In every other occupation, such as janitors, maids, and groundskeepers, a large majority were filled by native-born Americans. The report's conclusion: "The often-made argument that immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want is simply wrong."
The US job market is too dynamic to be easily segmented. Americans move too often for new jobs – more than a third live outside the state in which they were born. This recession can help bust the myth that native-born workers are too snooty to get their boots dirty in farm fields and back shops.
Maybe then a key plank for an amnesty will be removed.
Comment:
It was never true that there were "jobs that Americans wouldn't do." Proof was that,
1] in every occupation, even where lots of immigrants were working, the majority of workers were still American.
2]any time ICE raided a business and arrested illegal aliens, hundreds or thousands of Americans would line up to take available jobs.
3] immigrants beat out Americans only be taking jobs at much lower wages and without benefits. At a living wage, Americans have always been willing to do ANY job
With millions of native-born people desperate for income, those jobs presumed to be too menial are now acceptable – a point to remember in the immigration debate.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
Christian Science Monitor
from the September 1, 2009 edition
With fewer jobs for Americans these days, are there fewer jobs that Americans won't do?
The answer will influence whether Congress decides to grant amnesty to some 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, perhaps by next year.
Most illegal workers in the US are Mexicans who mow lawns, clean motel sheets, butcher hogs, pick strawberries, and otherwise toil away at tasks that, as George W. Bush once said, "Americans won't do." And they often are paid less than the minimum wage.
A widely held assumption in Washington's debate about immigration is that native-born Americans avoid menial and dirty work. Laid-off autoworkers wouldn't really wash dishes at a Denny's or milk cows on a dairy farm, would they? Such a notion has long helped justify a flow of foreign workers into the US – or possibly an amnesty for those hiding from the law.
Recent recessions have been short enough that jobless Americans who rely on government benefits waited for a "good job" to return. But this "Great Recession" has been long and deep. The unemployment rate has doubled from 4.7 to 9.4 percent, and it may keep rising into next year. Many layoffs appear permanent as whole industries have collapsed and new fields, such as clean energy, are slow to emerge. The percentage of Americans "mal-employed" – working below their skill or education – is higher than in recent recessions.
With people desperate for income, downward mobility may be on the way up. News reports show long lines of applicants for a janitor's job or for work at a factory after a federal raid clears out the illegal workers.
Maybe it's a myth that Americans won't take certain jobs. In fact, a study by the Center for Immigration Studies used 2005-07 data to look at 465 occupations. Only four had a majority of immigrants in them: plasterers and stucco masons, agricultural graders and sorters, personal appliance workers, and tailors and dressmakers.
In every other occupation, such as janitors, maids, and groundskeepers, a large majority were filled by native-born Americans. The report's conclusion: "The often-made argument that immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want is simply wrong."
The US job market is too dynamic to be easily segmented. Americans move too often for new jobs – more than a third live outside the state in which they were born. This recession can help bust the myth that native-born workers are too snooty to get their boots dirty in farm fields and back shops.
Maybe then a key plank for an amnesty will be removed.
Comment:
It was never true that there were "jobs that Americans wouldn't do." Proof was that,
1] in every occupation, even where lots of immigrants were working, the majority of workers were still American.
2]any time ICE raided a business and arrested illegal aliens, hundreds or thousands of Americans would line up to take available jobs.
3] immigrants beat out Americans only be taking jobs at much lower wages and without benefits. At a living wage, Americans have always been willing to do ANY job
ELIZABETH MAY PARACHUTES INTO LOTUS LAND
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/may-to-unveil-candidacy-in-bc-riding/article1279346
Mortgage your house and send your donations to the Conservative incumbent Gary Lunn. This woman must be stopped. Better to have an enemy that is upfront upon his agenda---GROWTH----than a “growth-manager” who favours an immigration quota 25% upon the Harper government’s outrageous level. Elizabeth May has taken the Green Party down the same hypocritical open-borders road that she took the Sierra Club. 56% of Green Party voters in an internal poll taken in late 2004 favoured a Population Plan for Canada, which under section 5, included immigration reduction. The Green Party hierarchy ditched the policy and the experiment in grassroots democracy that approved of it. The majority of the rank and file of the Green Party would support our agenda, but the Pied Piper of counterfeit environmentalism, the globalist American émigré, Elizabeth May, wants to accelerate the destruction of both the cultural and biological heritage of Canada. Only her defeat will make it possible for the Green Party to move in the direction that its name implies.
