You have to understand that a lot of the Indians in Canada do not want to go back. They have a goal of gaining g permanent residency to start chain migration with extended family. Eventually, they want to bring their wives to Canada.
They then want to move down towards the U.S. because of the economic opportunity. They will attempt to do so through the Indian enclaves through hub cities (especially in states like Texas).
How do I know this? I was traveling in Texas and had a Canadian colleague (real Canadian) who travelled with me to a conference for a few days. They were talking about the shit show that was going on in Canada regarding the nonsense in politics. Our Uber driver, with a thick Indian accent said he was going to make sure to vote for the conservatives. We asked him what he meant. He said he’s a Canadian citizen.
I prodded the story out of him since the immigrants aren’t forthright about their intentions. But he immigrated a decade ago, started up a fake IT outsourcing company run by Indians up in the suburbs of Toronto, waited to get his permanent residency, then citizenship. Once he secured that, he decided to move down towards an Indian enclave in Texas and work for Uber to earn USD as he waited for one of the Indians to push him through to a corporate job.
So this dude owns a “company” in Canada, is extracting Canadian dollars from the economy, and is using it to go live in the U.S. His goal is citizenship. The kicker? He told us his wife was 8 months pregnant and was in the U.S. with him. So, he’s anchor babying the situation. Just disgusting.
With respect to the first of the micro-topics, it would be interesting to hear any extended thoughts on a broad policy framework that is based on families rather than individuals.
If you ever have a chance, I would recommend visiting the Notre Dame Cathedral in Montreal. The stain glass all depict local Quebec saints and catholic history in Quebec. In the modern day, the beautiful art come across as the sad remains of a dead political formula, a reminder of what Quebec was and maybe could of been.
What are your thoughts on the the highlighting of the recommendation 429 and 430, which respectively proposes stripping pro life organizations and churches of their charitable status? Do you think there is any chance this effects the election?
Its hard to tell. The question is whether or not anyone is willing to go hard on an "anti-Christian" stance. Right now the CPC is very quiet on the issue.
Great big thanks to both of you for creating this exceptional podcast!
I want to ask about the limited options available to Canada in the mid-twentieth century. In particular, go it alone = North Korea. This colorful shorthand is intriguing, but I do not understand at all. If you touch on this theme in a future episode, I would be most appreciative to hear you expand on the concept.
It seems the need of capital formation for natural resource development left Canada in the space between the waning of one empire and the waxing of another. In your estimation, could a home grown solution along the lines of the creation of The Dutch East India Company been feasible? Did the military build up in the war effort produce an issue of national indebtedness?
The 'colourful shorthand' was chosen because Canadians would have to accept a significant decline in their standard of living in order to give up an economy integrated with a manufacturing partner. In this alternative reality have bear a heavy defense spending burden, and make big investments to bootstrap it's own manufacturing economy. This reduced standard of living would have to continue for a long time with Canadians aware that it was a conscious choice. That's a very difficult thing to maintain.
With respect to your last question; Canada was in debt at the end of WWII, but not irrecoverably so. The situation became irrecoverable because of the very intense social spending that developed c. 1950-1970, which eventually lead to Canada's effective bankruptcy in the 80's.
Thank you, The Black Horse. Your explanation is very helpful for my understanding. I can see that under the alternative reality circumstance you describe, Canada would likely have employed measures that bear a resemblance to certain North Korean features. They would have devised every kind of signal barrier technically possible for the period against the American media onslaught. Imagine how thick a layer of propaganda would have been applied! Probably too, they would have needed to erect an exit border to stem significant population outflows.
I'm impressed that Canada's debt was not irrecoverable at the end of WWII, given the sizable military buildup you described in the podcast.
I think what Grant was saying was that progressive, continental, globalist logic is the freeing up of the individual from any constraints so the elimination of legacy culture is viewed as a good and necessary thing. Legacy culture is a constraint . As a result any Canadian identity is not in a sense allowed. We are just an economic unit in the empire to the south. There is no logic to Canada being different than the United States.
Good podcast but you guys gotta stop interrupting each other and let your colleague finish the point. About a dozen times, so I wanted to hear the conclusion to a line of reasoning and then the other person interrupted and I was left wondering.
This information is too good to be interrupted . Keep up the good work.
Be assured we noticed this ourselves and have talked about it. This kind of two host show vs round table vs interview format takes some getting used to. Thanks for the feedback!
Great episode! Interesting how George Grant sees modernity as the main culprit in the decline in functional nationalism. I would believe it except that Japan and China exist and neither seem to have problems being nationalist…
You have to understand that a lot of the Indians in Canada do not want to go back. They have a goal of gaining g permanent residency to start chain migration with extended family. Eventually, they want to bring their wives to Canada.
They then want to move down towards the U.S. because of the economic opportunity. They will attempt to do so through the Indian enclaves through hub cities (especially in states like Texas).
