Canada: Immigrating Itself to Obscurity

It’s not often that I disagree with the Captain, but when I do I’m compelled to write about it.

Understand simply doing what an estimated 50 billion humans have been doing for the past 2 million years (breeding) is nothing great, nothing grandiose, and nothing special.  I don’t care how many “baby showers” there are or how many trillions of dollars are spent, or how precious you think you’re little baby is.

Humans are INCREDIBLY common

INCREDIBLY numerous

and none of us in the universal sense are special.

Hmm… actually, upon re-reading, it’s not so much that I disagree with him, as that I’m looking at it from a different perspective.

[I am not against] “having children.”  It is not, “whooping up the DINK lifestyle.”  It is not “mocking people who have children.”

It is a genuine question of curiosity – “What changes in people when they have a kid that they now think their legacy is limited to, defined by and embodied in that kid?”

And it’s not even that having a legacy is a mutually exclusive event with having children.  If anything it’s a complimentary event that enhances both your lives through hobbies.  How great would it be to rebuild a classic car with your dad?  Or build kites from scratch?  Or brew beer together?  Or…um…do whatever girly things moms and daughters find interesting.  Having a true legacy will only benefit your child.

I see where he’s going with this (after all, there’s a reason I make fun of Breeders).  It’s an indictment of those whiny, obsequious, Craven breeding sows which populate our suburbs; people who never get to know their neighbours, never rock the boat for fear of a Harassment complaint, and vote for every oppressive bit of legislation that crosses their ballot box.  In a sane world Confirmed Bachelors such as myself, the Captain, and the late Ferdinand Bardamu ought to be a bunch of callow degenerates.  But in our Present Dystopia it’s us radicals who are the only ones standing up for Truth, Justice, and the Western Tradition.

The Breeders, meanwhile, vote in entitlement after entitlement, and will accept no culture but the blandest and most vile pap, preferably directed by Michael Bay.  This truly is the Fourth Turning.

But while the Captain has his smouldering ruby laser trained on culture, for myself it’s been Population Demographics festering within my thoughts.  As a cynic, I always expect the worse, but any time I look up the numbers they’re far more dire than I would have dared guess.

Canadian Population (2001): 30,007,094

Canadian Birthrate per Woman (2000): 1.5 (2.1 being replacement)

Let’s see how this looks when we apply some Charty Goodness (source):

Note the sharp decline around 1965; this is more than just the effects of technology and urbanization.  There’s something foul afoot when an equilibrium gets cut in half over night, and I think we all know what that is (Feminism and the Welfare state).  But that “1.5 per woman” statistic is only half the story.  To see what the actual rate of increase is, we need to include the age at which women are reproducing.

The above chart demonstrates that women are having children much later in life than they did historically (gain: notice that sudden, swift change between 1962 and 1982), and when you multiply these together – the number of children, and the age of motherhood – you get (according to the CIA World Factbook) – a Canadian birthrate of 10.28 per 1000.  For comparison, you Americans are at 13.68, and China is at 12.31.  It should go without saying that the highest birthrates – up in the 40s and 50s – are occurring in the parts of the world which you Do Not Want to be born into.

So, birthrates are rock bottom throughout the Western World.  We all know that.  What’s the big deal?

Well, the problem’s trifold.  First of all, society is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme; our economies assume that parents will have multiple children, who will then be able to afford to take care of them in their old age. In a perfectly Free Market, those who failed to breed would have either saved for retirement, or they’d starve to death; but in an era of Massive Entitlement Spending for Seniors, this is not the case – an ever dwindling Work Force must pay for those who did not replace themselves.  Us young folk will foot the bill, fewer and fewer of us each year.  Our elders will enjoy their retirement, while we enjoy a lowered standard of living.  Thanks, Baby Boomers.

Secondly, there’s the problem of population quality, as well as quantity.  To put it simply, traits are heritable; intelligence, criminality, work ethic – these are more a product of genetics than environment.  Just look at our last Prime Minister’s adopted son.  And though I can’t find any statistics to back it up, we’ve all seen the evidence with our own eyes – the Proles are outbreeding the Intelligentsia.

Will this end in Idiocracy?  Or will the city liberals go extinct, while the conservative farmers take charge?  Once again, no data.  But the problems with disparate breeding patterns isn’t just the long-term trends; it also has immediate consequences.

