21 December 2017

Weapons of Mass Migration: Are You a Target?

Donald Trump's proposed immigration policies--though moderate by the standards of any other era in U.S. history--are spurring an unprecedented wave of outrage.

The immense waves of migrants (legal and illegal) pouring into the U.S. and Europe are, say his opponents, a blessing, a gift, even the only way to survive.

Is it true? 

Today there are a quarter of a billion people living outside their home countries--the most ever recorded in human history. But these mass movements aren't happening by chance-- far larger forces are at play.

We live in an era where demographic weapons are in fact being lobbed around the globe, disturbing the fragile ecosystems of human societies, in some cases threatening to topple them. 

Who is in the line of fire? Can one make oneself less of a target? 


I) Poverty Bombs

If the U.S. could send the poorest 10% of its population to live in Canada, what would change? Less spending on welfare and crime? What if we could unload those poorest 10% and browbeat Canada for not taking in more? In that case, we would…  do just what Mexico is doing to us now.

1) Who's Launching Them, and Why?

Countries all over the world dream of turning their poorest into someone else's problem—so where is it happening? And who is the target of these 'poverty bombs'?

   a) The Remittance Superhighway

In the past, rich countries colonized poor by the sword. Today, the poor colonize rich countries via economic migration. 

This is a real windfall for their home countries, due to the cash they wire home every month--a.k.a 'remittances':
One in five migrant workers – about 50 million people – lives and works in Europe, making the region home to a quarter of global remittance flows. ... Of the total remittances sent by migrants living in Europe, two-thirds ($72.9 billion) were received by developing countries outside Europe.
 As in Europe, so in the U.S.:

At 3% of Mexico’s gross domestic product, remittances are now Mexico’s second-largest source of national income, behind oil. "We must assure the free flow of remittances," Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said in January, adding that they're "an invaluable contribution to national development and indispensable for millions of Mexican families."
Globally, remittances have grown from $296 billion in 2007 to $445 billion in 2016, according to a new report released by the U.N. The report estimates that between 2015 and 2030, more than $6.5 trillion will be sent to low- and middle-income countries.

3% of Mexico's GDP may sound like a lot, but in some countries that can climb as high as 25% , such as Haiti, Liberia, and Nepal.

And as in Europe and the U.S., so in the ex-Soviet Union:
In recent years, Russia has become one of the leading importers of labor. Temporary migrants mostly hold low-paying jobs with poor working conditions, which are unattractive to the native population. … There were perhaps more than 4 million foreign workers in 2014, up from 3 million the year before.
Most workers issued patents and work permits in 2011-15 were citizens of Uzbekistan (45%), Tajikistan (nearly 20%), or Ukraine (9%). Citizens of former Soviet countries made up at least 90% of the total flow of authorized migrants.
How do Russians feel about being in the line of fire?
A 2013 poll by the independent Levada Center revealed that 84% of Russians surveyed backed a strict visa policy for workers from Central Asia and Transcaucasia, and 65% viewed the number of migrants in their region as excessive.

   b) Staving off a Revolution

Besides remittances, one other reason countries so like to lob these poverty bombs is that the disgruntled won't be demanding change at home. On the subject of Mexico today, Antimedia's Nick Bernabe:
The general feeling of helplessness in the face of narco-state corruption and economic insecurity is not going away with the next election or protest, and wealth inequality in the country is beyond remedy. Mexico is ripe for revolution

Or journalist John Ross, back in 2009:
70% of the nation's 45 million-strong workforce does not have a steady job. … Mexico's political metabolism seems to break out in insurgencies every 100 years on the 10th year of the century. In 1810, the country priest Miguel Hidalgo launched the struggle for independence from the Crown. In 1910, Francisco Madero ignited the fuse of the epoch Mexican revolution. At this writing, there are less than 330 days until 2010.

Or this comment, typical of many, on an L.A. Times story about extreme corruption in Mexico:
'Mexico is a very fine country - excellent natural resources, beautiful historic resources, talented people, skilled artisans. Why does it keep going so bad. What makes the people not rise up and take their own country back?'