On the other hand, Saltspring Island deserves a quisling moron of her caliber. It is the home of the granola green yuppies and New Age flakes who believe that “love” and “non-violence” will somehow banish scarcity. The rich Albertans and urban exiles on Saltspring can, wearing her badge, continue to enjoy their extravagant lifestyle, their mega homes and foreign vacations, but feel good about themselves with cosmetic genuflections to sustainable living. Replace your old lights with CFLs and recycle your garbage and voila, “look at me, I’m green”.
Resident billionaire John Lefebvre, indicted on criminal charges of internet gambling in America, is a key supporter and benefactor of the David Suzuki foundation. His home was the venue for an international meeting on the environment in January of 2009 hosted by the Great Man Himself, His Holiness David Suzuki, father of five ecological footprints. Participant Bill Ryerson flew across the continent to get a chance to make a case that “Hey, overpopulation has at least SOMETHING to do with climate change and environmental degradation, people.” He barely got a word in, and it was at the very end of the conference. No one on that island has a clue about the meaning of sustainability it seems. The hotel that we were staying displayed cards in each room that boasted that the hotel, like other island establishments, was “green”, because it followed the prescriptions of the Holy Trinity---Conserve, Re-use, and Re-cycle. Meanwhile, the planners attached to Islands Trust, the governing body of the island, have hatched a plan to hike the population from its current 10,000 to a stratospheric 18,000. Do any of these ‘green’ businesses raise the alarm? Not in your life. Population growth is good for business—especially for the 50 real estate sharks who circle every tourist with out-of-province licence plates on his SUV. And in the world of Elizabeth May, the David Suzuki Foundation and the soft greens of Saltspring Island, you can have the best of both worlds. Growth and a “clean” environment. 4,000 sq. foot waterfront homes, $30,000 cars, exotic vacations and a sustainable society at the same time. They are rootless cosmopolitans, they love the world but hate Canada and what it once stood for. Open the floodgates and share the bounty, that is, your bounty. Canada---“Home to the world”.
We have one ace in the hole. Wildlife artist and long-time Saltspring resident Robert Bateman. He is a dedicated and authentic environmentalist, a courageous opponent of population growth globally and in Canada, and has boldly stated his position on one of his websites. His mere celebrity should force the attention of Elizabeth May, who might experience an epiphany if she listens to him. One can always hope. But I am betting that I will see the Second Coming before that happens.
Tim Murray
September 8/09
Mortgage your house and send your donations to the Conservative incumbent Gary Lunn. This woman must be stopped. Better to have an enemy that is upfront upon his agenda---GROWTH----than a “growth-manager” who favours an immigration quota 25% upon the Harper government’s outrageous level. Elizabeth May has taken the Green Party down the same hypocritical open-borders road that she took the Sierra Club. 56% of Green Party voters in an internal poll taken in late 2004 favoured a Population Plan for Canada, which under section 5, included immigration reduction. The Green Party hierarchy ditched the policy and the experiment in grassroots democracy that approved of it. The majority of the rank and file of the Green Party would support our agenda, but the Pied Piper of counterfeit environmentalism, the globalist American émigré, Elizabeth May, wants to accelerate the destruction of both the cultural and biological heritage of Canada. Only her defeat will make it possible for the Green Party to move in the direction that its name implies.
On the other hand, Saltspring Island deserves a quisling moron of her caliber. It is the home of the granola green yuppies and New Age flakes who believe that “love” and “non-violence” will somehow banish scarcity. The rich Albertans and urban exiles on Saltspring can, wearing her badge, continue to enjoy their extravagant lifestyle, their mega homes and foreign vacations, but feel good about themselves with cosmetic genuflections to sustainable living. Replace your old lights with CFLs and recycle your garbage and voila, “look at me, I’m green”.
