Post Thanksgiving Thoughts : Guess who isn’t coming to Dinner?
Homeless Canadians— like homeless Canadian dogs— go to the back of the line
By Tim Murray
October 14, 2014
Thanksgiving has come and gone, but one lingering thought remains.
One might recall a news item about Canadians who went to California to rescue 200 dogs that were slated to be put down by the ASPCA. They had them flown to Vancouver! Many other Canadians have recruited rescue dogs from other countries too—especially developing countries. One of them, from Abbotsford, B.C., has airlifted over 200 stray dogs from India. Of the estimated 525 million dogs in the world, 200 million are without owners–semi-feral dogs who feed off human garbage at the outskirts of third world cities across the world. New Delhi alone has 250,000 of them. Bali 500,000. These are just two examples of a horrific crisis. In other words, the line of needy dogs is endless. To most Western visitors, the spectacle is both shocking and sad. Very sad. No wonder some are moved to adopt them.
But this compassionate practice begs the question. Why would anyone go to another country or continent to rescue dogs when there are THOUSANDS of dogs in Canada who languish in animal shelters with a death sentence hanging over them? Why don’t these globe-trotting dog rescuers direct their compassion toward homeless or ownerless dogs here?
The same question could be asked of the idealistic and compassionate Canadians involved with “Share Thanksgiving”, an organization which seeks to “build bridges” with recently arrived “New” Canadians and connect with them by getting folks to invite them to Thanksgiving dinner. Why don’t they instead “connect” with the many people in their own cities and even in their own neighbourhoods who live in poverty and social isolation? People like those in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side? What accounts for this apparent “need” to reach out to new arrivals and those in foreign lands to demonstrate one’s generosity and compassion?”
Two things.”Pathological Altruism” and cultivated ‘xenophilia” –the perverse love of the outsider , the foreigner, at the expense of people close to home. Why is xenophobia depicted as a pathology but xenophilia not? Answer: We—-and especially the younger generation processed through the post-secondary boot-camps of political correctness—-have been systematically shaped by the political culture of “Cultural Marxism” which forms the matrix of conventional and socially acceptable thinking in this country. Thus more and more of us have been persuaded that “Canada is Home to the World”, that “No One is Illegal”, and that we should regard ourselves–not as Canadians, but as ancient Athenian statesman Demothenes would put it, “citizens of the world”. It is not surprising that two members of “Share Thanksgiving” have been associated with “Engineers without Borders”.
In many respects, there are parallels between the mentality of dog rescuers who bring in stray dogs from third world countries and the Canadian immigration industry which recruits largely third world immigrants. As Patty Strand of the National Animal Interest Alliance put it, “Pretending that rescuing dogs from developing countries with ongoing rabies epidemics is helping solve problems, is not only short-sighted, it’s dangerous. At best it represents a shallow form of sentimentality, not true kindness. At worst, importing street dogs is a cynical form of old fashioned greed on the part of the organizations and businesses that are trading in them.” Similarly our immigration policy is a cynical form of greed on the part of organizations and businesses who profit from ‘rescuing’ people from failed states, people who will work for the minimum wage and out-compete and displace the native work force, depressing wage levels and accelerating the vicious “race to the bottom” that afflicts our society . Mass immigration is largely driven by a mercenary motive cloaked in the language of compassion, tolerance, diversity and “shallow sentimentality”. Importing “New Canadians” from failed states like Iraq is as mad as importing the marauding packs of dogs who roam Baghdad.
“Share Thanksgiving” blatantly justifies its project by putting it in the context of the “Big Picture”. The big picture being that Canada is, as their mantra goes, a nation of immigrants, that immigrants ‘built this country’, and that immigrants will continue to do so. So it is necessary to make these immigrants feel at home, and a good way of doing that is to invite them to our homes for Thanksgiving dinner. If we do that, the practice will surely catch on. It should because Canada, you see, is a “Welcoming” country. But that is not enough for “Share Thanksgiving”. Their slogan is “Let’s make Canada the most welcoming nation in the world”. “So open your doors, put out the welcome mat, and get ready to show off (or sell off?) Canada!”
Indeed, the immigration lobby barks with enthusiastic approval : “Let’s bring as many diners to the national table as we can.” Even while many of our own people are going without food. “Bring’em on in!” But, one might ask, “How many ‘diners’ does the political class intend to invite into this country?” Not just as guests, but as permanent residents. It should be pointed out that Canada already has the highest per capita intake of immigrants in the world and immigrants and their children have, since 1991, accounted for roughly seven million extra citizens.
This prompts more questions. Since we are paving our farmland to build the subdivisions needed to accommodate them, will we have enough food for everybody? 78 million “diners” are being added to the world’s population every year. The queue never shortens. Do they think that we should receive and feed all of them? Do they think we can farm the Canadian Shield and the Arctic tundra? Do they think that Canada has an unlimited carrying capacity? The Science Council of Canada once said that, owing to resource shortages, our population level should not exceed what it currently is. Modern agriculture depends on fossil fuel. What happens when oil prices skyrocket, as many predict?
Let’s be clear. I am not knocking youthful idealism or generosity. Idealism and generosity are good things. But we live in a world of scarcity. And Canada is no exception—despite its billing as an affluent society. There are not an infinite amount resources to “go around”. Choices have to be made and priorities set.
So the ultimate and fundamental questions to be addressed are these: To whom are we to direct our generosity? To established Canadians, or to the unending millions whom the immigration lobby would have us “embrace”? Should not charity begin at home?
Should we neglect disadvantaged Canadians in the same way as our cosmopolitan dog-rescuers neglect disadvantaged Canadian dogs–as an after-thought, as beings who warrant less consideration?
See the following video on why the U.S. (or any other country) should not use immigration to try to solve world poverty :