You are here

Invasion of the body snatchers

How the Growth Lobby Stole The Minds Of The Digital Generation

Above---a PC Pod has identified you as no friend of the CBC. “Racist! Racist!”, she screams. “Assimilate him! Assimilate him!” she shouts as a mob of thought police chase after you.

It is a Canada where the unimaginable becomes real and the impossible becomes possible. They’re here! They’re here I tell you! Why can’t you see the Digital Generation has been stolen and replaced by replicas who look like real Canadians but are in fact programmed to follow an anti-Canadian agenda?

Your loved ones---your children and grandchildren may be next! Don’t let them go to sleep! Don’t let them be captured by the social media! Don’t let them take liberal arts courses and be transformed into mindless multiculturalists who robotically chant the PC line. Maybe your kids have already been taken! When they return home for a semester break, look for clues. Look into their vacant eyes, and if they say things like “All cultures are equal”, or “It is all relative” , “What’s a Canadian anyway”, or “The only true Canadians are First Nations people”, or “No one is illegal”, or “I am offended” or “I consider myself a citizen of the world”----you know that these are not your kids, but the agents of an alien force bent on your assimilation. Run! Run now! Don’ t let them take you!

Maybe I should get out of here while the getting is good. I could flee this country or get out of town, because being intellectually neutered and living life as a left-wing pod is no life at all. I am afraid to fall asleep or visit my politically-correct doctor. I can imagine what he will say---it will be like the screenplay from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers":

Tim: Doctor please. Let me leave the city!

Doctor: You don't have to leave the city. Nothing changes. You can have the same life.

Tim: But what happens to me if I accept the liberal PC media consensus?

Doctor: You'll be born again into an untroubled world, free of anxiety, fear, hate....

Tim: Doctor, you're killing me! Wait....

Doctor: That's not true. Your mind and memories will be totally absorbed. Everything remains intact.

Tim: What is this supposed to do?

Doctor: It's just a mild sedative to help you sleep.

Tim: I hate you. You and everyone of the slimy NDP-Sierra green-left clique!

Doctor: We don't hate you. There's no need for hate now... or love. Especially love for one's own culture and nation. You will come to accept Diversity, the word we prefer to use to describe the assimilation and control of people like you, people who have not accepted globalization and the ideology of the occupying forces and the monoculture of money, disguised as it is by fake pluralism.

Tim: There are people who will fight you. Patriots. Those who cherish Western values and their Euro-Canadian heritage. People who want to defend our natural environment from the continuing onslaught of immigration-driven population growth. They'll stop you!

Doctor: In an hour... you won't want them to. Don't be trapped by old concepts. You're evolving into a new life form---a gullible liberal, a herd animal who, rather do his own research, relies upon the filtered information from the CBC, Commondreams.org, Avaaz.org , Huffington Post and Sierra Club newsletters. Come and watch. We came here from a dying world. Europe. The Frankfurt School to be precise. We are Cultural Marxists, parasites dedicated to the transformation and displacement of native species we invade and the habitat upon which they depend. We drift through Western society from nation to nation, pushed on by the solar winds (a pie-in-the-sky energy source funded by taxpayer dollars). We adapt... and we survive. The function of life is survival. If you don't like our principles, we will find new ones for you.

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers----coming to a theatre near you!

This can’t be real. This must be fiction. This can’t be happening. The take-over of a nation, the take-over of a generation, converted into an army of Quislings who revel in their own colonization. Self-righteous Red Guards looking for signs of disobedience and offensive speech, eager to swarm and denounce you for what you are, a relic of the counter-revolution harbouring parochial thoughts about independent nationhood and governments that put the needs of its own citizens above those who would displace them for profit! Once I felt comfortable in the country of my birth---but now I feel that I am a stranger among men. They look like men---but they act like they have no balls! They’re pods!

Help! Help! No, no, let me go! Take your hands off me! I don’t want to be re-educated! No! No! I don’t want a sedative! Don’t inject me with a dose of the CBC or the Globe and Mail! Not that! Kill me if you have to, but I don’t want to live like a vegetable!

Somebody get me out of here! Somebody turn off the CBC! Why doesn’t anyone believe me? Tell me that this is a nightmare!

