Category: Dysgenics

According to Candice Malcolm, diversity is necessary for a country to be successful. As long as there is some unifying element(s), it doesn’t matter how much you alter the makeup. (See archive, and pdf version)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

3. Context For This Article

Yes, this has been out for a few years, and should have been addressed then. However, the lies and misrepresentations are still as relevant today as they were then.

It is truly bizarre that Malcolm accurately identifies many of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism, but still insists that Canada needs to go ahead with it. Her essay reads like a parody of a nationalist: identifying all the problems, but still providing the wrong solution.

True, Malcolm is extremely pointed and critical of Trudeau. However, she is silent on the Conservative Party (and her ex-boss, Jason Kenney), doing exactly the same thing. All that differed was rhetoric. Once this double standard is shown, any semblance of objectivity disappears.

4. Conservative Inc. Influenced By Koch/Atlas

• Alberta Institute
• Canadian Constitution Foundation
• Canadian Taxpayers Federation
• Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
• Fraser Institute
• Frontier Center For Public Policy
• Institute For Liberal Studies
• Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
• MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
• Manning Center
• Montreal Economic Institute
• World Taxpayers Federation

civitas.1.changes.to.directors.2016
Side note: Candice Malcolm is also part of Civitas.

5. Rebuke To True North Piece

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is known for his pithy one-liners and perfect soundbite platitudes. In the face of an illegal border crisis, a bizarre policy to “de-radicalize” and “re-integrate” ISIS terrorists, and growing skepticism over increasing immigration while neglecting Canada’s once-strong integration policies, Trudeau responds with the same simplistic response.

Canada’s once strong immigration policies? This would be a good time to point out that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney while he was Immigration Minister. So did her husband. Yet it isn’t disclosed anywhere on True North’s website. Nor are their ties to various Koch/Atlas groups mentioned. Nejatian is a director at True North, yet you would have to contact Corporations Canada or Canada Revenue to find that out.

As a press secretary for Kenney, Malcolm’s role would effectively be to act as Kenney’s mouthpiece. This means toeing the line on the (then) record levels of people the Harper Government brought into Canada.

All of these factors would certainly factor into the tone and agenda that True North offers its readers. Yet Malcolm discloses none of it.

“Diversity is our strength.”
.
What exactly does he mean by “diversity”? What about less desirable types of diversity, such as diversity of core values? Or diverse moral codes, where some Canadians do not value women’s rights or the rights of the LGBT community? What about those who believe group rights ought to supercede the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed through the charter?
.
Diversity of core values, beliefs and culture can easily create societal fractures, and put our coveted peace and stability at risk.

Malcolm actually gets it partly right, but misses the bigger picture.

For an awful lot of people, values are derived at least in part from religious beliefs. Topics like equality of women and gay rights do vary considerably by faiths. Yet Malcolm claims that Canadians aren’t defined by religious identity.

She also claims that a diversity of culture creates social fractures, but seems to think there is no connection between race/ethnicity and culture. Culture must be an entirely sociological construct, without any biological basis at all.

Is Canada simply a United Nations of different people with different values and different moral codes? How are we, then, to deal with the corruption that plagues the UN itself, including vile anti-Semitism, a failed consensus on what constitutes basic human rights, and a lack of an agreed upon authority to enforce laws and norms?
.
Canada’s defacto policy of ever more immigration and ever more diversity was the subject of a now-controversial Twitter essay by Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

If you make it a point to continuously import large numbers of people from all over the world, then yes, it becomes a “United Nations” of different people.

Bernier’s tweeting did make national news. However, he acted as if diversity was something to be celebrated, and that only abstract ideas were what unified us.

Bernier argues that an endless drive for diversity, with no emphasis on what it means to be Canadian, will push us towards division and balkanization. He asks, “if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something?” And he goes on to raise a concern I’ve raised many times — what will happen to a tolerant and liberal society if it welcomes, en masse, individuals with illiberal and intolerant beliefs, practices and traditions?
.
Despite the predictable pearl-clutching from the Liberal media, and the one-sided rush to condemn Bernier for wrongthink, the Beauce MP raises an important, dare I say obvious, criticism of Trudeau’s open-border mantra and obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake.

While Trudeau’s open love for diversity and globalism is revolting, mainstream conservatives in Canada support much the same thing. They are just more subtle about it. Candice Malcolm and her Conservative Inc. allies support white genocide and population replacement, just as long it is done in an orderly fashion.

If you replace the founding stock of the nation, the nation dies. It doesn’t matter if you celebrate it as diversity or not.

Pluralistic nation-states have long existed, Canada being a prime example. And the basic notions that tie our society together are based not on our differences, which are many, but on the commonalities that unite us.

