"In both cases, the eventual result was an anti-nationalist nationalism that can only accelerate the demographic replacement occurring throughout the West."
Excellent bottom line. Western Civilization has a death wish.
Not every Canadian, hence the need for a refuge ala Alberta or some other (former) Canadian segment. Peaceful separation. Same talked about by dissidents here in the U.S. for years now. I for one have no death wish, but I’m an American. Perhaps Canadians can work something out before it’s too late and a descent into anarchy becomes unavoidable. Problem with separation here is that the folk wanting separation are often the “productive class”. The parasites know this and will not allow the host to escape until the buzzards are circling.
It seems too late for us in the U.S., but perhaps not for yourselves. Good luck.
With the global rise of third-worldist ideology, I can imagine simple anti-Americanism being a unifying force for both native Canadians and immigrants. Canada has a lot of sparsely populated land which will be attractive as the planet warms, so mass immigration to Canada looks good from a utilitarian perspective.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, mass immigration from the third world will make the entire world poorer, not richer.
Keep in mind that most of the world's wealth is produced by a small number of high-trust societies in Europe, North America and East Asia. In such societies, transaction costs are relatively low because there is no need to check and double-check every transaction to make sure you are getting what you want.
This dynamic changes with mass immigration from low-trust societies. Transaction costs rise until a point is reached when many transactions cease to be cost-effective. Economic activity contracts, and we return to a situation that prevailed before the rise of the market economy. Markets still exist, but they are now confined to physical marketplaces that are isolated in space and time. The market principle cannot spread throughout society as a whole.
Of course, we can slow down this reverse evolution through the use of high-tech security: video surveillance, ankle bracelets, gated communities, use of helicopters for urban navigation, etc. That seems to be the way we're going. But it will just slow down the process.
FWIW, I'm not a pure utilitarian. People have a right to a homeland, no matter how small in number they may be. The argument of the "greatest good for the greatest number" can easily become an argument for imperialism.
I often think about the Canadian multiculturalists, especially perhaps Kymlicka, but also Charles Taylor, who were certain they had this figured out about how to co-exist.
Give Quebec language rights. Give sikhs a waiver from motorcycle helmets. And let the indigenous have their violence-culture. And then supposedly they will be so happy to have their culture recognized that we can all get along.
And I am thinking: that's not how it works. It may work for a while, but human nature is not to be complacent. Give someone a little rights and soon he will be asking for more, and then more, and more.
Until about thirty years ago, most people assumed that our demographics would not change substantially. And even when that assumption began to seem doubtful, they still assumed that our institutions would not change substantially.
Exactly. That's the mistake we made in Sweden and probably what we're seeing in the US and other countries.
We'll just have to see how it turns out. My hunch is that the saying is accurate, that A people hire A people, while B people hire C people. The more we can clannish people in the institutions, the more they will hire their buddies and lower requirements.
I don't know if we can find a society where democracy works when there is a large (>30%) low-performing group at the bottom, and a small group at the top who is significantly better of. Whether we look at the Chinese in Malaysia, Jews in Europe int the early 1900s, or the future of white people in Western societies.
It's important to avoid passivity. Each of us can make a difference simply by speaking and writing.
The "bounds of discourse" are set primarily by social norms, i.e., our notions of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" speech. We can shift those bounds by refusing to obey them — not by getting angry, but by speaking calmly, coherently and convincingly.
Frankly I've given up. I've tried talking, I've been writing, but must conclude that it's all been for nothing.
Did you know there's a book called Who Gets In (Stoffman, 2002) about Canadas immigration politics? (I bought it on ebay or Amazon some time back when I did research on it) And has the book made any difference? Probably not.
The best arguments, the truths, none of it matters.
We can sit here and talk and it will not change anything. Just like with most people in history.
In 2002, my only source of intellectual stimulation was an email discussion group run by Steve Sailer. Later that year, I was given a free trial subscription to The Globe and Mail, which I stopped reading after the first week.
The turn of the millennium was the nadir of intellectual life. On the one hand, the gatekeepers were being replaced with baby-boomers who shared the same intellectual monoculture. On the other hand, alternative media was nonexistent or embryonic. People did have interesting things to say back then, but they had nowhere to publish their ideas.
The book you mentioned was published in 2002 by Macfarlane, Walter & Ross. In 2003, this publishing house was taken over by McClelland & Stewart and then dissolved. The book publishing industry has become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer owners, and those owners all tend to have the same world view.
'Would the Americans intervene? Yes, eventually. But in what way? Generally, the U.S. military prefers to bomb a place to smithereens before bringing in troops. Peacekeeping is not their forte.'
"In both cases, the eventual result was an anti-nationalist nationalism that can only accelerate the demographic replacement occurring throughout the West."
Excellent bottom line. Western Civilization has a death wish.