Resident billionaire John Lefebvre, indicted on criminal charges of internet gambling in America, is a key supporter and benefactor of the David Suzuki foundation. His home was the venue for an international meeting on the environment in January of 2009 hosted by the Great Man Himself, His Holiness David Suzuki, father of five ecological footprints. Participant Bill Ryerson flew across the continent to get a chance to make a case that “Hey, overpopulation has at least SOMETHING to do with climate change and environmental degradation, people.” He barely got a word in, and it was at the very end of the conference. No one on that island has a clue about the meaning of sustainability it seems. The hotel that we were staying displayed cards in each room that boasted that the hotel, like other island establishments, was “green”, because it followed the prescriptions of the Holy Trinity---Conserve, Re-use, and Re-cycle. Meanwhile, the planners attached to Islands Trust, the governing body of the island, have hatched a plan to hike the population from its current 10,000 to a stratospheric 18,000. Do any of these ‘green’ businesses raise the alarm? Not in your life. Population growth is good for business—especially for the 50 real estate sharks who circle every tourist with out-of-province licence plates on his SUV. And in the world of Elizabeth May, the David Suzuki Foundation and the soft greens of Saltspring Island, you can have the best of both worlds. Growth and a “clean” environment. 4,000 sq. foot waterfront homes, $30,000 cars, exotic vacations and a sustainable society at the same time. They are rootless cosmopolitans, they love the world but hate Canada and what it once stood for. Open the floodgates and share the bounty, that is, your bounty. Canada---“Home to the world”.
We have one ace in the hole. Wildlife artist and long-time Saltspring resident Robert Bateman. He is a dedicated and authentic environmentalist, a courageous opponent of population growth globally and in Canada, and has boldly stated his position on one of his websites. His mere celebrity should force the attention of Elizabeth May, who might experience an epiphany if she listens to him. One can always hope. But I am betting that I will see the Second Coming before that happens.
Tim Murray
September 8/09
Friday, August 21, 2009
THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN A NUTSHELL
Just as Central Asia gave Europe the Bubonic Plague, and Central Africa gave us AIDS and the Ebola virus, Canada gave the world the state ideology of multiculturalism. As it is our incubus, then it is fitting that it should be defined by us. So according to the dictionary of Immigration Watch Canada: http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN_position=123:123
“MULTICULTURALISM: A term used to refer to the phenomenon, in Canada, of promoting, among immigrants, the retention of their own cultural practices. It also refers not only to the different ethnic backgrounds of many people in Canada, but to the growing number of those backgrounds.
Multiculturalism has been widely criticized. Some critics have said that multiculturalism requires a continuous inflow of immigrants in order to survive. If multiculturalism is to continue, immigration (particularly high and unnecessary immigration) must continue. As some critics have said, Canada's multiculturalist policies are a prescription of what Canada will become, not a description of what we are.
Multiculturalism has positive connotations for some, but for many Canadians, it is a euphemism and a disguise for a continuation of Canada's present unprecedented, unremitting high immigration levels. In fact, one critic has said that continued, high immigration levels are the oxygen for multiculturalism. Without continued high immigration, multiculturalism would die the death it richly deserves.
To others, the words "multiculturalism" and "diversity" are the positive-sounding "artillery" used against an unsuspecting Canadian public to get them to accept unjustified immigration. In other words, these terms are more examples of the deceit used to perpetuate high immigration levels.”
So while high immigration levels breathe life into multiculturalism, multiculturalism, or the quest for “cultural diversity”, justifies high immigration levels. Mass immigration is, in the words of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, “Canada’s great project”. A project of cultural balkanization and colonization of urban Canada and the attendant loss of farmland and wildlife to the population growth that results from it. Cultural diversity comes at the cost of biological diversity. To corporate Canada its apostles are what Stalin said of Western fellow travelers: “useful idiots”--- who give developers and cheap labour employers a smokescreen to pursue naked greed.
Tim Murray
August 21/ 2009
“MULTICULTURALISM: A term used to refer to the phenomenon, in Canada, of promoting, among immigrants, the retention of their own cultural practices. It also refers not only to the different ethnic backgrounds of many people in Canada, but to the growing number of those backgrounds.
