Monday, 3 April 2017

Robots, Not Immigrants, Can Combat Canada's Ageing Demographic.

One of the major selling points used to sell weary Canadians on the necessity of mass (third world) immigration is that without it our ageing demographic will sink the economy and consequently our standard of living.  However, a study published this year by two MIT economists challenges this conventional wisdom; that an aging population negatively affects a country’s economic growth leading to lowered GDP per capita and what is termed “secular stagnation.”  On the contrary they conclude that there is “no such negative relationship in the data” and that “countries experiencing more rapid aging have grown more in recent decades.”

It’s a short study (only 10 pages) but the tl;dr version of it simply states that the reason they found no negative correlation between a country’s aging society and its economic output is that the economy adapted to it by implementing labour saving technology.

It’s a timely study considering the AI revolution looming on the horizon and one Canadian government officials should know about.  If Canada’s labour market challenges can be met with algorithms it makes no sense to keep shoveling people into the country who will in time become redundant, superfluous, surplus labour dependent of some form of government aid.  And considering immigration isn't even effective at marginally reversing an ageing demographic trend, for the simple reason that immigrants age too, I think it's more reasonable to look at technology, not immigrants, as the proper response to it.

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Diversity Is Mediocrity.

We don’t need a self-promoting blowhard telling us how mediocre Justin Trudeau’s cabinet is.  I think it does a pretty good job of speaking for itself.  When you have a former ski instructor and substitute drama teacher of generational wealth possessing an undeserved sense of self-importance acting as the effective “leader” of your country what can you expect?  We’re not talking Winston Churchill here.  More like Kim Jong Un minus all that evil stuff.  However it’s worth noting his reason for saying it which is to pursue diversity for diversity sake you sacrifice competency and inevitably quality producing an inferior outcome to what you could have had.  When diversity is your maxim you’re practically capitulating to being second best almost all the time.  In fact, "diversity means second (or even last) place" is truer to reality than "diversity is our strength" which is more at home in ideological fantasy-land.

And I could stop there because I think it’s so self-evident that diversity is mediocrity that elaboration is not needed.  I guess I could provide some examples.

New York state is planning on scrapping a literacy test it used to screen teachers because too many minorities, primarily blacks and Hispanics, were failing it.  This means the standards of the New York state education system will suffer as will the education of the pupils forced to be taught by unqualified teachers.  All for the sake of diversity.

Journalistic standards have been further diminished by the diversity agenda.  Ever cognizant of the effect their words may have on the minds of the reading public journalists have engaged in self-censorship and spin when reporting the news.  Objectivity and truth have given way to misinformation, half-truths, or just spiking a story if it doesn't conform to the "diversity is our strength" narrative.  This has created a demoralized journalistic class and the misleading of the public by contributing to its collective ignorance.

Diversity is such a strength for Canadian society unemployment is one its great gifts to the host white majority.

Ottawa policing standards were given a brief relief of duty to hire an unqualified Somali immigrant. Because diversity.

Diversity provides a great cover to mask the more pressing social concern which is income inequality.  This is why the ruling class love it so much.  Diversity isn't a threat to the power structure so long as they can control it and contain its ill effects to the lower classes.  This is one of my main criticisms of diversity and multiculturalism, it's partner in crime.  They're frivolous concerns we can live without (and have done so before quite nicely, thank you) but make convenient political distractions to keep us from speaking about what really matters to us and making real social progress. Diversity and multiculturalism are wastes of our time.

"Diversity is our strength" is a stupid slogan.  You can easily say the opposite and it still rings true.  That’s because diversity is an abstract noun that needs clarification and "diversity is our strength” is a slogan that needs qualifying.   We need to know what kind of diversity we’re talking about to decide whether or not it’s a strength because I don’t think a diversity of diseases is a strength.  And just saying “diversity is our strength” without backing that statement up doesn’t make it true.

So what kind of diversity are we talking about? 

Are we talking about racial diversity?  How is that our strength?  How does one’s particular skin colour endow that person with unique skills and talents that that can’t be replicated by others of a different racial composition?  How does one’s skin colour bestow gifts unto the society they happen to inhabit?  If we’re honest with ourselves we can see that racial diversity is not our strength.  It’s pursued more as a moral obligation if anything while ignoring all of the undesirable social problems it creates.  Indeed, racial diversity is bullshit!

