I had a difficult day at work so I’m in the mood for a fight. On second thought, I’ll settle for a debate and today’s victim will be Robert Lindsay. Last month he published a post called “More Nonsense About ‘White Genocide‘”. In a nutshell, his arguments are that:
1) Whites will not become extinct because not all of them will intermarry with the non-white multitudes that are brought to their shores.
2) “No one cares much about genetic “extinction” of various “pure” ethnic groups via voluntary intermarriage. Only lunatics like you guys. Races are not stable entities. They are changing all the time. It’s been that way all down through time.”
3) “There have been efforts to “breed out” various “pure” races in the past via flooding with immigration and encouraging intermarriage, but no one cares much about it, except that it had a racist ideology. See the “Whitening” project in Brazil for instance.”
My response, henceforth directed toward Mr. Lindsay, is that nobody, not even the most extreme pro-white activist, can control whom his descendants will breed with over time. He can have a powerful influence upon his children and maybe even upon his grandchildren but, sooner or later, he will die and his passion and influence will wane. The only way to prevent the dilution of a population is for that population to have its own territory or, at least, its own community. It must have its own schools, businesses, institutions and ideology*. Jews and the Parsi (diaspora Persians in India) are good examples. As it stands, governments prohibit whites from having their own schools; they are forced to allow their children to mix with other races (either explicitly or through financial pressure). Businesses are not allowed to be strictly white and, as a practical matter, neither are most institutions.
It is not necessary for all whites to intermarry in one or two generations; under the above circumstances, all whites will eventually intermarry and the indigenous peoples of Europe will be no more.
It is not necessary to believe that whites are a pure race in order to recognize the validity of their existence. Is there any proof that the Tasmanians were a “pure race”? I doubt it – and yet many people grieve over their extinction. I have already discussed the definition of “white” elsewhere. Should Native American tribes allow anybody to join them, whether or not they have any Native American blood? Many would say “no”. If this were the case, those tribes would cease being tribes; instead, they would be religions, ideologies, social clubs or cults.
As for “voluntary intermarriage”. One could argue that each individual case of miscegenation is “voluntary” but, taken as a whole, the vast conspiracy of propaganda and intense pressure (from birth to grave) for white girls and women to date blacks – and, to a lesser extent, for Asian girls and women to date whites – greatly reduces the “voluntary” element here. “Grooming” would be a better word. White girls are groomed to date blacks and this is no more voluntary than the grooming of girls to be prostitutes or house slaves. The results of conditioning from a tender age are not “voluntary”. The weak-minded of each generation will succumb. The parents did not send their children to mixed schools voluntarily either. Witness the opposition to desegregation in the South. Their children were mixed at the point of a gun.
As for no one caring about it, on the face of it, this is clearly false. Many people do care about it. I care about it and so do most readers of this blog. A recent survey revealed that nearly half of Mississippi Republicans would want miscegenation to be illegal. One would assume that they care about it. Armand Leroi cares about the survival of the negritos. In any event, even if it were true that “no one” cared about it, this does not mean that we should not care about it. Our priorities and opinions should not be subject to majority rule. You, of all people Mr. Lindsay, should appreciate this. After all, “no one” believes that Bigfoot exists – and yet you do. And I would never try to debate your Bigfoot claims with such an argument.
You are right that races are not stable entities. They ebb and flow and change all the time – but we ask that government allow nature to take its own course in this matter. Species also come and go. They become extinct all the time, even without the help of humans. And yet we consider the eradication of a species (even subspecies such as the Spotted Owl) to be a great crime. I have already contrasted the concern over a race of ducks with the lack of concern over races of men.
You claim that no one cares about efforts to swamp “pure” races in the past with immigrants in order to eradicate them “except that it had a racist ideology”. I would say that current policies toward traditionally white nations are based upon “racist ideologies”. We need not guess the intentions of those in power toward the white race; they have been quite vocal about their disdain toward it. The MSM is vocal about it. All Western institutions, that hold any measure of clout, are openly anti-white. They make no secret about it. What they want is a world either without whites at all, or one in which whites hold no power – even over their own destiny. You read Amren so surely you are aware of this.