What indeed? Many argue that what's currently making them not rise up is the easy escape valve towards the north.

2) Who accepts them, and why?

But surely no country would actually be pleased to welcome in a foreign underclass?

   a) Leftists—Electoral Weapon

In a country like the U.S., leftists are happy to use this weapon of mass migration—for a bigger electoral base with which to pummel their opponents .

Back in the dark ages of the 1990s, Democrats regularly campaigned on border control. But the potential electoral bonanza of a Hispanic wave became irresistable--and their tune changed.

Bill Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address:

'After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent.  ... And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.'

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid railed against birthright citizenship in the 1990s, and California senator Dianne Feinstein in 1993 stated that we couldn't be 'the welfare system for Mexico.'

That's all in the past now, as these very same leaders today cheer on the waves of illegals flooding into the U.S. 2016 Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine:
During an Arizona speech delivered in Spanish, Sen. Tim Kaine cheered the demographic transformation of the United States caused by the nation’s federal immigration policies, telling his Latino audience on Thursday, “You are the future of America. By 2050, communities of color will represent the majority of our population. So, of course, Latinos will help shape the future of America because you are the future of America.” 
Easy to explain, then, the Left's affection for this particular immigration bludgeon. But what about on the right?

   b) Conservatives—Economic Weapon

On the other side of the aisle,  Chamber of Commerce Republicans are thrilled to have a compliant, cheap serf labor class to keep their bottom line low. The weapon in this case? Aimed directly at America's blue-collar workers:

Rebecca Smith recently co-authored a study ... which chronicled many recent cases where the threat of deportation had been used against workers who tried to unionise or complained about safety standards or had their wages stolen. But Smith believes that because most victims are either deported or afraid of being deported the vast majority of incidents taking place in America simply never come to light. "It is the tip of an iceberg," she said.

 One classic example from North Carolina:
When the Tar Heel slaughterhouse opened in 1992, its labor force was made up mostly of African-Americans and local Lumbee Native Americans.  … Even by standards in North Carolina, where union membership and wages are low, Smithfield’s pay scale and reputation for injuries made it hard for the company to attract local workers. 
In the mid-’90s, Mexicans pushed by the effects of NAFTA to leave the Veracruz countryside began arriving in North Carolina and going to work at the Tar Heel slaughterhouse. 
As new migrants, the Veracruzanos were desperate and hungry. Most were undocumented. According to Keith Ludlum, one of the plant’s few white workers, “After Smithfield ran through the workforce around here, you started seeing a lot more immigrants working in the plant. The company thought the undocumented would work cheap, work hard, and they wouldn’t complain.

Not hard to see, then, why so many American business owners welcome these 'poverty bombs' with open arms.

The other side of the poverty bomb question, of course, is government services. For every poor Mexican who moves to America, that's one person the Mexican government no longer has to provide any welfare spending for.  The U.S. government kindly picks up the tab, to the tune of billions per year.

And as in the U.S., so in Europe: Each year France spends nearly a billion euros on health care for illegals, including AIDS drugs for African migrants--who represent a whopping 39% of new cases.

   c) Social Security Time Bomb

Aside from the electoral and employment truncheons, one very popular pro-immigrant argument is that our current pension Ponzi scheme will be saved only by them. So says the IMFand top financial analysts are even more optimistic:
HSBC analyst Fabio Balboni and his team summed up in five sentences exactly why the immigration crisis is actually going to be a huge net positive for Europe.
From an economic perspective, Europe needs more workers. It is well known that most parts of Europe have rapidly ageing populations. This results in slower growth and thus tax receipts, whilst simultaneously increasing government spending through pensions and healthcare. The eurozone, in particular, is about to embark on this demographic challenge with a mountain of debt. The easiest way to support more pensioners is to have more taxpayers.

As we can see, then, the 'poverty bomb' is looked at as a danger by some--but as a blessing by others.

