Tag Archives: Century Initiative

Andrew Coyne: Journalist Without Outsideness

Posted on by

Andrew Coyne: Journalist Without Outsideness

by Ricardo Duchesne

Coyne: wants a Canada that is a “We” without a “Them”

No ideological dissent is allowed in Canada on the supposed blessings of diversification and that’s why the individuals working for Century Initiative (CI) include conservatives, liberals, socialists, environmentalists, feminists, Muslims, and corporate heads. Each person serving CI is the full package, for high profits and high salaries, for massive population growth and ecological beauty, for feminism and Islamization, all in one scoop. The corporate consultant Dominic Barton, the main guy at CI, has just launched ‘All In’, a ‘HeForShe’ approach to gender equality as Director of McKinsey & Co. Doug Saunders, super feminist beta male, relishes the image of a Canada and a Europe packed with hyper-patriarchal Muslim and African males working for corporations.

CI ought to be congratulated for meeting what Robert Putnam called “the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies…to create a new, broader sense of ‘we’“. Everyone at CI is a “we” without outsideness. That is the goal of diversity: to eliminate oppositions, differences, boundaries, contrasts, by including everyone inside each European-created country, every race, culture, religion. This “we” will bring an utopia of prosperity and togetherness without violence.

The diversification program is so entrenched in every Western school, political party, and business that its advocates appear to embody in themselves a polite and truly inclusive “we” in their approach to politics and interpersonal relations. Those who disturb this “we” are excluded from politics for fear that they may promote an outside that is not supposed to exist. The most radical experiment ever imposed on a people,  without democratic consent, must appear to be moderate and reasonable.

Fake Journalism

Andrew Coyne, a sometime conservative, libertarian, feminist, and a fan of Justin the small potato, has endorsed the 450,000 thousand increase in immigration numbers. I can’t remember anything Coyne has ever written or said. His views have never disturbed anyone. He does not like left and right labels.  He is a “we” writing and working for every side,  Globe and MailNational Post, Maclean’s, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Saturday Night, and CBC. Century Initiative has a most pleasant article by Coyne, “Increased Immigration is Good for Canada  and the Reasons aren’t only Economic.”

Imagining he is a man of letters, Coyne cites Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Stephen Leacock to back up his argument. Relying on quotes rather than books is common among lawyers. Advocates of diversification also like to cite seemingly supportive statements from great men to enhance their credibility. Coyne says that Laurier and Leacock expressed optimistic thoughts about the opportunities high levels of immigration would offer Canada for great nation status. There is a problem, though: neither one of these men would have endorsed the current suicidal program of diversity.

Man of the Past: Wilfrid Laurier wanted a Canada for “Us” without “Them”

Here’s the passage he cites from Laurier:

For the next 75 years, nay the next 100 years,Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come…. There are men living in this audience … who before they die, if they live to old age, will see this country with at least 60 millions of people.

It is “not a coincidence,” says Coyne, that Laurier said this at a time of high immigration. He wittingly forgets to tell us that the years Laurier was Prime Minister, 1896 to 1911, were years when Canada was viewed by the entire establishment as an exclusive Anglo-European nation, when the Chinese head tax was increased (in 1900 and in 1903), when Laurier took a number of measures to prohibit the entrance of blacks into Canada, and when liberal Laurier insisted that Indians were “unsuited to live in the climatic conditions of British Columbia and were a serious disturbance to industrial and economic conditions.”

Man of the Past: Leacock believed that only his “Us” Anglos could build a Great Canada

What about Stephen Leacock? Coyne offers another little quote in which Leacock, apparently, envisioned a Canada with open borders “that will make us 10 millions tomorrow, 20 millions in our children’s time and a 100 millions ere the century runs out.” Again, he wittingly suppresses Leacock’s well known view that only Anglo Saxons were racially fit to build Canada. He did not mind a little dose of southern and eastern Europeans:

I am not saying that we should absolutely shut out and debar the European foreigners, as we should and do shut out the Oriental.

There are two standard reactions against these “racist” views. One is to denounce them and then go about downgrading, or even removing, Laurier and Leacock “from all kinds of honor rolls“. The other response, the preferred one in the polite circles Coyne inhabits, is to pretend they never said this by ignoring and rewriting their biographies so as to make them fit into a progressive pattern according to which these otherwise progressive men were “unfortunately” voicing the accepted views of their time, views they would have readily rejected if they had been born in our “we” times

Not just in Canada, but across the West, the history of Europeans is being falsely rewritten to create the impression that their nations were always immigrant nations, which are only now living up to their ideals of inclusiveness, by pursuing a program of diversification in which there is no outsideness. Coyne chastises the populism of Trump and of European immigration restrictionists for pursuing an “Us versus Them” politics that is incapable of making subtle distinctions between, say, ordinary Muslims and extremists. This inclusive journalist with a self-identified “disciplined mind” dislikes in particular the “contempt” populists have shown for “the whole notion of expertise”.