As the evil plans of those in power become ever more obvious, more and more people do care about it.
*Though whites do not share a common ideology, they can incorporate a will to survive as a race within their various ideologies.
Jews and the Farsi? Do you mean the Parsis or actual Iranians? I know they’re related, but they’re quite distinct. Parsi I THINK only applies to the ones in India; Farsi to those in Iran. But I’m no expert.
I didn’t just come here to nitpick; I did read the rest of your post. I’m still digesting it.
I think you are right and I fixed it. Thanks.
The more I look into the matter, the more I have to conclude that the USA today has become the Anti-White Empire. If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans today it would look something like this, starting from the top down: 1. The Unites States Government. 2. The European Union. 3. Muslims. 4. The anti-white Leftists controlling Western academia and mass media. 5. Multinational corporations and their lobbyists plus a business class hungry for open borders with unrestricted access to global markets and cheap labor. 6. The anti-white bias and genetic Communism aggressively promoted by Hollywood and the American entertainment industry.
3, 4 and 5 are common to the entire Western world. Number 2 is exclusive to Europe, whereas number 1 and 6 are specifically North American, and both of these affect the rest of the Western world to a very substantial degree. Simple mathematics thus indicates that the USA is at least as much to blame for the now-ongoing ethnic cleansing of whites as is the EUSSR.
I read essays by the America Alone crowd represented by Mark Steyn and the likes. Europe has serious problems, but so does North America, and it’s not immediately clear which of the two is worse off.
Western Europe will probably burn because of Multiculturalism and mass immigration, but so will the USA. In fact, if we look at the transition to a non-white majority rather than Islamization then the USA is further down that line than the worst-affected areas of Europe, like France or England. Just because we’re sick doesn’t mean that you are healthy.
I started out writing about Islam, and I still stand by every statement I have ever made about Islam and Muslims. Yes, the Islamic creed by itself is inherently violent. No, it cannot be reformed, and Islam in any way, shape or form does not belong in the West. Islam, and those who practice it, must be totally and physically removed from the entire Western world.
The Chinese are different from me. I don’t want my country swamped by them because that would spell the end of my nation, but at least they don’t have a religion saying that it is a God-given right for them to wipe out my culture and massacre my people. Muslims do. They clearly top the list of violently hostile peoples who do not belong in Western lands.
However, as much as I loathe Islam it is merely a secondary infection. It would not be able to threaten us the way it does now had it not been for a self-generated cultural AIDS breaking down our immune system beforehand. The real mental virus killing the white West today is the post-Enlightenment construct we call the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation.
The two Western countries most historically responsible for developing and spreading this doctrine are the USA and France. It makes sense that these very same countries are also currently at the forefront of Western demographic decline. The Idea Nation concept stipulates that every single country, or at least every single Western country, is nothing but a random space on the map, an empty bowl just waiting to be filled with shopping and human rights.
The American proponents of this concept tend to focus more on the former aspect whereas the French, and the French-inspired organization known as European Union, emphasize the latter somewhat more. That is also the major difference between the two. The love-hate relationship between the Americans and the French tends to obscure how much their countries have in common. In both of them, the country has turned itself into a Multicultural Disneyland where the white majority is being stripped off its rights, its identity and ultimately perhaps its very existence, all with the blessings of the state. The end result is remarkably similar in both cases: The dispossession of whites and the organized destruction of European culture.
The American and French models are “different” in the same way as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were “different.” Heated debate between sects over minor ideological differences is a Western specialty that could successfully be viewed as a secularization of older Christian practices. This should not, however, obscure how much these various sects have in common.
The USA and France have both come to define themselves as “universal Republics” and are currently in the process of committing suicide because of this. Virtually the entire political Left as well as the “respectable” establishment Right throughout the Western world have fully accepted the Idea Nation as the ideal and agree on 90-95% of the goals. The so-called political debate we see on the newspapers and on the TV screens merely addresses the remaining details of how the new Multicultural society should be implemented or how the New Man should look like. It is an insane ideological beauty contest on how best to dismantle the West.
A proposition nation(Idea nation) is a sort of nation that could be considered a nation based on brainwashing. The fact American identity is considered to be based on beliefs in various propositions laid out in the constitution means that American identity is a restriction of free thought to conform to what the ideals of the country are based on.