Dumping our poorest onto our neighbors is one thing. But what about getting rid of those groups who just plain serve as a thorn in our side?

II) Troublesome Minority Missiles

Throughout history, governments have done their best to rid themselves of minority groups they saw as troublesome.

Today is no exception. All over the planet, states are lobbing 'troublesome minority missiles' onto their neighbors, trying to make them someone else's problem--or, more specifically, to create a problem for someone else.  Are you in the firing line?

1) The Troublesome Minority as Bargaining Chip

In Kelly Greenhill's 2010 Weapons of Mass Migration, she details some of the many times leaders have extorted their neighbors by threatening to pull their finger from the immigrant dike. Tour d'horizon:

  a) Threatening to Turn on the Tap: Earlier examples


In 1965, 1980, and 1994, Fidel Castro used the threat of an immigrant flood to strong-arm the U.S. His was the textbook example of how to use human beings for extortion:

Castro successfully used a mass migration to pressure the United States to the negotiating table on immigration and a wider array of issues.  … The course of events more or less followed the same pattern.
  • First, Cuba experienced a significant economic downturn. 
  • Second, Castro sought a rapprochement and/or negotiations with Washington. 
  • Third, within a short period of time, Castro threatened to unleash a crisis by opening his borders, a move to which the United States (in all three cases) responded with contempt.   
  • Fourth, within days or weeks Castro opened the Cuban border.  (1)

When Bill Clinton was elected, he promised to chase off the military junta that had ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide and put him back in power. 18 months later, nothing had been done... so Aristide got on TV and told Haitians to hop on their boats.

Like their exiled leader, Haitians understood well the political significance of their flight, both for Aristide and for the U.S. president. “If Clinton wants to stop the refugee situation, he has to bring Aristide back. . . . The refugee issue is a trump card that Aristide is holding and right now he’s going to play it to his advantage. (1)


During the 1990s Yugoslav wars, Slobodan Milosevic threatened to unleash millions of Albanian Kosovars onto Europe if NATO bombed him.

Milosevic himself issued some warnings and threats, particularly to Germany, Italy, Greece, and neighboring Macedonia. For instance, he told German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in early March 1999 “that he could empty Kosovo within a week.
Milosevic's gambit backfired, NATO bombed them, and Serbia was crushed.

As one close observer of the conflict has suggested, “Western public opinion would have turned against the bombardment, had it not been for the wrenching scenes of refugees pouring over the borders." (1)

   b) Threatening to Turn on the Tap: Current examples


Black Africans fleeing poverty have long tried to reach Europe via the Mediterranean. Some leaders, such as Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, have used this as a bargaining chip:

Gaddafi used the emigrants as political pressure. The dictator repeatedly thundered that he was the only one who could save Europe from becoming black. In 2009, he reached an understanding with the Italian government of Silvio Berlusconi  ... Rome promised to invest $200 million in Libyan infrastructure. In return, boat refugees discovered on the Mediterranean were returned to Libya.
With the Arab Spring, half of Africa wanted to jump on the bandwagon--and the trickle became a flood. In March 2011, Gaddafi warned:

'I want to make myself understood: if one threatens, if one seeks to destabilize [Libya], there will be chaos, Bin Laden, armed factions.  That is what will happen. You will have immigration, thousands of people will invade Europe from Libya. And there will no longer be anyone to stop them.'  
Six months later, in the wake of the Franco-American led invasion force, he was killed--and his prophecy came true.

Today, as Libya is a failed state, its various warlords and mayors are using the same bargaining chip Gaddafi did:
If you cannot defeat an enemy, then make him your friend. With this folksy wisdom in mind, Italy has apparently succeeded in massively reducing the immigrant stream from the Libyan coast. In the middle of July [2017], the number of arrivals on Italy’s coast took a nosedive.  ... Italy out-leveraged the traffickers with their own corrupt methods. Rome simply paid the local militias more than the traffickers.


