Since every reasoned argument that demonstrates the clear correlation between mass immigration and the ruinous environmental degradation of Canada is stymied by accusations of racism it is obvious that we, who oppose immigration, must also demonstrate our racial impartiality.
Therefore I propose that we discriminate against those who so far have escaped retribution . That one privileged group who have designed the world for the ergonomic inconvenience of the persecuted ten percent. I am speaking of the ruling class that comprises 90% of the global population, the right-handers, whom statistics show are favoured in so very many ways.
If by its immigrant selection process, Canada was to shut the door on them, and them only, it would not necessarily stop left handed people from any nationality, race, ethnicity or religion from applying for citizenship. It would just stop 90% of them. And that is a good start to population stabilization and eventually reduction.
What would a 90% reduction in the immigration intake have meant in 2007? Look at the numbers. The number of people who entered the country officially as immigrants (240,000). The number who were officially accepted (251,000). And the total number who came in as permanent immigrants, temporary Visa residents, students, and others. (453,000). Then reduce those totals by 90%, and see what impact that has on the annual output of Canada’s green house gasses (GHG) and the conversion of Ontario’s prime agricultural land into housing and commercial outlets. Remember that each Canadian on average emits 23 metric tonnes of Green House Gases. Here are the three angles from which immigration totals to Canada in 2007 may be viewed:
2007: Less 90% Saving in GHG emissions
453,000 total entrants 408,700 9,400,100 metric tonnes
251,000 accepted 225,900 5,195,700 metric tonnes
240,000 entered 216,000 4,968,000 metric tonnes
From any way you look at it, if the immigrants who were privileged with being right-handed all their lives had been turned away, Canada would have retarded the process of global warming by nearly 5 million metric tonnes of GHG ----or about four times as much as the immigrants would have emitted had they stayed home in their original countries.
Moreover, it is likely that the province of Ontario would have lost 54,000 fewer acres of prime farmland that year, since immigrant-driven population growth, not poor land-use planning, is the conspicuous culprit in the loss of Class 1 agrarian land in urban Canada. Losses have occurred at a consistent pace of 60,000 acres a year for a decade---a 90% cut in immigration would slow those losses considerably. And the 536 species at risk, who rely on the flora that border farmland to shelter them, would get a reprieve too.
I think it is imperative that we move quickly against the right-handers, before human rights advocates bring them under the umbrella of civil rights protection. Once they do that, then another cross-cultural, multi-racial group representing 90% of the global population will have to be singled out for exclusion. I would offer up my own ancestors (Irish-Icelanders), but there aren’t enough of them to make a difference. How about cat-lovers, people with hang-nails, chess players---I really don’t care. Any arbitrary criteria that would not be discriminatory in the traditionally odious ways but exclusionary in the broadest possible ways. A blanket moratorium on immigration would be best and simplest. But that is not a political possibility. Yet.
First and foremost, it is about getting the numbers down.
Add comment