In theory. In practice, the “idea nation” does not even exist. There are no preconditions for entry and no requirements to remain. The new citizen must only utter some words, sincere or not – and he is a citizen. Nobody cares if he believes in the Constitution or freedom or apple pie. All the politicians care about is the increased money and power that more “citizens” bring.
For example, there is a transatlantic “debate” of sorts regarding the best manner to integrate Somali Muslims: How much welfare state gives the best result? Should they learn their own language in schools? The continued mass immigration and colonization of Western lands by alien ethnic groups is already implied and treated as given. Practically nobody asks whether Somali Muslims are inherently so different from Europeans culturally and yes, genetically, that they don’t belong in Western countries in the first place. Maybe there simply is no Swedish, Dutch, German, Swiss, Italian, British, French, Canadian, American or Australian way to absorb such alien nations because the mental differences are too great to bridge.
Asking such questions will immediately get you excluded from polite society if not physically attacked. That is because you challenge the very basis of the Idea Nation and by extension the foundations of the ruling ideology. This will be considered a betrayal by those in power.
In addition to the USA and the EU, the twin Enlightenment Empires, we also have some junior partners in this process. Sweden, for instance, with its famous welfare state has created an international image for itself as a “model nation.” As a result, loyalty is no longer expressed to the Swedish nation as a biological reality since this has been ideologically abolished and historically erased. Instead, loyalty is expected and expressed to the ideals the state is supposed to uphold, in Sweden’s case Socialism and anti-white Multiculturalism.
In older times, a “traitor” was someone who betrayed his nation. In this context, a nation was a people who saw themselves as a distinct entity and ethnic group, complete with visual symbols like flags. Today, this viewpoint is considered obsolete by the ruling Western oligarchs, an ancient evil that must be ridiculed and stamped out at all costs, including use of indoctrination in the education system and the mass media coupled with legal intimidation and professional harassment against dissenters who adhere to traditional ties of loyalty.
A person who demonizes his culture and promotes the colonization of his country by other, even openly hostile peoples, is no longer considered a traitor, as he previously would have been. On the contrary, he is applauded by those in prominent positions in politics, academia and the mass media. The person who is treated as a traitor is anyone who shows any signs of loyalty to traditional nations that constitute hated rivals of enlightened universalism. For this reason, parties such as the Sweden Democrats have been harassed for years, not because they betray the people who historically inhabited their country, but precisely because they don’t.
Treason in a nation-state meant disloyalty to the heritage, freedom and continued existence of the distinct nation or ethnic group which inhabited that country’s territory. Treason in an ideological state or Idea Nation means disloyalty to the ideals upheld by the state.
The practical consequences of these different outlooks are enormous. Judged by the former definition, it is no exaggeration to say that the governments of every single member-state of the European Union, and indeed all Western countries, commit treason every single day.
Is this statement too harsh? Considering the fact that the white majority population that has shaped these countries and created successful societies there is being purposefully displaced by mass immigration sanctioned by the ruling elites, the answer to that question is no. Yet none of these governments have so far been charged with treason. Why not? Because the courts, as well as the laws and legal definitions upheld by the court system, are controlled by Globalist groups who adhere to the Idea Nation and uphold the latter definition of treason.
Europeans have fought, and paid with large amounts of blood, for over 1300 years to keep Islam out of the Continent. The European Union is currently promoting cultural and demographic ties between Europe and the Islamic world and clamping down on any opposition to this among native Europeans as “racism and Islamophobia.” In accordance with traditional views and values this would have to be considered one of the greatest betrayals in the history of European civilization, but not a single leading individual associated with these policies has to this day suffered substantial harassment for participating in this. On the contrary, in this age of anti-European agitation and Western self-destruction, treason can make for a lucrative career path with few dangers or negative side-effects attached to it.
The only ones who have to fear for their reputation, freedom and lives in Europe today are not those who want to allow continued Islamic colonization of the Continent but rather those who resist this, such as Geert Wilders who stands trial for defending his nation’s freedom.
