Like I said: “Canada, make babies”

Related Articles

The Article

I said “Canada: Make babies” in a blog entry “headline” last week.  That was the one in which I mentioned this:

Do you know what the most popular baby boy name in Belgium is?  Pierre?  Michel?  Denis?  No.  It’s Mohammed.  In Amsterdam?  Mohammed.  Mohammed is also among the most popular new baby names now in the U.K., and Sweden.

image

Of course it doesn’t matter unless the elite mainstream takes nearly my exact words and says it themselves.  To wit:

image

The venerable National Post bases their editorial headline not on my “editorial” of course, because common citizen blogs are too tawdry for them, but rather on the latest (2006) Canada Census government information released yesterday. 

But nearly all the news articles and editorials in the liberals’ mainstream media about the Census ignore some of the most important facts of life in Canada—and I suspect it’s because they’re such total politically-correct jamtarts that they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the multiple mostly non-white elephants in the room. 

They all acknowledge that Canada’s population has grown—some of them in proud fashion—faster than other developed countries—through immigration rather than through native natural normal childbirth.  They sheepishly acknowledge that Canada’s fertility rate is now far too low to sustain itself without immigration from Yemen and India and China and Vietnam—which was the point of my blog entry.  For some on the left, this lack of native-born babies and its growth mostly through immigration is seen as a virtue of sorts.  Something to boast about or be proud of.  Thus the liberal media portrays it this way, it seems to me.

The liberals’ state-run CBC division gleefully reports:

An average 240,000 newcomers per year more than compensated for Canada’s flat fertility rate.

No not “flat”—flat is 2.1 babies per woman.  At 1.5, it’s actually a negative growth.  But nice try.

They all fail to acknowledge that at this rate, mathematically speaking (using even better science than their super-dooper liberal-leftist U.N.-induced man-made global warming bunkum science), Canada will turn into a non-white new Delhi or China or Arabia in the not-too-distant future. 

That’s a mathematical fertility-rate fact.  But facts, shmacts, am I right liberals?  The another salient fact is that the politically-correct appeasement idiots among us would see this as a “racist statement”, and in order to appease their idiot base, typical journalists shun these sorts of facts, in favor of being seen as super-dooper multicultural-luvin’ liberals.

The National Post pretends in their editorial that the problem with relying on immigration is merely that someday, we’ll run out of what they call “quality” immigrants.  To quote: “But how long can this last? Eventually, there simply won’t be enough high-quality immigrants to make the system work.”  That’s the problem?  No.  The problem is that someday, Canada won’t be Canada as we know it any more.  Thus I said, “Canada: Make babies!”  That’s the solution, period. Well, that, and, “and keep them!”

You see while discussing the population of our country, they happily inform you that 400,000 babies were born in the most recent period between 2001 and 2006, but they choose to suppress the fact that every year in Canada over 100,000 babies are aborted.  Of course that wasn’t in the Census press release, so for the first time in recent media history, the liberal media sees no need to inject any more information into the story than that which was presented to them.  Normally they’d invite at least two leftist or even outright Marxist university professors to expound ad infinitum, and two overtly (but undescribed as such) left-wing think-tank intellectual pinheads to lecture us about all of the untold ramifications.

As approximately 18 people in Canada know (and this is by design of liberals and their media), there are no abortion laws in Canada, and women are free to get free taxpayer-paid abortions at any time at all in any pregnancy—(there’s no “you’re too far along” law in Canada—ANY time is a good time for an abortion in Canada), and can and do get an abortion—sometimes several—for any reason or no particular reason at all whatsoever.  There’s simply no law.  Canada’s liberals designed it and maintain it this way with the able help of their Supreme Court division.  Go team.

So in that 5-year period, it seems to me that while we apparently gained 400,000 babies that were allowed to live and actually be born, we lost over 500,000 native-born babies to abortion—mostly for no good reason other than aesthetics and the need to party and maintain one’s figure, and of course as a last-ditch contraceptive measure.  As we know, liberals describe this situation as a “Canadian value”—when not in happy excited “Canada grew real fast!” mode. 

And of course they also don’t mention what percentage of those 400,000 babies were born to what is still typical traditional Canadians—the Judeo-Christian-rooted ones who developed the place into the great capitalist freedom-loving democracy that it is (and then gave up reproducing)—or what are sometimes called white Anglo-Saxon protestants—and what percentage were born to the high-fertility-rate immigrant Muslims in Canada, and Indians, and the immigrant Chinese who by Chinese law aren’t even allowed to have more than one back home.  I imagine even ASKING that question on the Census form would be a liberal-leftist court challenge in the making, to eventually be settled by the liberals’ Supreme Court division once again.  That’s how asinine and politically-correct we’ve become. 

And sadly, I don’t doubt that “asinine and politically-correct” has a lot to do with the fertility rate.

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img