On the frontline of Syrian refugees (and 'Syrian' 'refugees') heading into Europe, Turkish leader Reccep Erdogan has brandished this weapon to the hilt:

Last year, the EU made a controversial deal with Turkey, in which the bloc agreed to give the country €6 billion ($6.8 billion) in aid, consider visa-free travel to Europe for Turkish citizens, and renew stalled EU membership talks. In return, Turkey agreed to take back migrants who crossed over to Greece if they never applied for asylum or had their claim rejected. 
The deal—heavily criticized by human rights groups—reduced the number of migrants arriving in Greece by a staggering 90% within a few months of it coming into force.
Last August, Turkey threatened to tear up the deal if its citizens were not granted visa-free travel within months. “You clamored when 50,000 refugees came to Kapikule, and started wondering what would happen if the border gates were opened,” Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said. “If you go any further, these border gates will be opened,” he added.
In 2017, the threats escalated:
Turkey's Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu threatened to "blow the mind" of Europe by sending 15,000 refugees a month to EU territory, in an intensifying dispute with the bloc. The threat is also a confirmation that for Turkey, refugees are merely a form of "weaponized" leverage in the escalating war of words between the country and Europe. 
Interior Minister Soylu said in a speech late Thursday, "Europe, do you have that kind of courage...? Let us remind you that you cannot play games in this region and ignore Turkey."

Intentionally trying to create a troublesome community for your neighbor, we have thus seen, is a powerful gambit. 

But some are unwittingly lauching demographic bombs at their unsuspecting neighbors-- mainly as fallout from the collapse of multiculturalism.

2) The Troublesome Minority as Collateral Damage

Throughout history, this has most often come in the form of what we now call 'ethnic cleansing.' There is an almost unlimited number of examples, as peoples conquer, empires grow, and minority populations suddenly become unwanted. 

These include the Russian Empire's Muslims, the Ottoman Empire's Christians, the native Indians in North America, Jewish expulsion around the world, the Germans after WWII, Yugoslavia's breakdown, and India's 1947 partition.

   a) Ethnic / Religious Cleansing

What are some examples of 'collateral damage' via ethnic cleansing today? Are any of these people likely to end up at your door?

Christians in the Middle East

One accelerating trend has been ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East:
From 1910 to 2010, the percentage of the Middle Eastern population that was Christian continued to decline; once 14% of the population, Christians now make up roughly 4%. (In Iran and Turkey, they’re all but gone.) In Lebanon, their numbers have shrunk over the past century, from 78% to 34% of the population.
With the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq in large numbers, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003. The Arab Spring only made things worse. As dictators like Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya were toppled, their longstanding protection of minorities also ended. Now, ISIS is looking to eradicate Christians and other minorities altogether. [See Razib Khan 
on the illiberalism of democracy in Muslim lands.]
As Christianity has become a death sentence in so many places, many of the 'refugees' pouring into Europe have in fact taken to faking Christianity in order to get asylum.

Muslims in Asia

In Burma, a long-standing conflict with their Bengali Muslim minority, the Rohingya:

The Rohingya are often described as "the world's most persecuted minority".  They are an ethnic group, majority of whom are Muslim, who have lived for centuries in the majority Buddhist Myanmar [Burma]. They are not considered one of the country's 135 official ethnic groups and have been denied citizenship in Myanmar since 1982, which has effectively rendered them stateless. 
Since the 1970s, a number of crackdowns on the Rohingya in Rakhine State have forced hundreds of thousands to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh, as well as Malaysia, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries. During such crackdowns, refugees have often reported rape, torture, arson and murder by Myanmar security forces.

In a curious state of affairs, our thought leaders in the West are claiming the absolute moral necessity of taking in the latter group, while almost wholly ignoring the former.

Other recent examples of ethnic cleansing, as seen just above, are the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Baloch in Pakistan's Balochistan province, Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan, Bengalis in Assam, India, Muslim Fulani in the Central African Republic, and various ethnies in South Sudan. All of which can unfortunately become 'weaponized' minorities when sent across borders into communities unwilling or unable to take them in.

   b) Criminals and the Mentally Ill

Our second category of 'collateral damage' is a bit harder to quantify, due to its cloudy origins.