Is religious diversity our strength?  Do I need to go there?

How about cultural diversity?  That I can agree with but a cultural diversity that is produced domestically not a cultural diversity fabricated by governmental decree under the guise of multiculturalism which entails the importation and promotion of foreign cultures in a domestic setting.  The latter has the effect of culturally colonizing a people and marginalizing or even erasing their cultural existence altogether.  I doubt very much the First Nations peoples of Canada celebrate the cultural diversity brought to them by the European settlers.   Likewise, Canadians today don’t give two flying f**ks about Diwali, Eid, Khalsa, Chinese New Year, Cinco de Mayo, or what have you.  We don’t celebrate these things because they’re not Canadian cultural traditions and we don’t have much of an interest in them in the first place.  In fact, the imposition of these foreign practices onto the collective cultural psyche of the nation elicits mostly irritation instead of celebration.

The diversity of ideas is our strength.  It promotes forward thinking allowing societies to grow philosophically, scientifically, technologically, politically, culturally, and socially.   You can’t have freedom and democracy without the uninhibited flow of ideas.  However the Canadian government thinks the diversity of ideas is a weakness so it must be constrained through legislation, vague “hate crime” laws, and an Orwellian kangaroo court system called Human Rights Tribunals.

So there you have it.  Out of all the diversity the government chooses to promote it champions the ones that inherently make us weaker while actively suffocating the one that makes us stronger.  Welcome to the New Canada folks.

Diversity is, for the most part, mediocrity.  This is why professional sports teams don't give it much consideration when recruiting talent.  When quality takes a back seat to the ideological driven agenda of diversity you're looking at second, third, fourth, or even last place.  While corporations have deep enough pockets to eat the costs of diversity professional sports teams use a business model that necessitates the need to win games to maximize profits.  And if a roster of mostly all white males is needed to take you to the championship game then so be it.

And in the realm of politics, particularly Canadian politics where you're already starting with one of the greatest collections of the most mediocre men and women society has to offer, letting diversity choose your cabinet ministers just increases the mediocrity factor twofold.  So Kevin O'leary was just pointing out the obvious, vocalizing what everyone already knew.

Monday, 20 February 2017

No Future For You.

Back in late October of 2016 Finance Minister Bill “there’s no future for you” Morneau made comments at a meeting of the Liberal Party’s Ontario wing basically telling Canadians there’s no future you.  When asked to clarify these comments a few days later at a youth labour forum Prime Minister Trust Fund Man-Child reinforced what his finance Minister said unwittingly giving a verbal middle-finger to the economic futures of the youth across the country.  Their comments reveal that they’re aware of the weak labour market today and into the years to come yet the governing Liberal Party has set immigration targets at a base of 300,000 while indicating intentions of increasing it into the foreseeable future.  This is worrying as there are indicators that would compel a more prudent government to exercise a conservative approach to immigration.


Canadians are at record levels of debt, pushing past the $2 trillion mark in December of 2016, masking our debt driven economy with the illusion of prosperity.

Need I say anything about the housing market?  If interest rates were to rise, as they inevitably will since there’s almost nowhere else to go but up, how will that affect it?  How can Canadians carry these mortgages if they need to amass a burdensome debt-load just to get by?  How will this affect the service sector, some 70% Canada's GDP of which retail employs 12% of Canadians, if Canadians are forced to cut back on consumption so that they can keep their house?



The poor performance of men in the job market should sound alarm bells.  Men are typically attracted to higher paying jobs whereas women tend to concentrate in lower paying occupations (which is why there is a wage gap).  If men are performing poorly it means well paying occupations are disappearing.

Automation and advances in A.I. may eliminate 40% of jobs within the next few years with even more job losses to come as the technology becomes more advanced.  Now, I’m enough of a skeptic to take these dire predictions with a grain of salt since we’re not clairvoyants and we can’t predict the future.  And they’ve been saying this for decades.  Remember the predictions of the paperless office?  For years immigration proponents have been making apocalyptic predictions about job shortages in the labour market , and still do, yet here we are in 2017 and it’s just as tough to find decent employment as it’s ever been.  The great flood of retiring boomers is set to happen ten years ago, five years ago, two years ago, this year, last month, any day now.   But the predictions about A.I. may be truer than most predictions about the future.  An insurance company in Japan replaced 34 of its employees with A.I. technology and self-driving vehicles may very well put truck-drivers out of work.