Multiculturalism has been widely criticized. Some critics have said that multiculturalism requires a continuous inflow of immigrants in order to survive. If multiculturalism is to continue, immigration (particularly high and unnecessary immigration) must continue. As some critics have said, Canada's multiculturalist policies are a prescription of what Canada will become, not a description of what we are.
Multiculturalism has positive connotations for some, but for many Canadians, it is a euphemism and a disguise for a continuation of Canada's present unprecedented, unremitting high immigration levels. In fact, one critic has said that continued, high immigration levels are the oxygen for multiculturalism. Without continued high immigration, multiculturalism would die the death it richly deserves.
To others, the words "multiculturalism" and "diversity" are the positive-sounding "artillery" used against an unsuspecting Canadian public to get them to accept unjustified immigration. In other words, these terms are more examples of the deceit used to perpetuate high immigration levels.”
So while high immigration levels breathe life into multiculturalism, multiculturalism, or the quest for “cultural diversity”, justifies high immigration levels. Mass immigration is, in the words of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, “Canada’s great project”. A project of cultural balkanization and colonization of urban Canada and the attendant loss of farmland and wildlife to the population growth that results from it. Cultural diversity comes at the cost of biological diversity. To corporate Canada its apostles are what Stalin said of Western fellow travelers: “useful idiots”--- who give developers and cheap labour employers a smokescreen to pursue naked greed.
Tim Murray
August 21/ 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
THE "FREE SURFACE EFFECT" OF MASS IMMIGRATION
HOW THE "TRIVIAL" MOVEMENTS OF PEOPLE BETWEEN COUNTRIES CAN MIMIC THE "SLOSH DYNAMICS" OF MARITIME DISASTERS
"...to say that immigration is the problem is really to put the emphasis on something that is, when you really look at the various factors,it's basically trivial. I mean, only 3% of the world's population dies in a country other than that in which they were born..." Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May on CBC Radio, May 17/06
So Elizabeth May says that immigration, at 3% of the world’s population, is “trivial”. Trivial to whom? To the workers whose jobs are displaced and whose wages are depressed? (Rubenstein, Briggs, Borgias). Trivial to the taxpayers who must pay for the social services of immigrants? (Robert Rector study, Heritage Foundation 2006, Grubel study, Fraser Institute 2006). Trivial to those who fight traffic gridlock, suffer pollution, housing shortages and inflated prices and loss of farmland?. Is it trivial to the Israelis, the Spanish, and the Indians who have also resorted to building expensive walls to keep migrants out? Is it trivial to South Africa which has been deluged with so many Zimbabweans that civil unrest followed? Will the prospect of 300 million global environmental refugees be trivial?
The Green Party of Canada’s International Affairs Critic, Eric Walton, has attacked the metaphor of Canada as a “sinking lifeboat” that is in danger of capsizing from allowing too many foreign-born passengers on board. He accuses those involved in organizations like “Biodiversity First”, “Immigration Watch Canada” and the “Population Institute of Canada” of being merely anti-immigration activists who cloak their agenda in environmentalism. The flaw in our position, he contends, is our failure to recognize that Canada is not the lifeboat, but rather , it is the world itself---of which we are a passenger, like it or not. The only solution to environmental problems, which Greens seem to believe are all global in nature, is to seek the cooperation of other international “passengers”. Closing our borders is very likely to alienate them rather than entice them into that needed cooperation. In other words, to win the goodwill of our neighbours, let’s throw our gate open and leave our front door unlocked. Moreover, as a trading nation, our ecological impact is not merely a function of our population, or indeed of our consumption, but the consumption of our resources by other nations. Our focus on immigration is therefore rather simplistic. (One then is given to ask, as analyst Rich Shea did, "After years of saying that we have to lower our consumption, are Greens now saying that our domestic consumption is not an issue any more, and that we need to be more worried about the consumption of other countries? Have they abandoned their principles and adopted a quasi-xenophobic platform instead? If this were a dance, I'd call it the "consumption two-step") In Walton's words:
" In the end I think this debate (over immigration) boils down to a 'Small Lifeboat vs a Big Lifeboat' approach to the population/environment dynamic.