Our Degenerate Democratic Government presupposes that people will vote as individuals, not as groups – when of course we all know that people do vote as groups.  And when Identity Groups with disparate breeding patterns vote, the results are disastrous.  Ryan Faulk explains this succinctly with two minutes of market-fundamentalist Hate Speech:

So: the second problem is that our skewed reproduction rates undermine our entire system of governance.  Just one more aspect of the system which is precipitating the collapse.

But it’s the third problem that I really want to focus on, an indirect result of this lack of baby-making.  You see, to shore up those population numbers, governments turn to an obvious short-term solution: immigrants.  And how many?

  • Canadian Population (2001): 30,007,094
  • Immigrants to Canada (2001): 250,640

Nearly 1% of our population – each year – are coming from foreign countries!

“What the hell’s wrong with that?” I hear you say, “Are you some sort of rassist?”  Well, probably, but allow me to quote from Lawrence Auster’s frank discussion on the matter:

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the ideal of homogeneity is balanced by the desirability for a certain degree of variety and cosmopolitanism.

Based on what I have said so far, it would appear that no further non-European immigration should be allowed. However, I do not believe, given current realities, that an exclusion of all non-Europeans, strictly on a racial basis, is morally desirable or politically possible. [Bolding added]

When done properly diversity can be a strength.  During the days of the East India Company, both Britain and India wound up influencing the other; can you even imagine Britain without its delicious curry shops?  In Canada we have that crazy place called Montreal and its poutine.  And the United States?  Good God, its signature forms of music – Jazz and Rock ‘n Roll – the sounds that swept the world? – are a combination which could only happen when Chocolate mixed with Vanilla! [Yes, yes, it also produced Hip Hop and Rap… I blame that on 40 years of Feminism and Single Motherhood.] And it would be criminal not to mention pizza and chicken balls…

When it’s done right, immigrants with their differing cultures provide a much needed challenge to society, spurring it on to greater heights and cultural sophistication.  But when it’s done wrong; when the challenge turns into an attack…

Consider, if you will, how the entire Structure of immigration has changed over the past hundred years.  We’ll use my own Filthy, Italian, Great-great-grandfather as an example:

Men in the front, wife and daughters in the back, as God intended.

Back then, when you immigrated to another country it was for life.  We didn’t have international calling cards; we didn’t have the Internet to provide you with the Cultural Products of the old country; and most importantly, we didn’t have a giant welfare state to support you.  The best you could hope for, back then, was a plot of undeveloped land that the government would let you farm, or maybe a friend of the family who could help you find a job.  You’d better be able to speak English, and none of that Italian caterwauling ’till all hours of the night – the colonials won’t put up with it!

How do our current Immigrants compare?

First, we need to break them down into the three categories they come in. “Economic Immigrants” are what we think of, when we think of immigrants – people that actually applied to enter the country, and whom we allowed in because they seemed like Pretty Cool Guys.  Us long-timers all came from this category.  Then there’s the Refugees – self explanatory.  But the third group, the one that most people don’t think of, is known as “Family Class.”  Under current immigration law, once you’ve arrived an found a job, you’re able to secure further positions for your immediate family – and we get no say as to whether they’re allowed in or not.  So what’s the breakdown from 2010?

  • Economic Class: 94,959
  • Family Class: 24,934
  • Refugees: 12,606
  • Other: 4,498

By my calculations, that’s 37,540 people – 27% of the total – who we don’t necessarily want to be here.  They didn’t prove that they’d be good citizens, or productive members of society – we simply let them in out of the goodness of our hearts.  Which might explain the following statistic:

Recent census data used in the study reveals that immigrants who arrived in recent decades have average incomes that are only 72% of the average earned by all Canadians.  This fact is important because under Canada’s welfare-state regime personal income tax rates are progressive and the immigrants with these low incomes on average pay only a little more than half what all Canadians pay.

…we estimate that the fiscal cost imposed by immigrants on all Canadians was about $6,051 for fiscal year 2005/06.

Depending on assumptions… the total fiscal cost to the government of recent immigrants ranges from $16.3 billion to $23.6 billion annually.