Not every Canadian, hence the need for a refuge ala Alberta or some other (former) Canadian segment. Peaceful separation. Same talked about by dissidents here in the U.S. for years now. I for one have no death wish, but I’m an American. Perhaps Canadians can work something out before it’s too late and a descent into anarchy becomes unavoidable. Problem with separation here is that the folk wanting separation are often the “productive class”. The parasites know this and will not allow the host to escape until the buzzards are circling.
It seems too late for us in the U.S., but perhaps not for yourselves. Good luck.
Lovely piece, we so seldom have any reason to hope these days…
Vive le Québec libre!
Solid analysis. When I lived there, the first thing one "Canadian" asked another was: "What's your nationality?" The wrong answer was Canadian...
With the global rise of third-worldist ideology, I can imagine simple anti-Americanism being a unifying force for both native Canadians and immigrants. Canada has a lot of sparsely populated land which will be attractive as the planet warms, so mass immigration to Canada looks good from a utilitarian perspective.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, mass immigration from the third world will make the entire world poorer, not richer.
Keep in mind that most of the world's wealth is produced by a small number of high-trust societies in Europe, North America and East Asia. In such societies, transaction costs are relatively low because there is no need to check and double-check every transaction to make sure you are getting what you want.
This dynamic changes with mass immigration from low-trust societies. Transaction costs rise until a point is reached when many transactions cease to be cost-effective. Economic activity contracts, and we return to a situation that prevailed before the rise of the market economy. Markets still exist, but they are now confined to physical marketplaces that are isolated in space and time. The market principle cannot spread throughout society as a whole.
Of course, we can slow down this reverse evolution through the use of high-tech security: video surveillance, ankle bracelets, gated communities, use of helicopters for urban navigation, etc. That seems to be the way we're going. But it will just slow down the process.
FWIW, I'm not a pure utilitarian. People have a right to a homeland, no matter how small in number they may be. The argument of the "greatest good for the greatest number" can easily become an argument for imperialism.
Interesting. Here in Australia there are also two states rumbling about seceding from the Commonwealth. People are not happy.
Thanks for the insight.
I often think about the Canadian multiculturalists, especially perhaps Kymlicka, but also Charles Taylor, who were certain they had this figured out about how to co-exist.
Give Quebec language rights. Give sikhs a waiver from motorcycle helmets. And let the indigenous have their violence-culture. And then supposedly they will be so happy to have their culture recognized that we can all get along.
And I am thinking: that's not how it works. It may work for a while, but human nature is not to be complacent. Give someone a little rights and soon he will be asking for more, and then more, and more.
Until about thirty years ago, most people assumed that our demographics would not change substantially. And even when that assumption began to seem doubtful, they still assumed that our institutions would not change substantially.
Exactly. That's the mistake we made in Sweden and probably what we're seeing in the US and other countries.
We'll just have to see how it turns out. My hunch is that the saying is accurate, that A people hire A people, while B people hire C people. The more we can clannish people in the institutions, the more they will hire their buddies and lower requirements.
I don't know if we can find a society where democracy works when there is a large (>30%) low-performing group at the bottom, and a small group at the top who is significantly better of. Whether we look at the Chinese in Malaysia, Jews in Europe int the early 1900s, or the future of white people in Western societies.
It's important to avoid passivity. Each of us can make a difference simply by speaking and writing.
The "bounds of discourse" are set primarily by social norms, i.e., our notions of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" speech. We can shift those bounds by refusing to obey them — not by getting angry, but by speaking calmly, coherently and convincingly.
Frankly I've given up. I've tried talking, I've been writing, but must conclude that it's all been for nothing.
Did you know there's a book called Who Gets In (Stoffman, 2002) about Canadas immigration politics? (I bought it on ebay or Amazon some time back when I did research on it) And has the book made any difference? Probably not.
The best arguments, the truths, none of it matters.
We can sit here and talk and it will not change anything. Just like with most people in history.
In 2002, my only source of intellectual stimulation was an email discussion group run by Steve Sailer. Later that year, I was given a free trial subscription to The Globe and Mail, which I stopped reading after the first week.
The turn of the millennium was the nadir of intellectual life. On the one hand, the gatekeepers were being replaced with baby-boomers who shared the same intellectual monoculture. On the other hand, alternative media was nonexistent or embryonic. People did have interesting things to say back then, but they had nowhere to publish their ideas.
The book you mentioned was published in 2002 by Macfarlane, Walter & Ross. In 2003, this publishing house was taken over by McClelland & Stewart and then dissolved. The book publishing industry has become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer owners, and those owners all tend to have the same world view.
250 years! I could not be more proud!
Brilliant insight, thanks!
'Would the Americans intervene? Yes, eventually. But in what way? Generally, the U.S. military prefers to bomb a place to smithereens before bringing in troops. Peacekeeping is not their forte.'
In Montreal you barely meet Canadian people,this petty nationalism is nonsense