An alternative view vis-à-vis the Idea Nation, and frankly, the only one that makes sense in light of human history and biological realities, is that a nation consists of a group of genetically related people with shared historical experiences, a roughly similar outlook and cultural background as well as emotional ties to their ancestors and to the land they live on.
Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After WW2, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became asssociated with Nazism and therefore seen as pure evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but least appreciated today. Frankly, I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable mental damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.
> As for “voluntary intermarriage”. One could argue that each individual case of miscegenation is “voluntary” but, taken as a whole, the vast conspiracy of propaganda and intense pressure (from birth to grave) for white girls and women to date blacks – and, to a lesser extent, for Asian girls and women to date whites – greatly reduces the “voluntary” element here. ”Grooming” would be a better word. White girls are groomed to date blacks and this is no more voluntary than the grooming of girls to be prostitutes or house slaves.
I recently argued just this at Mangan’s, vs RKU; hope he replies; I’m willing to debate him courteously now (I might have thrown him an elbow or two in the past, sharp but not indecent.)
Of course, it ain’t rocket science and it’s exactly what Nietzsche, Chomsky, and Leo Strauss would say; no doubt others have put it forth implicitly or explicitly.
I would make a non-libertarian argument: I would argue that even the zero-propaganda model, such as you might see (approximately) in Aussie and Yankee frontier societies, is sub-optimal for human life though it sure beats race-destroying propaganda. Such a society may well decay over time, as eu-propagandic influences wane. It doesn’t matter, though, since such a society cannot remain a-propagandic or hypo-propagandic for very long. In the long run, benevolent propaganda is needed. In particular, especially in a wealthy post-1830 society, you need a culture (which is of course almost synonymous with propaganda) where people are encouraged to migrate from the hedonia pole (the lower happinesses: donuts, porn, games) toward the eudaimonia pole (the virtues, all of them, which are the higher happiness), to the extent possible. –That is ‘human flourishing’ itself. And for that benevolence you almost need an ethnostate – to the extent feasible. (Unwinding an empire like Russian Federation is not always very practical, but one can move towards cultural autonomy for these possessions.) That way you get natural affection.
This – virtue ethics, eudaimonia – was one part of the success of fascism (and of Nietzscheism before it) which we should not reject, even though I recommend a thorough rejection of fascism. People aren’t happy with the potato chips and porn and lousy movies. They positively want the striving for virtue that is the focus of eudaimonism (though eudaimonism is not about rejecting hedonia, rather, hedonia is wholly accepted in general, but it is sacrificed on the margin to the pursuit of virtue – and what is left of it synergizes with virtue).
The thing is that virtue needs a telos. It needs a society men and women can love – and in most cases they will need children, and a society designed so they can really enjoy them… let them run around outside, etc. So, the good society is the telos, particularly the ethnostate is this telos, or some other state which yet recognizes ethnic rights for perpetuation (and actually propagandizes this) is this telos; children are this telos – doubly so if they can run around outdoors enough and get tired enough to be manageable when they come inside! That’s natural. A society promoting virtue must recognize what is natural, it must have a ‘darwinian’ or bio-anthropological policy. Failure to recognize conditions for virtue striving means migration away from eudaimonia toward the ‘lower happiness’, hedonia.
You describe what is happening very well.
You also draw attention to the bizarre contradiction between the near universal commitment to the preservation of non-human biodiversity, whether it be of obscure species such as the Snail Darter or man’s closest living relative, and the near universal state-sponsored enthusiasm for the destruction of the ancient races of mankind.
To what you have said, I would add three points:
First, that the genocidal racism of the Euro-American dominated world needs to be understood in the context of the drive for global empire. All empires wage war on all nationalisms, whether racial, religious or cultural.
Thus, just as two thousand years ago the Romans sought to destroy Israel as a racial, cultural and religious entity, opening Palestine to immigration and encouraging what the Jews no doubt regarded as the disgusting and degenerate ideas and habits of the cosmopolitan imperial society — the multi-culturalism of the day — so now, the Euro-American imperial elite seeks to destroy the English, the French and all those other proud European nations with their religious tradition, and their history of independence, military valour, and artistic and scientific achievement.