The Small Lifeboat group think we can and must save ourselves/environment within a gated Canada independent of the rest of the world while the Big Lifeboat group ( to which I belong) maintain that on the issue of population it truly is "Global or Bust" and that we must fully engage internationally in a spirit of good will and continuing to demonstrate generosity and thus become part of the global solution rather than following the 'each to his own survival' approach.
For the public record, the 'Small Lifeboat' approach is not a GPC position nor is it one that as International Affairs Critic that I would support." (March 6/2008).
With all due respect to Mr. Walton, we don’t believe that it is necessary to invite the neighbourhood into our home to raid the refrigerator or ravish the garden in order to enlist their cooperation or help the cause of neighbourhood security. We believe that by being good stewards of our own land , protecting our food security from the housing developments needed to accommodate immigrants, and therefore being able to dispense our surplus to neighbours in need will suffice as sufficient testimony to our good will. Japan could serve as one of Walton’s detestable “gated communities”, and it is not an international pariah for doing that. We also believe that the Green Party obsession with thwarting climate change, which they unduly prioritize as the top threat to the environment, is not served by promoting migration. The study released by the Centre For Immigration Studies in August of 2008 clearly established that mass migration to the United States quadruples the GHG emissions of each migrant upon his arrival to America and therefore accelerates the timetable of our collective global demise. Sealing our borders or at least firming them up is a service to the global community. And remittances are not, as Walton believes, of net benefit to recipient countries, according the analysis of Dr. William Rees.
Walton’s answer is a classic Green one. Rather than close the doors, let’s reduce our per capita consumption levels. Why not do both? Why not first do that, why not first establish good land use policies to save farmland and wetlands from sprawl, why not first establish a conserver society, then have a conversation about how much more Mr. Walton wants to grow our population? It seems that the Greens always put the cart before the horse. Nature does not care about Canadians per capita consumption rates, or our “green living” habits like vegetarianism, recycling, screwing in CFL lights, driving hybrid cars or building ‘green’. It only cares about our TOTAL consumption. That is the NUMBER of consumers times their per capita consumption. Get it?
Greens simply won’t understand that stopping more people from getting here either though the airport or the maternity ward is a critical variable in not only our own sustainability but the world’s. Why is that so hard to accept? Whatever happened to “I=PAT”?
Choose your metaphor. If you are not comfortable in our Canadian lifeboat, then let’s for a minute board the virtual reality of Mr. Walton’s global lifeboat, or ship if you like. How can any ship brave the rough waters of climate change, biodiversity loss and Peak Oil, Water and Soil by allowing its passengers to migrate to one side of the vessel? What Mr. Walton and his leader, Elizabeth May, need, is not so much an education in the “population-environment dynamic”, but a course in physics—specializing in the “slosh dynamics” of the “free surface effect”.
" The Free Surface Effect is a phenomenon whereby a small amount of water inside the vessel starts slopping from side to side, making the ship rock. As the water moves it gathers momentum, causing the rocking to become more pronounced. The shifting water quickly makes the ship unstable, and can shift cargo and capsize the ship quickly." (Wikipedia) Five to eight centimeters can suffice to do the trick. Even if this "trivial" amount of water enters through the doors of a ferry (its "borders")like that of the doomed "The Heritage of Free Enterprise" or "al-Salam Boccaccio Disaster of 1998", as it moves it gather momentum, causing the rocking to be more pronounced.
This clearly a metaphor for overshoot. A nation can become “top heavy” with overpopulation. But the focus on global overpopulation, like the focus by disaster investigators on the “overpopulation” or “overload” of capsized ships, fails to acknowledge that the migration or shift of people or water on those ships was more decisive a factor in their sinking than the number of people or the volume of water in the ships. A ship can be overloaded in a storm but if the contents of the ship---its passengers, its cars or the water on deck----is impeded from movement to one side by secure bulkheads or lashings, the ship’s centre of gravity will remain the same. And its chances of survival then remain very much better. Global overpopulation stresses the global environment. But a smaller global population with open borders is far more dangerous to the environment than a more populated planet with secure borders and impeded migration. Containing the multiplier effect of migrants moving to less populated and more resource rich regions to consume more is a more important key to sustainability than a less politically courageous resolution to simply resist population growth globally.