From an abstract perspective this is fine, but the devil is in the details. Malcolm doesn’t really think that there should be meaningful commonalities to unite us.

Remember: conservatives and civic nationalists don’t believe that ethnicity should be a factor in the makeup of a country. They don’t care that there is no blood bond between people. Cities are divided up that way — and all done voluntarily — but race is a social construct.

Beyond that, they don’t even support cultural homogeneity. Conservatives as a whole support multiculturalism, which instantly leads to parallel societies.

What about a common heritage or traditions? Conservatives don’t even support that. They seem to care little when parks or streets or monuments to foreign bodies get erected in Canada. There is no concern that foreign histories and heritage begin to replace our own.

A common religion? Well Christianity is under attack, while all others are allowed to grow. And considering the connection between faith and values (a link Malcolm denies), good luck getting people to agree on much of anything.

The point is, that when pressed for specifics, conservatives and civic nationalists will eventually admit that they don’t want any concrete bonds between people. Perhaps free markets, the economy, and the constitution are all that we need.

It is our common features — languages, history, traditions, laws, shared culture and values — that form the basis of a pluralistic nation-state. This is the “core identity” of our nationhood. In addition to this basic consensus, individuals and communities are free to engage in their own religion and traditions — all the things that make Canada a wonderful, interesting and unique place to live.

This might be an okay take on “pluralistic nation-state” if it had any semblance of reality. However, multicultural societies don’t share any of these things — except possibly the laws.

In order to preserve things like language, history, traditions, shared culture and religion, some degree of balkanization is required. After all, these things to do exist within a few people, but a society as a whole.

One only needs to look at the Greater Toronto Area (or any “diverse” city), to see it carved up and balkanized along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Saying we have “shared values” sounds great, but people would rather live with people who share a common identity.

This is what conservatives and civic nationalists claim they don’t understand. We can talk all day about values, but it is a common identity that bonds a group.

As for the argument against identity politics, let’s dispel something: a society requires both men and women to function. Period. Promoting globohomo the way it is serves to fracture society. Beyond those 2 examples though, identity is what bonds a group.

In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values. And yet, increasingly in Canada, we are forbidden from articulating or discussing what these values may entail.

We used to. The 1971 Canadian Census listed the country as 96% European. Christianity, and its many offshoots were the basis for much of the law and culture here. Canada was effectively, a white, Christian ethnostate. It is only in the last 50 years that “forced multiculturalism” has been brought to the West.

Malcolm pretends this is not the case, and claims that it is abstract values that bond and unite us, a philosophy known as “civic nationalism”. She also conflates identity and values, which are 2 completely different things.

INDENTITY is what the people have in common, which includes things like race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, customs, traditions and heritage. These are what bind the people, and arguably race is the strongest unifier there is.

VALUES are a set of abstract ideas which hold society together in a civic sense. They include things like free speech, tolerance, or various laws and codes.

Obviously, values are much more fluid than identity, and can change quickly. The result is that society can break down when these values diverge. By contrast, having a common ethnicity, religion, culture, language, etc… society still holds together, even as values and standards change.

But in Trudeau’s diverse, post-national utopia, would there be a shared identity? Would our laws be commonly agreed upon and equally enforced? Without a commitment to nationhood, how would governments command legitimacy, and would our communities live in peace?

This is a good paragraph on its own. And a lot of valid points. One wouldn’t think that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney (and by extension the Conservative Party of Canada), when Stephen Harper imported the 3rd World in record numbers.

Malcolm seems to have no problems with importing a replacement population when her Conservative bosses are the ones doing it. However, it’s totally wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

As for the scale of this: replacing the old stock has been done by successive administrations. Both are just as guilty in facilitating it.

Pluralism, not just diversity, is our strength, and yet, Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state differs from our current position as a pluralistic nation-state. Remove the nation — the unifying factor — and what are you left with? What is the common cause?
.
This lack of identity or commitment to shared values is particularly troubling given the Liberal push for immigration on an even larger scale.

Yet, silence when Conservatives do the same thing.

She goes on and on about pluralism being a strength, but never explains how. It’s also never explained how large numbers of people with nothing in common can expect to come without drastically changing the nation.

Worse, it’s become hip among the intellectual avant-garde to argue for open borders and drastic measures to boost Canada’s population, with even some (misguided) conservative intellectuals arguing that Canada ought to intentionally boost its population to 100 million by the end of the century.

The 100 million is probably a reference to Century Initiative, an NGO that does want to boost Canada’s population. Yet Malcolm’s handlers in the CPC have been pushing for near-open borders immigration policies?