How do I know this? I was traveling in Texas and had a Canadian colleague (real Canadian) who travelled with me to a conference for a few days. They were talking about the shit show that was going on in Canada regarding the nonsense in politics. Our Uber driver, with a thick Indian accent said he was going to make sure to vote for the conservatives. We asked him what he meant. He said he’s a Canadian citizen.
I prodded the story out of him since the immigrants aren’t forthright about their intentions. But he immigrated a decade ago, started up a fake IT outsourcing company run by Indians up in the suburbs of Toronto, waited to get his permanent residency, then citizenship. Once he secured that, he decided to move down towards an Indian enclave in Texas and work for Uber to earn USD as he waited for one of the Indians to push him through to a corporate job.
So this dude owns a “company” in Canada, is extracting Canadian dollars from the economy, and is using it to go live in the U.S. His goal is citizenship. The kicker? He told us his wife was 8 months pregnant and was in the U.S. with him. So, he’s anchor babying the situation. Just disgusting.
It really is. Many such cases.
Great conversation, looking forward to part two.
With respect to the first of the micro-topics, it would be interesting to hear any extended thoughts on a broad policy framework that is based on families rather than individuals.
If you ever have a chance, I would recommend visiting the Notre Dame Cathedral in Montreal. The stain glass all depict local Quebec saints and catholic history in Quebec. In the modern day, the beautiful art come across as the sad remains of a dead political formula, a reminder of what Quebec was and maybe could of been.
I was there about five years ago. Beautiful.
I've been; but unfortunately not for several years. Old Montreal has to be one of the nicest places to spend a summer evening in the world.
What are your thoughts on the the highlighting of the recommendation 429 and 430, which respectively proposes stripping pro life organizations and churches of their charitable status? Do you think there is any chance this effects the election?
Its hard to tell. The question is whether or not anyone is willing to go hard on an "anti-Christian" stance. Right now the CPC is very quiet on the issue.
Great big thanks to both of you for creating this exceptional podcast!
I want to ask about the limited options available to Canada in the mid-twentieth century. In particular, go it alone = North Korea. This colorful shorthand is intriguing, but I do not understand at all. If you touch on this theme in a future episode, I would be most appreciative to hear you expand on the concept.
It seems the need of capital formation for natural resource development left Canada in the space between the waning of one empire and the waxing of another. In your estimation, could a home grown solution along the lines of the creation of The Dutch East India Company been feasible? Did the military build up in the war effort produce an issue of national indebtedness?
The 'colourful shorthand' was chosen because Canadians would have to accept a significant decline in their standard of living in order to give up an economy integrated with a manufacturing partner. In this alternative reality have bear a heavy defense spending burden, and make big investments to bootstrap it's own manufacturing economy. This reduced standard of living would have to continue for a long time with Canadians aware that it was a conscious choice. That's a very difficult thing to maintain.
With respect to your last question; Canada was in debt at the end of WWII, but not irrecoverably so. The situation became irrecoverable because of the very intense social spending that developed c. 1950-1970, which eventually lead to Canada's effective bankruptcy in the 80's.
Thank you, The Black Horse. Your explanation is very helpful for my understanding. I can see that under the alternative reality circumstance you describe, Canada would likely have employed measures that bear a resemblance to certain North Korean features. They would have devised every kind of signal barrier technically possible for the period against the American media onslaught. Imagine how thick a layer of propaganda would have been applied! Probably too, they would have needed to erect an exit border to stem significant population outflows.
I'm impressed that Canada's debt was not irrecoverable at the end of WWII, given the sizable military buildup you described in the podcast.
Good questions. Let me chat BH about this and we will see what we can do.
That is terrific :) Thank you!
Thanks for adding that lament to a nation on the radar.
I'll have to read that one and digest what has been said in my readings on Quiet revolution.
I think what Grant was saying was that progressive, continental, globalist logic is the freeing up of the individual from any constraints so the elimination of legacy culture is viewed as a good and necessary thing. Legacy culture is a constraint . As a result any Canadian identity is not in a sense allowed. We are just an economic unit in the empire to the south. There is no logic to Canada being different than the United States.
Good podcast but you guys gotta stop interrupting each other and let your colleague finish the point. About a dozen times, so I wanted to hear the conclusion to a line of reasoning and then the other person interrupted and I was left wondering.
This information is too good to be interrupted . Keep up the good work.
Be assured we noticed this ourselves and have talked about it. This kind of two host show vs round table vs interview format takes some getting used to. Thanks for the feedback!
Great episode! Interesting how George Grant sees modernity as the main culprit in the decline in functional nationalism. I would believe it except that Japan and China exist and neither seem to have problems being nationalist…
No one ever talks about the stay at home women's loss of pension credit which is arguably the most serious problem. .