Second, by seeing it as part of an anti-imperialist struggle, those striving to preserve the ancient European nations will find allies among all of the proud and ancient peoples of the non-European world who also face imminent destruction by the forces of global empire.
Third, the claim that the destruction of ancient nations through mass migration is justified by the benefits of racial diversity entails a paradox, for diversity leads to miscegenation, which means the end to diversity. The process is not instantaneous, but within several generations — a very short time in the life of a nation — the old race disappears and a new race emerges. The consequences of such an exercise in eugenics, with the concomitant destruction of a culture and a religious tradition are incalculable.
Thanks. You make some good points. I have no opinion on intermarriage but I have felt that idealogy is very much forced on my generation. I have heard bogus arguments such as children of mixed races are healthier, or in some cases more beautiful becuse they combine “the best” elements of each race. (If race is an artificial construct, than how can you justify referring to them as an interracial couple and more importantly, speak about people in terms of their race when it suits your cause.) I have to dig up an old conversation on Mondoweiss, where an anonymous commenter proposes that
“intermarriage be encouraged strongly, to just short of making it mandatory.” Look at the comments this post attracted. This is a goldmine.
It’s amazing how people can hold such contradictory views, essentially they believe “race doesn’t exist therefore we have to promote marriage between people of different races”.
The Mantra, posted for reference of what Lindsay’s original post was about:
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Pingback: Jewamongyou on White Genocide | Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay has responded to this post on his blog. At some point, the question must be asked: do I win the debate if I can show that some people are out to exterminate whites – or must I show that a majority of those in power have this intention? In other words, what, exactly, are we looking for as evidence?
It seems pretty much a waste of time arguing with dopey people like Lindsay. Rather like talking with the self-hating white racist, Craig Murray and his acolytes.
These people don’t know what the term “race” means, or at least affect not to, and if you define it for them they will argue that there is no such thing as the British, or French or Russian or whatever other race.
Yet if, to take you example, you were to insist on integration of the N. American Indian tribes with immigrant society which surrounds them, they’d likely be hollering racist and genocide real fast.
In fact, there was a concerted effort in Canada to integrate the Indians by compelling the children to attend residential schools run by missionary societies. That programme is now generally agreed by liberals and leftists to have been genocidal. The thing is, genocide is only recognized where the victims are able to speak for themselves.
I think, therefore, what is most important is to educate ordinary people what is going on and why. The why is very important. Why do people like Lindsay spend time arguing the benefits of destroying the ancient races of mankind? Is it supposed to be for the benefit of those who, as Sarkozy warned the French, must marry an immigrant if they hope to have any posterity?
Lindsay’s arguments have little if any valid intellectual content. They are of interest only insofar as they indicate the kind of lying propaganda that needs to be counteracted. Whatever following people like Lindsay and Murray have is far from representative of the public at large.
Mr. Lindsay, while not a white-nationalist, at least is willing to talk about it and this is a lot better than most “liberals”. Having a debate/conversation at all is a necessary first step toward having honest, meaningful, conversations. I have no illusions about converting the rest of the world to our point of view – but it is nice to have correspondence with people who do not agree with us and who are capable of refraining from the typical hysterics and name-calling we find among most “liberals”. Also, I’m a bit “dopey” at times myself.
I too thought Robert Lindsay was interesting, because he seemed so much more willing to discuss rather than rave and insult. Compared to most leftists, he is, but I eventually gave up.
The high point on his blog was when he lauded commenter Alpha Unit for her sarcastic demand that if someone believes blacks and whites can’t get along, he should come to a black neighborhood and proclaim it. The implication was that the blacks would beat him, thus proving that blacks and whites get along very well.
I couldn’t have scripted it better myself – that is race-leftism in a nutshell. Don’t say whites are vulnerable to black violence and leftist suppression of free speech, or we’ll beat you.
“There’s no plot by White haters to flood the US with Whites in order to destroy the White race. ”
That’s right, and when your house is burning down, there is no plot to keep it burning. Sit around, have a beer, whatever. It’s fine as long as there is “no plot”.
But in fact I think in a lot of senses, there is a plot. People at the newspapers and the TV stations do have to discuss how anti-immigration activists will be portrayed. That constitutes a plot.
No overarching plot, well, I accept that.