In Antiquity, exile was a frequent (and dreaded) punishment for lawbreakers. The country of Australia was at root a prison colony (from whom 20% of its population descends). In the 1700s, one fourth of all British emigrants to America were thought to be convicts.

But today, exile of criminals has become a thing of the past… hasn't it?

In Cuba's famous 1980 Mariel Boatlift, mentioned above, Castro is said to have added an extra special gift for Jimmy Carter--
Within a month, more than 75,000 Cubans—including a nontrivial number of criminals, the mentally ill, and the chronically infirm—had been transported to the United States,  … “I’ll fill his arms with shit!” Castro reportedly said of Carter at the time. (1)
Today, with Merkel's Million Migrant March into Europe, some in Italy have noticed a curious pattern:

They arrive unnoticed from the sea and land without anyone intercepting them. That is why they’re called ‘ghost landings’. It’s estimated that almost 4,000 migrants (mostly Maghrebis) have landed on the shores of southern Sicily in the last few months with almost daily frequency.
It’s a peculiar migration. These are Maghrebis. 90% of them are Tunisians. They would have no hope or chance of staying in Italy. What’s even being said is that many of them came right out of Tunisian prisons after a recent pardon [a Ramadan tradition] they had…

Others have similar suspicions. German writer Andrew Hammel translates a video shared by  'Udo,' a disgusted volunteer who tried to help refugees but gave up. His story:
'In the video, starting at abour 12:00, Udo describes the experiences with [refugee] Halil that left him fully disillusioned and led him to stop volunteer work. Here's my summary of the main points in English.  ...
Back in Syria, Halil was was the 'ass' of the family, his father bossed him around and forced him to run errands. They sent him to get the free money in Germany because he didn't seem to have much of a promising life ahead of him. When asked directly by Udo, Halil said his family had no problems in Syria, and that they were not going to try to follow him because "they're doing OK" there. 
… I get the strong impression that this is extremely common among migrants. The stories of migrants who appear to have mental problems (low cognitive ability and non-existent impulse control) are legion. '

'Which leads me to believe that when families are deciding which young male to send off at to get a job -- or free money -- in Germany, they are likely to send the young men who are "touched in the head".  …  If Halil leaves, your family gets rid of a troublemaker who costs money and constantly threatens the family honor, and in return you get a chance to relocate to Germany.'

Are families in the Middle East and Africa ingeniously getting rid of their 'problem children' by dumping them on Europe? Just rumors at this point, but considering the outrageous crime spike recorded wherever these 'refugees' have turned up, there is perhaps something to it.

3) Who Accepts Them, and Why?

Troublesome minority missiles, indeed—but why aren't the victim countries fighting back? These invasions can be very disturbing to the existing ecosystem. As it turns out, there are those who welcome such missiles with open arms.

   a) Refugees are Big Business

The business of refugees, it turns out, is just that—big business. For whom?

NGO Money Flows

Via Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax dollars to resettle refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious groups,…
The federal government gives out not only grants but loans, and the nonprofit charities are able to pocket 25 % of whatever they collect on those loans, explained Don Barnett, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. “It’s very profitable for the nonprofits, really quite profitable, and it has introduced perverse incentives into the whole process, into decision making and policy,” he said. “It totally disincentivizes rational thinking.”

Private Industry

Just as war has its profiteers, so does mass refugee movement:

In Europe, today, many nations are struggling to cope with the influx of refugees.  …  Private housing firms in Sweden are massively overcharging for properties. Companies have been accused of profiteering in a country that takes large numbers of refugees, including unaccompanied children. Some private sector contractors are “cowboys who are only there because they want to make heaps of money”, Marie Sallnäs, professor of social work at Stockholm University, told the Guardian.
In Germany, housing company European Homecare is working for the government to provide refugee shelters.With 1000 staff caring for 15,000 refugees across the state, the company has become a major player in the immigration industrial complex. Cash starved mayors and officials often find a privately run-company more attractive because costs are initially lower.