Our ship---national or global---will founder and capsize if migration is permitted to continue relatively unfettered. Follow the autopsies of major ferry disasters and one can then understand the threat we are facing. While overloading often accounts for high casualties in ship sinkings in such places as the Phillipines, it is the shifting of passengers to one side of the ship that they run to in response to swaying that is typically the straw that breaks the camel's back. And it was not the volume of incoming water--just over an inch covered the car deck--- that sank "The Heritage of Free Enterprise" but its unimpeded movement to one side of the vessel, which posthumously should perhaps be re-christened the HMCS Canada.
Tim Murray
August 19/09
"...to say that immigration is the problem is really to put the emphasis on something that is, when you really look at the various factors,it's basically trivial. I mean, only 3% of the world's population dies in a country other than that in which they were born..." Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May on CBC Radio, May 17/06
So Elizabeth May says that immigration, at 3% of the world’s population, is “trivial”. Trivial to whom? To the workers whose jobs are displaced and whose wages are depressed? (Rubenstein, Briggs, Borgias). Trivial to the taxpayers who must pay for the social services of immigrants? (Robert Rector study, Heritage Foundation 2006, Grubel study, Fraser Institute 2006). Trivial to those who fight traffic gridlock, suffer pollution, housing shortages and inflated prices and loss of farmland?. Is it trivial to the Israelis, the Spanish, and the Indians who have also resorted to building expensive walls to keep migrants out? Is it trivial to South Africa which has been deluged with so many Zimbabweans that civil unrest followed? Will the prospect of 300 million global environmental refugees be trivial?
The Green Party of Canada’s International Affairs Critic, Eric Walton, has attacked the metaphor of Canada as a “sinking lifeboat” that is in danger of capsizing from allowing too many foreign-born passengers on board. He accuses those involved in organizations like “Biodiversity First”, “Immigration Watch Canada” and the “Population Institute of Canada” of being merely anti-immigration activists who cloak their agenda in environmentalism. The flaw in our position, he contends, is our failure to recognize that Canada is not the lifeboat, but rather , it is the world itself---of which we are a passenger, like it or not. The only solution to environmental problems, which Greens seem to believe are all global in nature, is to seek the cooperation of other international “passengers”. Closing our borders is very likely to alienate them rather than entice them into that needed cooperation. In other words, to win the goodwill of our neighbours, let’s throw our gate open and leave our front door unlocked. Moreover, as a trading nation, our ecological impact is not merely a function of our population, or indeed of our consumption, but the consumption of our resources by other nations. Our focus on immigration is therefore rather simplistic. (One then is given to ask, as analyst Rich Shea did, "After years of saying that we have to lower our consumption, are Greens now saying that our domestic consumption is not an issue any more, and that we need to be more worried about the consumption of other countries? Have they abandoned their principles and adopted a quasi-xenophobic platform instead? If this were a dance, I'd call it the "consumption two-step") In Walton's words:
" In the end I think this debate (over immigration) boils down to a 'Small Lifeboat vs a Big Lifeboat' approach to the population/environment dynamic.
The Small Lifeboat group think we can and must save ourselves/environment within a gated Canada independent of the rest of the world while the Big Lifeboat group ( to which I belong) maintain that on the issue of population it truly is "Global or Bust" and that we must fully engage internationally in a spirit of good will and continuing to demonstrate generosity and thus become part of the global solution rather than following the 'each to his own survival' approach.
For the public record, the 'Small Lifeboat' approach is not a GPC position nor is it one that as International Affairs Critic that I would support." (March 6/2008).
