Nov 14, 2018

Via Canadian Immigration Policy Institute - based in Sackville New Brunswick - CEC article on "Maximum Canada"

Article originally published at Council of European Canadians website eurocanadian.ca, by Professor Ricardo Duchesne, on 27 February 2018...

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Doug Saunders's "Maximum Canada" = Minimum White Canadians

by Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Doug Saunders's Maximum Canada


Doug Saunders's Maximum Canada: Why 35 Million Are Not Enough, was published at the same time as my book, Canada in Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-CanadiansMaximum was published by a conglomerate, Alfred Knopf-Penguin-Random House, backed by solid editorial reviews, interviews, invited talks, and displays at major bookstores.Canada in Decay was released by a very small publisher, yet it has been consistently ranked number one at Amazon.ca in various subcategories, with excellent customer reviews. The magazine and newspaper reviews of Maximumare positive while very unenthusiasticDecay has been reviewed four times in the alternative media, two long reviews, always with verve and eagerness.

Maximum seeks to maximize ideas repeated every day in the media and in bank branches. It says that Canada needs to double its immigration intake to become a nation worthy of respect. Bringing 250,000+ immigrants per year since the early 1990s has not been enough. We need 400,000-500,000 annually until the end of this century. Imagine reading this after daily rituals that "diversity is our strength." Imagine having to gulp down three gallons of milk a day.

Why should patriotic Canadians be interested in Saunders's book when its central argument is that Canada was a mediocre nation created by mediocre people until liberal elites brought us multiculturalism in the 1970s? The implicit message is that only diverse immigrants can make Canada great and that Whites are inherently incapable of creating great nations. He claims Canada was kept down by a "minimizing impulse" characterized by "restrictive immigration," "ethnic homogeneity," a colonial relation with Britain, "a view of indigenous communities as problems, not partners," a restricted relation with the United States, and a small population.

Saunders Is Right: Canada Was NOT Created By Immigrants


The only good point about this book is that, in trying to demonstrate that Anglo Canadian leaders were men without ambition and worldliness, stuck to a mercantilist system controlled by imperial Britain, he brings some very revealing statistics about immigration which show that Canada was never a nation of immigrants except momentarily during Wilfrid Laurier's rule between 1896 and 1911, and only after the 1960s. Contrary to the lie taught to Canadian students, Canada was more a nation of emigrants than immigrants.
From 1851 to 1901, Canada attracted 734,900 immigrants from England, Wales, and Scotland, and lost at least 1.2 million emigrants, mainly to the United States [...] During the ninety years between 1851 and 1941, Canada had attracted 6.7 million immigrants but had lost almost 6.3 million people through emigration (pp. 33, 99).
So, if most immigrants became emigrants, who created Canada? Saunders never asks this disquieting question, but the following observation is in tandem with what I say in Canada in Decay:
Canada's population growth until the twentieth century was entirely due to fertility. Large families permitted the population to rise to 5.3 million (p. 33).
In the words of an economic historian Saunders cites:
immigrants only began to contribute significantly to population growth after 1901...For much, if not most, of its formative history, Canada was not a country of immigrants" (p. 33-4).

Saunders Is Wrong: Canada WAS Created By Indigenous Whites


A boy ploughing, Manitoba, c. 1900
A boy ploughing, Manitoba, c. 1900

But instead of reflecting on how these straightforward numbers demonstrate that the people who founded this nation were born in the soil of this nation, and were therefore indigenous to this land, Saunders's malevolent aim is to portray British Canada as a closed-minded society inhabited by dull farmers without ambition. Those who emigrated to the US, he says, were the "most ambitious and inventive immigrants," whereas the ones who stayed [ continue at the link here ] 

No comments:

Post a Comment