Given that we only took in $255 billion in revenue this year ($26 billion in deficit!), I’d call that significant.  But it’s more than just finances, as I pointed out above; there’s the question of how committed these new Canadians are.  So when we see the following chart:

It’s important to keep in mind that the big hump between 1900 and 1940 is composed of people who – though they might be filthy Italians, Polacks, and Chinamen – had made a commitment to be Canadians 4 Life!  They had no choice in the matter; it was a case of Conform or Starve.

Furthermore, the Country at the time was well aware of the dangers of cultural ghettoization; it hadn’t been so long ago that Mexico lost the state of Texas by filling it with English speaking Brits, and they didn’t want the same thing happening here.  True, when the immigrants were assigned to the same place they tended to cluster into Chinatown and Little Italy – but the Powers That Be made sure to spread them throughout the country, to prevent a single giant buildup.  They no longer do this; the result is Hong Couver.

Culture is more than a style of cuisine, or a preference in music; it is the very foundation of a society, and the driving purpose behind it.  It’s the accepted rules of common courtesy: When’s an appropriate time to be noisy?  Where is it reasonable to get drunk?  How much do you haggle?  In a healthy society everybody *knows* these things, and they don’t need regulation – shaming and social ostracism keeps violators in check, long before you find a live, mutilated turtle at the grocery store.  A common culture provides a concept for us to rally behind, a unifying identity that turns a stranger into a friend (I might cheer on Italy during the Euro Cup, but I stand behind Canada during the Olympics).  When the Dominant Culture absorbs new immigrants, they become Canadians, loyal to the Crown, they adapt to our customs, this allows a sense of camaraderie with their neighbours.

And when you don’t have camaraderie?  You get hostility.  You get divisiveness.  You get ethnic voting blocks.

So how Dominant does a Dominant Culture have to be, for it to successfully absorb newcomers?  90%?  95%  It probably depends on how dissimilar the two cultures are, but I think we can safely say it’s over 80%.  And how are we doing in Canada?  What does a dropping birthrate, combined with adding 1% of our base population each year in immigrants result in, over the long term?

Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, almost one-half of the population over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent.

I suppose at this point it wouldn’t surprise you to learn that we’re the #1 country in the world for accepting new ‘citizens’?  Heck, all of us Canadians know where the various ethnic ghettos in our cities are located.

Well, at least we have a Conservative and Racist Prime Minister; I’m sure Harper will shut this all down-

…on immigration generally I want to be clear that this government favours an aggressive immigration policy. We are bringing in more immigrants than any previous government.

Oh.  Well, then.

I guess, as the Captain would say: enjoy the decline.

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Arch Stanton says:

    You can leave a material legacy and a genetic one. Do your duty to your race and breed lavishly, start at once. The idea is to raise like-minded folk, your kids will rise to spread your gospel, and prepare for the coming race wars. It’s what your guinea great granddad would have wanted.

  2. APolak4U2NV says:

    Do you have any plans to leave Canada when things start getting fucky?

  3. Revilo says:

    Stephen Harper represents the modern anglo-sphere “conservatism”: Pro-Zionist, Pro-3rd-world immigration,Pro-free markets, Pro-multiculturalism and a lap dog of the Israeli-Jewish-American axis.

  4. god says:

    sigh, all of the things you mentioned “When’s an appropriate time to be noisy? Where is it reasonable to get drunk? How much do you haggle?” are a product of negotiation. it is essentially the free market. things will change and negotiations will happen, but it is nothing to get upset about, and it is rather ironic that you say that culture is more than just food and then use an example of food to demonstrate how different these immigrants are.

    leave immigration to the market, people should be allowed to move freely, just like you move freely within Canada. this is just more central planning. you are a Marxist by another name.

    Ed: You know what, you’re right. I look forward to negotiating appropriate public behaviour with this fine and noble culture.

  5. god says:

    btw, how would you like me to reply to you???

    does commenting here work for you?

    there are costs and benefits to getting to know these foreigners. there is an economic incentive to negotiate…..if you dont want to, then dont, but its heavy handed at best to forbid other ppl from making their own decisions. deciding who comes and goes is central planning which always creates shortages and black markets.

    furthermore, your logic on immigration can be applied to provinces, cities, neighborhoods, and households. if centrally deciding who moves where is so good, why not do it within the country as well???

  1. June 12, 2012

    […] Some are not so hopeful. Noting that in fact, Canada is actively destroying itself. […]