“it is nice to have correspondence with people who do not agree with us and who are capable of refraining from the typical hysterics and name-calling we find among most “liberals””
Well, yes, but Mr. Lindsay seems to be calling you and anyone who agrees with you a “lunatic.” I suppose he might use more violent language, but still.
And his assertion that no one gives a damn about the elimination of various peoples by mass migration, though possibly true as general statement, does not alter the fact that what is being talked about is precisely what Raphael Lemkin defined as genocide. And genocide is a term that Raphael Lemkin coined, so I don’t see why we should not stick with his definition.”
When you say you have “I have no illusions about converting the rest of the world to our point of view,” I think you are overlooking the fact that the great majority of people in the European states with large numbers of foreign born residents strongly oppose further mass immigration.
Exactly how those people would define what is being done to them I am not sure. Terms like genocide would probably confuse them. But they understand what is happening to them and their neighborhoods and their view is, I would say, fundamentally no different from yours.
It’s Lindsay’s style to be a bit loose with the pen. I don’t take everything he writes literally. Each writer has his own style and its up to the reader to adapt his understanding to the writer at times. I have the same tendency as Lindsay and I’m always struggling to tame my language.
I’ve never called Jewamongyou a lunatic on my site.
Re: a plot,
I think Olave is correct. There is a plot.
The moneyed elite are trashing their own people for the sake of cheap labor. As George Bush the elder said about illegal immigration to the US, “it solves the servant problem.”
And destroying the nations of the world makes a global system so much easier to manage, and under a global system, the money will be safe for ever and ever.
Re: “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Yes, I think so. We are dealing with a rather sophisticated operation and the question that needs to be kept in mind is this:
who really is the racist?
He who questions the state-sponsored destruction of the European peoples, or he who seeks to suppress any discussion of this policy of racial, cultural and religious genocide?
Genocide Complaint Filed Against Canada
Read the Document
The document your pointed to makes a case for the existence in Canada of anti-European discrimination with demographic consequences, but no specifics are provided, so the case does not seem compelling.
In defense of Canada’s immigration policy it might be stated that Canada is a large place, there is room for many people here and that if the space is not filled quickly through controlled immigration it may be filled through uncontrolled immigration, either illegal or following military conquest.
I think a case for genocidal intent can be made, however, on the basis that immigration policies have resulted in a European birthrate well below the replacement rate. This combined with rapid immigration will lead to eventual extinction of the present European population.
This is a point that all residents of Canada should be concerned about since it is not merely those of European descent who fail to achieve a replacement reproductive rate (Jewish women, for example, have the lowest reproductive rate of all ethnicities in the US, as is probably the case in Canada too).
Canada is thus a place that sucks in people from elsewhere, and replaces them after a generation or two by new immigrants.
This is exactly the case in most European countries, and provides a very certain mechanism for eliminating the indigenous populations.
Has the UN made any official responses regarding this complaint?
Quote by CanSpecy:
“In defense of Canada’s immigration policy it might be stated that Canada is a large place, there is room for many people here and that if the space is not filled quickly through controlled immigration it may be filled through uncontrolled immigration, either illegal or following military conquest.”
Canada’s population is just fine as it is. Canada is not in danger of a military conquest. There is barely any illegal immigration to Canada. The open spaces in Canada do not need to be filled up with immigrants.
“Canada is not in danger of a military conquest.”
You think not? With American law enforcement agents about to begin operations in Canada.
As for “There is barely any illegal immigration to Canada.”
No, not yet. But how many illegals does the US have? Twenty million? You think as the common perimeter agreement is implemented some of those illegals, say ten percent, won’t show up in canada?
And anyway, what does it mean to say Canada;s population is “just fine.” Fine in relation to what?
America has infringed on Canada’s sovereignty before but AMerica is not going to conquer Canada and then populate Canada’s open spaces with Americans.
You don’t seem to understand the implications of the Security and Prosperity Partnership: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness. This is not be a conquest as you understand it, but it effectively places Canada under US military control.
Of course Americans are not going to populate Canada. Their fertility is now below the replacement rate. But they have millions of immigrants, legal and illegal who will be free, under the SPP to migrate into Canada.