If Canada were to open its doors to, say, about a million people per year, for the next 80 years, would Canada continue to be a Western liberal democracy? Would English and French be broadly spoken? Would there even be official languages?

Malcolm seems to be unaware, (or perhaps pretends to be unaware), at just how many people are entering the country annually. 3 Notable programs are: (a) student visas; (b) temporary foreign workers; and (c) those in the International Mobility Program. While these are billed as “temporary” options, there are many options to stay. Since Canada doesn’t even have a proper entry/exit system, who knows how many of those people are still in the country?

Year	Stu	TFWP	IMP	Total
2003	61,293	82,151	–	143,444
2004	56,536	90,668	–	147,204
2005	57,476	99,146	–	156,622
2006	61,703	112,658	–	174,361
2007	64,636	165,198	–	229,834
2008	79,509	192,519	–	272,028
2009	85,140	178,478	–	263,618
2010	96,157	182,276	–	278,433
2011	98,383	190,842	–	289,225
2012	104,810	213,573	–	318,383
2013	111,865	221,310	–	333,175
2014	127,698	95,086	197,924	420,078
2015	219,143	73,016	175,967	468,126
2016	265,111	78,402	207,829	551,342
2017	317,328	78,788	224,033	620,149
2018	356,876	84,229	255,034	696,139

For some context: Canada went from admitting 60,000 student visas in 2003 to almost 360,000 in 2018. That is nearly 6 times as large over a 15 year span. Additionally, we went from about 80,000 temporary work visas in 2003 to over 320,000 (TFWP and IMP combined) in 2018.

What kind of values would these hypothetical Canadians posses, and what kind of political leaders would they elect? Would our laws continue to be equally applied, or would there be special caveats and exemptions for cultural and religious communities?

Malcolm raises a great argument in favour of a moratorium on immigration. Changing the demographics leads to irreversible voting shifts, typically to more left-leaning politicians. Except, instead of that, she uses it to claim that a better job has to be done about it.

Could we continue to afford universal social services, including healthcare, education and social welfare? What language would these services be provided in?

Again valid points, and would be great to use to advocate for massive cuts to immigration. But Malcolm doesn’t do that.

Would Canada continue to be a safe, friendly and welcoming society? Would our liberal tolerance be extended to those who are illiberal or intolerant? Would newcomers bring their ancient tribal feuds and hatred with them? Would practices like FGM and forced marriage be permitted? Would we import the foreign wars of the world — Israelis against Palestinians, Shi’ites against Sunnis, Russians against Ukrainians, and so on — into our own backyard?

More great arguments to support the position of slashing immigration. However, Malcolm believes (or claims to believe), that a certain level of diversity is needed to keep a nation healthy.

Would newcomers to Canada be selected based on education and training — Canada’s longstanding practice of skills-based immigration? Or would we simply allow any newcomer who arrives at our doorstep and wants to live in Canada?

About this “skills-based” immigration that Malcolm talks about, why not get into the costs of it? Plenty of college and university graduates can’t find work in their fields because successive governments — both Liberal and Conservative — have flooded market with foreign workers. This is done in a deliberate effort to drive down wages.

This is not restricted to high skilled workers either. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example, was specifically used for entry level work because it allowed employers to ultimately pay less to import foreigners than to hire Canadians.

Malcolm was working for Jason Kenney when the TFW scandal hit in 2013.

Would there be a united Canadian identity? Or would our society splinter into identity groups with the pernicious concept of the “hyphenated-Canadians” — with some other identity coming before being Canadian?

Look at the next section. HUGE numbers of Chinese, Indian, Philippino, Iranian, Pakistani and other migrants are being brought into Canada on a yearly basis. This is white genocide. Malcolm complains now, but had no issue with the practice when working for the Ministry of Immigration.

How long would Canada continue to exist as a political entity? Perhaps Quebec would seek to separate. Or perhaps it would be aggrieved minorities, stateless ethnic groups or religious fanatics who would seek to carve out their own ethno-state.

Yes, all valid points. And Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney and the CPC while they were pushing immigration policies and programs to promote exactly this.

And that’s just the start. It would only be a matter of time before other groups — disgruntled Indigenous tribes, libertarian Albertans, Marxist communes, and any number of religious cults or zealous identity groups — would seek their own self-determination and self-governance.

Yet conservatives support the sort of immigration policies that encourage this. They claim that it won’t change the culture as long as there is “economic benefit”.

What would be the tipping point? 50 million? Or 150 million?

150 million by 2100 is about where we are headed now.

In the past, immigration policies were heavily restrictive, cost prohibitive and were coupled with a strong civil society promoting universal norms and values, conformity, and integration (frankly, assimilation).
.
The world is freer and more democratic today, thankfully, but that also makes integration all the more challenging.