With all due respect to Mr. Walton, we don’t believe that it is necessary to invite the neighbourhood into our home to raid the refrigerator or ravish the garden in order to enlist their cooperation or help the cause of neighbourhood security. We believe that by being good stewards of our own land , protecting our food security from the housing developments needed to accommodate immigrants, and therefore being able to dispense our surplus to neighbours in need will suffice as sufficient testimony to our good will. Japan could serve as one of Walton’s detestable “gated communities”, and it is not an international pariah for doing that. We also believe that the Green Party obsession with thwarting climate change, which they unduly prioritize as the top threat to the environment, is not served by promoting migration. The study released by the Centre For Immigration Studies in August of 2008 clearly established that mass migration to the United States quadruples the GHG emissions of each migrant upon his arrival to America and therefore accelerates the timetable of our collective global demise. Sealing our borders or at least firming them up is a service to the global community. And remittances are not, as Walton believes, of net benefit to recipient countries, according the analysis of Dr. William Rees.
Walton’s answer is a classic Green one. Rather than close the doors, let’s reduce our per capita consumption levels. Why not do both? Why not first do that, why not first establish good land use policies to save farmland and wetlands from sprawl, why not first establish a conserver society, then have a conversation about how much more Mr. Walton wants to grow our population? It seems that the Greens always put the cart before the horse. Nature does not care about Canadians per capita consumption rates, or our “green living” habits like vegetarianism, recycling, screwing in CFL lights, driving hybrid cars or building ‘green’. It only cares about our TOTAL consumption. That is the NUMBER of consumers times their per capita consumption. Get it?
Greens simply won’t understand that stopping more people from getting here either though the airport or the maternity ward is a critical variable in not only our own sustainability but the world’s. Why is that so hard to accept? Whatever happened to “I=PAT”?
Choose your metaphor. If you are not comfortable in our Canadian lifeboat, then let’s for a minute board the virtual reality of Mr. Walton’s global lifeboat, or ship if you like. How can any ship brave the rough waters of climate change, biodiversity loss and Peak Oil, Water and Soil by allowing its passengers to migrate to one side of the vessel? What Mr. Walton and his leader, Elizabeth May, need, is not so much an education in the “population-environment dynamic”, but a course in physics—specializing in the “slosh dynamics” of the “free surface effect”.
" The Free Surface Effect is a phenomenon whereby a small amount of water inside the vessel starts slopping from side to side, making the ship rock. As the water moves it gathers momentum, causing the rocking to become more pronounced. The shifting water quickly makes the ship unstable, and can shift cargo and capsize the ship quickly." (Wikipedia) Five to eight centimeters can suffice to do the trick. Even if this "trivial" amount of water enters through the doors of a ferry (its "borders")like that of the doomed "The Heritage of Free Enterprise" or "al-Salam Boccaccio Disaster of 1998", as it moves it gather momentum, causing the rocking to be more pronounced.
This clearly a metaphor for overshoot. A nation can become “top heavy” with overpopulation. But the focus on global overpopulation, like the focus by disaster investigators on the “overpopulation” or “overload” of capsized ships, fails to acknowledge that the migration or shift of people or water on those ships was more decisive a factor in their sinking than the number of people or the volume of water in the ships. A ship can be overloaded in a storm but if the contents of the ship---its passengers, its cars or the water on deck----is impeded from movement to one side by secure bulkheads or lashings, the ship’s centre of gravity will remain the same. And its chances of survival then remain very much better. Global overpopulation stresses the global environment. But a smaller global population with open borders is far more dangerous to the environment than a more populated planet with secure borders and impeded migration. Containing the multiplier effect of migrants moving to less populated and more resource rich regions to consume more is a more important key to sustainability than a less politically courageous resolution to simply resist population growth globally.
Our ship---national or global---will founder and capsize if migration is permitted to continue relatively unfettered. Follow the autopsies of major ferry disasters and one can then understand the threat we are facing. While overloading often accounts for high casualties in ship sinkings in such places as the Phillipines, it is the shifting of passengers to one side of the ship that they run to in response to swaying that is typically the straw that breaks the camel's back. And it was not the volume of incoming water--just over an inch covered the car deck--- that sank "The Heritage of Free Enterprise" but its unimpeded movement to one side of the vessel, which posthumously should perhaps be re-christened the HMCS Canada.
Tim Murray
August 19/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