Tim Murray

July 31, 2012

Comments

America’s experience with a low level of immigration provides a useful test of how that affects the nation’s economic performance.

Between 1925 and 1965 immigrant admissions averaged less than 180,000 persons per year. During that period, the share of women in the workforce nearly doubled and minorities gained access to new job opportunities.

Over those decades, the economy not only grew significantly, it grew more rapidly than it has since mass immigration was again unleashed by legislation enacted in 1965.

From 1925-1966 GDP per capita increased by 168.4 percent. That is an average annual increase of 4.0 percent.

The economy can grow in a healthy fashion with a low level of immigration. How do we know this? The US's economic history demonstrates this fact.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/low-immigration-and-high-economic-growth

Because there are other economic forces at play in shaping the national product, that is not a clear-cut prospect. Nevertheless, this period provides evidence that it is wrong to suggest that the United State's economy will suffer if immigration and guest worker programs are not increased as business interests are currently asserting and it suggests. On the contrary, that the economy would continue to be healthy if immigration were significantly reduced.

In most cases, rapid, immigration-fueled population growth results in increased unemployment and decreases in per capita income. Growth in a finite worlds leads to significant declines in quality of life, such as environmental degradation, urban sprawl, increased congestion, stress on public infrastructure, and strains on vital social institutions.

The problem of illegal immigration to the United States remains unsolved. There are some 11 million illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans, in the United States.

GDP growth has become a gauge of what is good and bad, for success and failure. Moreover, steadily impoverishing Americans, particularly the American poor and disadvantaged by immigration-driven population growth, will likely turn Americans inward and compel the otherwise generous American to reduce economic and other foreign aid.

A growing population is expensive, mandating continual increases in technological efficiency and retrofitting costs only to maintain current levels and ecological footprint.

Maintaining the illusion of perpetual economic and population growth, something with no natural constraints, means manipulating the voting public. National borders must be softened, and eventually eliminated to create a "one world" humanitarian scenario. Patriotism must be quashed in deference to the displaced "asylum seekers", and immigration must be continued to protect the lofty ideals of multiculturalism. National identity and culture, history, patriotic fervour, protection of one's nation, the concept of sovereignty, environmental conservation are all "racist" and are barriers to mass immigration and realignment of the immigration nations to be global identities.

If our population doesn't grow, the economy stalls
July 16, 2012, Matthew Kidman

THE first policy a new federal government should dust off when elected next year is ''Big Australia''. The Kevin Rudd initiative aimed at growing Australia's population from 22.3 million to 35 million by 2050.

Within weeks of taking the top job, Julia Gillard scrapped Big Australia realising that few votes would be garnered from the initiative. A combination of xenophobic and anti-growth feeling swelled and that was enough to bin the whole exercise.

The reality is though that without population expansion Australian economic growth will stall, placing pressure on company valuations and the performance of the sharemarket. Live examples of this already exist in Japan, Italy and Greece. Australia needs a demographic policy that involves targeted population growth.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the economy grew at an annual pace of 3.2 per cent in the 1990s of which 1.5 per cent was contributed by population growth. In the first decade of the new century, the local economy ratcheted up its growth to just under 4 per cent per year of which population growth can be credited with 1.8 per cent.
Advertisement

As is well documented, the Australian population, like many other Western nations, is getting older.

In the latest census released last month, it stated that the median age of Australia was 37 years old, up five years in two decades. This is not in itself a concern given that the working population, defined as those people aged between 15 and 65 years, actually increased as a percentage of all people during the same period. The working population is the productive component of society.

This, though, is about to change. It is estimated that by 2015 the median age of Australians will jump to 39 years and the working age will start to shrink from about 67 per cent of the population to 66 per cent. While it does not sound significant, it effectively means demographics will go from being supportive of economic growth to a handbrake.

The Reserve Bank of Australia released a report in 2010 analysing the impact of demographic change on economic growth in a number of countries. It concluded that from 2011 to 2020 demographic changes relating to population growth and the size of the working-age population would reduce economic growth by a full 1 per cent per year in Japan. In the prior decade it had contributed a positive 1.1 per cent.