Why is this change a good thing? Does Malcolm prefer easy immigration over social cohesion, integration and stability?

Trudeau has turned his back on integration, while steadily increasing the amount of immigration and without much concern for selecting those who will be successful in Canada. A casual observer of Europe’s failed immigration experiment can see that this is a toxic combination, and Trudeau’s schemes should be met with criticism and resistance from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Europe’s failed immigration experiment? Perhaps Malcolm has never heard of the KALERGI PLAN, a century old scheme to erase the peoples of Europe and replace them with a single group. Of course there has never been any sort of democratic vote, but all major parties are controlled.

Malcolm pretends that it is ONLY Trudeau who has been jacking up immigration in Canada. She deliberately omits that Brian Mulroney raised immigration rates in the 1980s to the highest they had ever been. Also, omits that Stephen Harper raised immigration to the highest rates ever (at that point)

She also omits being a staffer for Jason Kenney and pushing the mass migration narrative.

Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.

Societies that are homogenous are much more socially cohesive. Maybe Malcolm gets a kick out of driving across town to a “foreign country”, but most people don’t want that. They want societies which are high trust, and safe to live in. Multicultural countries do not offer this.

How is diversity important? Other than homogenous societies being boring? Wanting to change a nation’s makeup because you find it boring is pretty sociopathic.

Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.

Malcolm makes a disingenuous conclusion. North Koreans are miserable because they are closed to mass migration and globalized trade? Yeah, sure. I don’t suppose being a Communist dictatorship would have anything to do with that misery.

Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.

Recently, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, promoted the idea that Japan should import a replacement population in order to keep the GDP from falling. Vincent James covers it very well. Malcolm speaks in much the same tone. Instead of preserving the demographics, heritage, culture, and language, both of them think of Japan only in terms of money.

If Japan really needed more people (and it’s already pretty crowded), then perhaps a Hungarian style program of getting couples to have more children would be a better idea.

Spoiler: there is much more to a country than its GDP.

Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.

This is incoherent. Malcolm correctly identifies that the most multicultural/multiethnic societies that have collapsed, and cites 3 of them. Diversity was not the problem, she claims, but just done incorrectly. Apparently history will be different if only these vastly different groups had some common bond to unite them.

Multicultural states have only ever been able to hold together when it is done by force. And even then, it is not a permanent solution.

Alongside diversity, it’s unity that makes Canada a successful country and a great place to live. And we need to constantly work and strive for this unity, in the face of large-scale immigration, changing demographics and a societal obsession with cultural relativism, identity politics and anti-Western distortion.

Serious question: if it’s unity that makes Canada successful, and a great place to live, why do we need diversity as all?

We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.

We need pluralism and nationhood? How exactly does this work? How does importing millions of people who will balkanize Canada lead to a single nationhood?

It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.

Forget having a blood connection. Forget common culture, language, traditions, etc…. unity is just some abstract sense of being Canadian.

6. Recent Population Replacement In Canada

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Note: this is nowhere near the number of people entering Canada every year. Remember to add in hundreds of thousand of students and temporary workers, and various pilot programs.

Even if this were everyone, how exactly is a country supposed to be unified when large numbers of people from very different cultures are imported year after year? How are abstract ideas and values supposed to overcome such fundamental differences?

If Canada were a nation where race, ethnicity and religion didn’t matter, (as Malcolm claims), then it seem very strange that balkanization takes place along racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic lines. But that’s probably a racist thing to “notice”.

I realize that her prior political ties can make this a tricky subject to navigate. However, True North would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about how destructive multiculturalism really is.

7. Forced Diversity Is Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Serious question: how are forced diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, not forms of genocide? After all, they are calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, specifically, Europeans.

8. Malcolm Just Another Barbara Spectre

When rereading this essay from Malcolm, my mind instantly went to Barbara Lerner Spectre. She became infamous for saying that Europe had to adopt multiculturalism in order to survive.

How is Malcolm calling for pluralism any different than this? How is forcibly remaking the host culture — without a democratic mandate — not a form of genocide? Importing hundreds of thousands of people (now totally a million annually in recent years), completely remakes the demographics, culture, and traditions of the society. Yet Malcolm argues this is necessary, but gives the flimsiest of reasons.

It’s interesting how “conservatives” are so willing to jump on people like Trudeau for his immigration policies, but remain silent when their own people do much the same thing.

Of course there is an awful lot that True North Canada does not disclose to its readers. Rather than give real insight and research into immigration in Canada, it serves to post anti-Trudeau talking points.

Malcolm calls for essentially the same policies that will lead to the demise of Canada. But like other conservatives, she supports a more “patriotic” version of the same thing.