What's more is that Bill Morneau is aware of a possible low-growth future of continued deficits until mid century and where the national debt reaches one trillion in the next fifteen years.  It's not exactly "sunny ways" which is why he quietly published the report hoping it wouldn't draw much attention.

Mass immigration may have worked at particular times in the nation’s history but as PM Potato Head likes to remind us “it’s current year.”  Times are different.  We're living in a period of low growth, low income, record debt, high unemployment, and high deficits.  Mass immigration is a twentieth century program that hasn’t been updated to reflect the realities of the twenty-first.  After all, if the Prime Minister and his finance Minister know the labour market is weak and precarious employment is the new norm then what future do they think these immigrants will have in Canada if they essentially told Canadians they don’t have economic futures themselves?

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Looks Like Canada Has Become a Dangerous Place for Muslims.

So they'll be leaving I guess?

Probably not.  Life's too good here compared to countries created by Muslims.  They'll want us to double-down on the Muslim immigration while attacking our cherished Canadian value of free speech with anti-blasphemy laws so Canada becomes more hospitable for Muslims while becoming more inhospitable for the rest of us.

However, I propose a better solution.

Ban all Muslim immigration to Canada.

And help the Muslims here resettle in Muslim majority countries where they can openly practice their religion free of discrimination and fear of violent intent; and where, sadly, non-Muslims can't.  But we have to make sure we help them resettle in the right Muslim majority country because if we end up sending, say, Sunni's to Shiite lands, or Ahmadis to anywhere, we'd probably see a body-count worse than a Nigerian village massacre that will push Christians from the number one spot as the world's most persecuted religious group.  And boy, won't our faces be red!

It's for their own well being you understand. Canada has apparently become as insensitive to it's Muslim religious minority as Muslims are to religious minorities in their midst.  Or as insensitive as Muslims are to Canadian norms and traditions. 

And their exodus from Canada is the apt punishment this "Islmaphobic" country deserves.  When Muslims leave Canada and take all their, uh, stuff, I guess (I was going to say contributions but we all know there aren't any) then we'll be sorry.

They can think of it as a learning experience.  The intolerance they encountered here will grant them the perspective they'll need to champion for the basic human rights denied non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries.  It's where their pleas for pluralism, tolerance, and acceptance are needed the most because it's obvious Muslims are so concerned about the basic human rights of religious minorities everywhere in the world expect, of course, in Muslim countries.

So, Muslims, sorry things couldn't work out.  We tried our best but it turns out our relationship was doomed from the start.  Don't feel bad.  It's not you.  It's us, I swear.

Monday, 23 January 2017

Logical Fallacies of Mass Immigration Supporters: Cherry Picking.

Cherry Picking.

The CBC published a story about a Syrian refugee family in Nova Scotia who found success and self sufficiency one year on after arriving in the province.  They did so by starting a small family run chocolatier business in the community of Antigonish that now employs ten people.  It’s a Syrian refugee “success story” that attracted the attention of Justin Trudeau who referenced their entrepreneurship at the UN as an example of Canada’s welcoming spirit and the rewards refugees and immigrants bring to the country.  It’s an awesome feel good story.  So what about the other 39,499 Syrian refugees?

This is an example of cherry picking.  It’s a logical fallacy where favourable examples are given particular attention to support one’s argument but those that invalidate it are conveniently ignored and swept under the rug. 

It’s one of the more common logical fallacies one encounters in debates and comment sections of internet articles.  When one employs this fallacy they typically do so by stating “My neighbour from India…” or “I work with someone from China…” or “My doctor is a Muslim…” or statements of that nature.  Not only are their debate points anecdotal but are also isolated cherry picked examples that can’t be used to argue the successes or failings of the immigration and refugee systems.  If all it takes is one positive story to show “the system works” then I guess the Toronto Police Services most wanted page irrefutably shows that it doesn’t.

One Syrian refugee family finding success in Canada is not a validation that the government’s approach to the Syrian refugee crisis was the correct one (or proof that our refugee system in general is not a lax mess of a system that doesn’t help legitimate refugees for the most part and is of little benefit to the country).  It’s just a story of a Syrian family who came to Canada as refugees and started a small business in Nova Scotia.  And that’s it!