Mafia jackpot

Just as a cat always lands on its feet, in Italy the mafia always wins:

The government provided millions of euros to care for the migrants who had arrived at the reception center at Italy’s toe after traveling across deserts, war zones or choppy seas. But on many days, they were served little more than rancid chicken. Some did not eat at all when the food ran out. 
The center’s managers, including the Rev. Edoardo Scordio, were among 68 people arrested this spring on charges of fraud, misuse of public money and mafia association. A yearslong investigation exposed a vast embezzlement scheme that, the authorities say, siphoned off nearly 36 million euros, or about $41 million, in government money — more than a third of the €102 million provided over a decade. … The swelling of the migrant population, investigators say, has made the running of reception centers a cottage industry of potential government corruption and mafia penetration.

Human traffickers

Another profiteer in this refugee war is the growing group of highly-paid human smugglers

The business of human smuggling is now in the “Champions League” of criminal enterprises in Europe, Europol's Rob Wainwright said, close to rivalling the trade in illicit drugs. New research by the EU’s law enforcement body based on debriefings with 1,500 asylum-seekers, refugees and economic migrants showed that 90 per cent had paid a criminal gang to reach Europe.  
“We also know that, on average, each migrant is paying between $3,000 and $6,000 to a criminal facilitator for their journey. So you do the simple math, and you’re up to a turnover in 2015 of between $3bn- $6bn. They are big figures. It’s running into billions of dollars made by criminal networks in one year alone in Europe." 

Incredibly, Europeans seem to have momentarily forgotten that there is, in fact, a system of orderly refugee intake under international law, and that this is not at all what it looks like. 

The cheaper option

Most surprisingly of all, Western countries shell out billions to private companies to clothe and feed these masses, when all of it can be done for a fraction of the cost--at refugee camps in their own regions:

Resettling refugees from the Middle East in the U.S. is not only a security risk but also too expensive, Center for Immigration Studies’ Executive Director Mark Krikorian argued Thursday before a House panel. 
“We found that it costs 12 times as much to resettle a refugee from Syria, from the Middle East, in the U.S. as it does to provide for them in their own region,” Krikorian testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

   b) Echoes of World War II

Besides the fact that refugees are big business, another reason some are so willing to open their arms to these huddled masses is the lingering psychosis over the events of WWII. From the Jewish Chronicle:
Even before the recent outburst of public compassion, the memory of Jewish experience was spurring other Jews to raise their voice on behalf of Syrian refugees.  ...  Outside Downing Street that day, Rabbi Jeremy Gordon of the New London Synagogue remarked: "If it wasn't for the welcome this country afforded my family, we would have been caught in the horrors of the Holocaust."
British author Douglas Murray:

'Some initiatives – such as that to save Christian children in the Middle East who are being ”cleansed” from the region – are hugely admirable and widely appreciated. But it is specific and needed. Other initiatives and statements from Jewish leaders and groups appear to be welcoming any and all refugees and equating the plight of 1930s Jews with all 21st-century migrants. 
This is not just a misreading of history but an incorrect application of history. It also sets up a dangerous linkage between Jews who are already in Europe and an increasingly unpopular, current European migration policy.'

Troublesome minorities, we have thus seen, can be bargaining chips in the hands of unscrupulous leaders--or simply collateral damage in the push and pull of multi-ethnic states.

Having seen the immigration weapons we call 'poverty bombs' and 'minority missiles,' let us now consider a third line of attack: the Trojan horse of demographic replacement.

III) Replacing your People: The Trojan Horse

Full scale demographic replacement is, of course, a whole other kettle of fish. Who would dare attempt such a thing?

1) Who's Trying it, and Why?