That is enormous burden to carry for a country that is struggling to grow because of the Japanese penchant for saving instead of spending.

The US is in a better position, but will suffer from a similar fate. In the period from 1996 to 2005 demographic change boosted economic growth by 1.3 per cent each year. But this is forecast to drop to just 0.5 per cent from 2011 to 2020.

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2011 said the ageing population was already having a significant impact on the sharemarket, with the price-to-earnings multiple investors are willing to pay for equities already falling as the median age increases.

The second-largest economy in the world and Australia's biggest trading partner, China, will see the impact of demographics move from 1.4 per cent a year to just 0.2 per cent in this decade.

Many pundits will argue that growth is not compulsory but the economic contractions taking place in Europe should remind everyone how painful and socially disruptive it can be.

Australia's population has grown approximately 1.4 per cent a year over the past 20 years. If this rate continued to 2050, then Australia's population would hit 38 million, some 3 million more than what Rudd's Big Australia would contain. So fears of the population growing out of control are ill-founded. If a targeted population growth policy was implemented, it would require a careful selection process that kept the nation's median age down and, more importantly, retained a similar-sized working population.

The case for an orchestrated increase in the population gains currency when one considers the decline in the other two major contributors to economic growth - terms of trade and labour productivity.

The terms of trade have been a major driver of economic expansion in recent years, but it may have peaked recently with the crest of the mining boom. Meanwhile, labour productivity has been declining in relative terms for a decade with no signs of reversing.

There are strong arguments against population growth, mostly concerning social change, environmental pressures and a lack of infrastructure. Policy must accommodate all of these concerns but none should be insurmountable if a detailed plan is constructed. In fact, if Australia managed to come to terms with its poor infrastructure, dearth of water and lack of geographical planning, the country would be significantly improved from a lifestyle and productivity perspective.

Finally, the world is forecast to grow from today's 7 billion people to about 9 billion by 2060. After this it is expected to stall and then eventually shrink. With less than 23 million people, Australia, as a developed nation, should be expected to contribute to accommodating more people in a crowded world.

Former fund manager Matthew Kidman is a director of WAM Capital.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/if-our-population-doesnt-grow-the-economy-stalls-20120715-22445.html#ixzz22m029471

"Australia, as a developed nation, should be expected to contribute to accommodating more people in a crowded world...." This is an absurd argument! There's no evidence that, apart from starvation, conflict and natural disasters (all consequences of overpopulation), the world's population will stall. Immigration gives a false sense of escape, of security, that people can keep overbreeding and find relief in Australia. This is turn will add to the Earth's overpopulation woes. It will just add to the population growth rates of the overpopulated countries, and wreak havoc on our own environmental/social infrastructure.
Australia has no obligation to be a repository for the peoples of the world, who through their own high fertility levels and lack of family planning, have overshot their ecological resources.

Apparently our economic model is fixed so that we must have ongoing immigration to support the age pensions and Public Servant superannuation schemes, to maintain our lifestyles. It's a Ponzi scheme, as migrants also will age and require pensions and superannuation, and they in turn will rely on young immigrants to supply it. Each generation will rely on the next, and it means increasing numbers of people to support this misanthropic and Earth-destructive scheme. Overloading the "life-boats", our planetary space-ship, is self-destructive, counterproductive and self-defeating. We will all go down the road to disaster together- non-human species and all!

THE first policy a new federal government should dust off when elected next year is ''Big Australia''. The Kevin Rudd initiative aimed at growing Australia's population from 22.3 million to 35 million by 2050.....
Within weeks of taking the top job, Julia Gillard scrapped Big Australia realising that few votes would be garnered from the initiative.

Wow. That article is just incredibly bad. If an undergraduate journalist student submitted it they would probably be failed. "Big Australia" was never any kind of initiative or government policy. Just a consequence of the federal government's ongoing, haphazard policy of adhoc massive immigration. Which is still underway of course. And will continue under the federal government, Coalition, Labor or even Greens, for decades to come. Seriously, 5 minutes reading Wikipeda would show this journalist that we are on track to be well over 35 million by 2050. Either he's extremely lazy or wrote a deliberately misleading article. Probably the latter, knowing the Fairfax media.