Fake Arguments versus Japanese Arguments

The reason ordinary Canadians mistrust your expertise, Coyne, is they are seeing through a program that is radically altering the ethnic character of Canada premised on the exclusion of Eurocanadians, and only Eurocanadians, from affirming their identity and history. They are realizing, through their astute reading of newly released scientific research, that ethnic groups are naturally inclined to pursue their collective interests, and that only Europeans tend to be more individualistic. They are seeing through your misuse of Laurier and Leacock to promote a program that these two great Canadians (without a disciplined mind?) never endorse but indeed rejected in the strongest “Us versus Them” terms. They are realizing, moreover, that the very pretenders of an inclusive politics have created a totalitarian order that excludes and denounces the majority of working and middle class whites who are feeling like strangers in their own homelands.

Finally, they are realizing that the “reasons” Coyne offers (in his CI article) on the supposed benefits of massive immigration are bogus and devoid of expertise. He says that a population of 100 would make Canada second to the United States among the G-7, since these countries are projected to have lower levels than 100 million. How can one assume so nonchalantly that the other G-7 nations, which currently have far larger populations than Canada, will simply decline demographically when their inclusive journalists and leaders are likewise telling their populations the same absurd argument that they need to keep accepting hordes of migrants to survive economically?

The same difficulties hold for Coyne’s other argument about the supposedly more “talented and ambitious people” that Canada can attract by increasing immigration from 300,000 to 450,000: the other G-7 nations, except “Us versus Them” Japan, are trying to entice talent from the Third World, which, as we have noted before, is a “brain drain” policy premised on sucking out of poorer nations their most talented individuals.

Questions for Coyne: Why are inclusive men so afraid to encourage their domestic populations to have more babies and to produce talented individuals at home the way the Japanese are openly advocating rather than lazily trying to steal talent from elsewhere and recklessly carrying a cultural Marxist experiment? Why don’t we think in the same disciplined way as the Japanese leadership which has openly stated that an aging population is “not a burden, but an incentive to boost productivity through innovations like robots, wireless sensors and artificial intelligence” without immigration?

This is why ordinary Canadians don’t trust our current elites and wannabe experts: because they don’t reason properly through the issues, but are instead deceptively trying to make Canadians feel that the only solution to an aging population is massive increases in immigration and constant harassment of Canadians about their alleged racism if they don’t agree with this preposterous idea.

Century Initiative: Make Canada a “Global Nation” through a Massive Increase in Immigration

Posted on by
  • Century Initiative: Make Canada a “Global Nation” through a Massive Increase in Immigration

    by Ricardo Duchesne

    The “Goal” is 100 Million by 2100

    Check this out: in 2016 Century Initiative (CI) was started by a group of corporate managers (with the assistance of academics, journalists, Muslims and feminists) solely for the purpose of bringing about a 50-per-cent hike in immigration to Canada (from the current annual level of 300,000 to 450,000) by 2021. CI is calling for a “permanent” increase until the end of this century with the “goal” of “transforming” Canada into a “global nation” of 100 million inhabitants “unified by diversity and prosperity.”

    We must not underestimate the power of CI in pushing through this goal, or at least persuading Canadians that their country must be totally diversified. The founders of CI are members of the global business elite, and their associates are well established in the media, in the three main political parties, and in the conformist academic world, which should not be surprising since CI is merely pushing for the intensification of the already established ideology of immigrant multiculturalism.

    In a series of upcoming articles, I will be dissecting and exposing the many unfounded, poorly researched, and deceptive arguments employed by CI to manipulate “ordinary” Canadians into believing that their nation was never good enough and will decline irreversibly if the doors are not totally opened to third world mass immigration.

    First, a few words about two of the main characters behind this plan to destroy Canada’s European heritage.

    Dominic Barton
    One key founder of CI is Dominic Barton, director of McKinsey & Co, considered “the most prestigious” worldwide management consulting firm. This is a firm dedicated to the nullification of national identities in order to create deracinated generic humans with no identity other than the “lifestyles” they purchase in global stores. McKinsey’s alumni have been appointed as CEOs or high-level executives at Google, American Express, IBM, Westinghouse Electric, Sears, AT&T, PepsiCo, and Enron. Be it noted that Rajat Gupta, the first non-American-born partner to be elected as the firm’s managing director, was convicted in 2010 of insider trading.

    Barton is best described as a globalist, not a Canadian. He is currently based in London and has spent most of his business life outside Canada as McKinsey’s Chairman in Asia from 2004-09, based in Shanghai, and in Korea from 2000-04. Among his titles, he is currently the chair of the Seoul International Business Advisory Council, a trustee of the Brookings Institution, and an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

    We should not confuse globalism with globalization. Globalists, as I wrote in a recent article, purposely encourages this confusion, but globalization is factual accountabout the accelerating interactions of nations since the discovery of the New World and the creation of international markets, shipping and railway communications networks. Globalism, in contrast, is an ideology that advocates open borders, mass immigration, and the liquidation of (Western) national identities.