Cherry picking is a cheap and easy debate tactic.  It’s meant to lead one to agree to a preconceived conclusion based on a select sample size.  In this case the CBC and Justin Trudeau want us to believe that because this Syrian refugee family found success all immigrants and refugees will do so as well by implication.  It’s just a matter of time.  But though this one Syrian refugee family found success in the country it’s realistic to assume others probably won’t.  Indeed, perhaps hundreds if not thousands of Syrian refugees will not find an adequate foothold in the country at all, lingering in economic limbo contributing to Canada’s ever growing immigrant underclass like the tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who came before them.

By the way, rumour has it the Liberal Party of Canada is the chocolate factory's biggest customer.  If that's true then this "success story" was paid for by the LPC.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Somali Refugee Now Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship.

He's also an immigation lawyer.

And a Muslim.

And a political activist.

And current National President of the Canadian Somali Congress.

And a former assistant to Dalton McGuinty.

What could possibly go wrong?

And I didn't think it was possible for things to get worse but then again the talent pool in Ottawa at the moment, especially within the LPC, may very well be the worst it's ever been.  Politics tends to attract the most mediocre society has to offer.

In related news Mexican refugee claims jump after visa requirement dropped.  I think we can file this one under "Who the f**k didn't see that coming!?"  The Conservatives didn't slap a visa requirement on Mexico because they felt their media fueled image as racist meanies needed confirmation.  They had adult reasons for doing so.  This Liberal government, on the other hand, functions more like a Toronto high-school student council than as the national assembly of a G7 country.  It's like the parents are away and they're throwing a house party.  And with the appoint of Ahmed Hussen to the immigration file we can expect the whole of the third world to crash it.

F**k this government!

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

The Justin Trudeau Drinking Game.

The PMO released a pre-recorded, canned New Year’s address from Justin Sandiego as if anyone in the nation gave a shit.  I didn’t listen to it and I doubt very few people did either however I’m sure it was chock-full of Justin’s characteristic jargon that can turn any Trudeau speech into a drinking game.  Which reminds me, are you a consummate alcoholic?  Do you consider yourself a political junky as well?  Or do you just like to get drunk and find drinking games the most fun way to do it?  Well, if you can stand the sight and sound of Canada’s dorky Prime Minister for more than five seconds then I have a drinking game for you.

It’s apparent our idiot of a PM can’t give a speech or interview without dropping one of the many progressive buzzwords that has come to define his fabricated political brand of the nu-male image.  I doubt he can order a Big Mac at McDonald’s without mentioning how the depletion of the Amazon rain forest contributes to climate change.  Only to then down that high caloric, high fat sandwich like the hypocrite all narcissists are.  Maybe he eats two because he cashed in one of those “buy one, get one” coupons from those McDonald’s booklets we find littering our mailboxes every month or so.  Or maybe he doesn’t because he doesn’t want to hurt that middle-aged dad-bod physique of his that makes him “sexy” for some reason.  Eh, whatever.

So stream a Justin Trudeau talk or interview wherever you can find one and if he mentions “climate change” you take a drink.  If he mentions “global warming” you take a drink.  If he says “equality” you take a drink but if he mentions it along with “gender” or “racial” or “religious” you take two drinks.  If he mentions “feminism” or “feminist” or anything eliciting gyno-centric favouritism you take a drink.  If he mentions “diversity”, “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “multiculturalism”, “inclusion” or “inclusiveness” you take a drink.  If he says “diversity is our strength” or variations of that sentence you take two drinks.  If he mentions “middle class” you take a drink.  And every time he says “Canada” you take a drink because when he’s talking about Canada he’s really taking about himself.

Nightmare mode:  If you find yourself still sober or not drunk enough and you’re determined to go full-tilt inebriated then take a drink every time he punctuates his speech with his characteristic “uhs” and “ahs.”  You know what I’m talking about don't you?  Those faggy inhales he does when he finishes a sentence or starts a sentence or does in the middle of sentence that, if you’re like me, drives you up the f**king wall?  Yeah, that thing!  Go on and take a drink every time he does that but I must caution you you’re courting alcohol poising if you do.  Have some charcoal on hand just in case.

I’m not a drinker myself but I’m tempted to take it up.  I don’t see how I’m going to last then next three years sober.  2016 was a tough one.