    Barton wittingly promotes this confusion from the opening salvo of his justification for permanently high levels of immigration. He says that increasing Canada’s population to 100 million via immigration is the only way “to counteract challenges associated with our aging population.”

    If Canada’s population continues to grow at its current rate — 1.2 percent per year — we will see a significant decline in our productivity growth as we have less people participating in the workforce. We will become a nation of about 53 million people by 2100, outside the top 50 countries in the world by population. As our population relative to the rest of the world shrinks, so will our economic prospects and influence in global affairs.

    He admits that “the challenges that Japan faces from its aging population are even more dramatic than Canada’s.”

    Coupled with Japan’s low birthrate, based on current trends, the size of their workforce will be nearly cut in half in the next fifty years.

    Which should lead any reasonable person to ask: Why then is Japan’s leadership looking for solutions that do not entail any change in the country’s zero immigration policy? Answer: Japan’s leaders are not interested in destroying the nation of Japan. They are for globalization, not for globalism.

    Barton, however, would have Canadians believe that the Japanese leadership is implementing policies akin to what the CI is calling for. He writes about how “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched an advisory panel on the issue in 2015 and set a key policy goal of maintaining Japan’s population at 100 million people.” Then he says:

    There are two things that Canada can learn from Japan and other advanced countries faced with similar demographic challenges; first, building the necessary supportsystems that make it easier for families to have children (e.g., child care, tax policy) and second, maximizing workforce participation (e.g., by investing in training programs).

    Actually, what Barton should be telling Canadians is that we can learn from the Japanese leadership that there is no reason to increase immigration in the degree to which we institute policies encouraging Canadian women to have more children. The Japanese leadership is not calling for immigration, it is calling for a boost in the birthrate ofJapanese women, “by pledging more public support for households raising children and increasing welfare facilities to eliminate instances of family members quitting jobs to care for elderly relatives.”

    Why the double standard, Barton, why do you identify Canadians who are against massive immigration as “xenophobic and racist” while praising the Japanese leadership for their pro-Japanese ethnic-oriented plans?

    It gets worse than this. CI does call for support for family leave policy, a national daycare system; however, there is nothing in their program about encouraging Canadian women to have more children; rather, the wording is that this is “especially important for new arrivals who may not have the same access to childcare options” as Euro Canadian women. In other words, the aim is to create a national daycare system for immigrants, as a way of encouraging immigrants to have children in Canada.

    Goldy Hyder

     

    Goldy Hyder (left) meeting with Ahmed D. Hussen MPA to convene Century Initiative

    Another founder of Century Initiative is Goldy Hyder, President and CEO of Hill + Knowlton Strategies. Hyder is a Muslim linked with the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada. He was the Keynote Speaker at the 20th Annual Parliament Hill Eid-ul-Adha Celebrations in 2014. The basic message of his speech was that the “true Muslim faith is based on the values of peace, equality, respect and understanding — but that is not the message being shared with Canadians.” The “Muslim community are not doing enough to paint a positive picture” of Islam to combat the “distorted image we see on television.”

    Hyder never explains why it is “distorted” to inform Canadians that Muslim immigrants have been responsible for almost all the terrorist attacks in Europe. Here is a list of Islamic terror attacks in “non-Muslim” Europe since 9/11. He does not tell us either what’s so distorting about informing Europeans that Muslim migrants have been responsible for a rape epidemic across Europe. The fact is that, contrary to Hyder’s claim, the Canadian media has been suppressing data about the thousands of rapes and hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by Muslim migrants in the last few years across Europe.

    Let it be known that the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada has interesting ties to big donations from the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    Hyder, in a rather odd, but very revealing, article published in The Globe and Mail on January 16, 2017, complained against the use of the word “elitist” on the grounds that this word inculcates Canadians

    to be inherently distrustful of experts, to presume that a person is less ethical because they have a higher or lower net worth, or to believe that those with global outlooks aren’t patriotic.

    The globalist elitist Hyder also complained that this term “risks creating an ‘us versus them'” psychology that discourages ordinary Canadian, get this, from being “inclusive” of global millionaires!

    This is the state of pathological thinking that now permeates the left-corporate alliance. Ordinary, lower income, Canadians who suffer from the importation of cheap labour and the degradation of their heritage are now the perpetrators of exclusionary labels.

    Speaking of mistrust, in upcoming articles about the Century Initiative, I will make it amply clear why ordinary Canadians should mistrust elitists like Hyder. I will demonstrate that almost all the economic, demographic, historical, and ethical claims made by CI cannot be trusted one bit, but should be seen for what they are: a globalist effort to transform Canada into a mere shopping mall without any national identity that is uniquely Canadian, but simply a place like all the other European nations where the same mass immigration globalist agenda is being pushed without democratic debate but enforced with extremely deceptive, “us versus them” labels about “racists” and “xenophobes” against ordinary indigenous Europeans.