'The womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon,' Yasser Arafat famously said of the Palestinians vs. Israelis. Just who, in fact, is trying to replace whom?

   a) Islamicizing the West

While many in Europe steadfastly deny such a thing could be true, the evidence mounts that certain forces would very much like to replace them in their own lands.  Turkey's Erdogan, again:
“From here I say to my citizens, I say to my brothers and sisters in Europe… Educate your children at better schools, make sure your family live in better areas ... Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.
In other remarks to Turko-Germans:

Speaking to a crowd of more than 10,000 immigrants waving Turkish flags and shouting "Turkey is Great!" in the German industrial city of Düsseldorf, Erdogan said: "We are against assimilation. No one should be able to rip us away from our culture and civilization." During a similar visit to Cologne in February 2008, Erdogan told a crowd of more than 20,000 Turkish immigrants that "assimilation is a crime against humanity" and he urged them to resist assimilation into the West. 
Realtalking Muslims in the U.K.:

He’s Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian Palestinian academic who is currently living in the U.K., where he sought political asylum. Describing himself as an “orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless says there’s a “genuine problem with Muslims in Europe” and calls the current wave of migrants entering the continent “the soft Islamic conquest of the West.”
"In most cases they don’t seem to fully integrate in the country. Not to mention the cases where there are people who want to turn Europe into a Muslim state in 30 or 40 or 50 years through producing children and depending on welfare through the children. … 
"I have to be honest,” he said, “you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquer Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

A variety of comments from our newly arrived cultural enrichers run in the same vein. In Australia:
The Muslim President of the Halal Certification Authority in Australia reacted to news of allegedly falling sperm counts in white males with glee, saying the "white race will be extinct in 40 years" and Australian women need Muslims "to fertilise them."

Even in little out-of-the-way Latvia:
Speaking in an interview with Latvia’s Morning Independent newspaper, the chairman and head spokesman of the Islamic Cultural Centre, said that “we are working to have more children” in an effort to colonise the country faster. 
On the future of the predominantly Christian nation of just two million people,  Mr. Klimovičs said: “Latvians understand that in 50 years this will be an Islamic State. This is because Islamic children will be in the majority”. 


One other, more extreme method of bringing about the caliphate is by violent jihad, which many have been warning Europe about as they usher in millions of unvetted Middle Easterners:
Islamic State is believed to be actively smuggling deadly gunmen across the sparsely-guarded 565-mile Turkish border and on to richer European nations, [an operative] revealed. They are following the well-trodden route taken by refugees ... 
There are now [2015] more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen "ready" across the European Union, he claimed. … the beginning of a larger plot to carry out revenge attacks in the West in retaliation for the US-led coalition airstrikes.
The Syrian operative, a former member of his nation's security forces, said ISIS had ambitious plans ahead. He said: "It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world," he said "and we will have it soon, God willing."
German political leaders and national security officials knew that Islamic State jihadists were entering Europe disguised as migrants but repeatedly downplayed the threat, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments, according to an exposé by German public television.
More than 400 migrants who entered Germany as asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016 are now being investigated for links to Islamic terrorism, according to the Federal Criminal Police (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA).

As in Europe, so in the U.S.:

In the U.S., a total of 62 people – overwhelmingly men – have launched attacks or been accused of taking part in the Islamic terror group’s activities in just over a year. The figures also show that 34 of those ISIS attackers and alleged plotters were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. They included six people who came to the U.S. as refugees from countries including Palestine and Somalia. 

   b) Reconquista in the American Southwest

Another group which would very much like to effect demographic replacement on parts of Anglo-America are the Hispanic Reconquistadors:

La reconquista, a radical movement calling for Mexico to “reconquer” America’s Southwest, has stepped out of the shadows at recent immigration-reform protests nationwide as marchers held signs saying, “Uncle Sam Stole Our Land!” and waved Mexico’s flag. 
Even as organizers urged marchers to display U.S. flags, the theme of reclaiming “stolen” land remained strong. “We need to change direction,” said Jose Lugo, an instructor in Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder at a campus march last week. “And by allowing these 50 million [immigrants] to come in here, we can do that.”
“We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population,” said Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington.

2) Who Accepts it, and Why?

We may understand the reasons for accepting poverty bombs—'they do  the jobs we won't do!'—or refugees (humanitarian concerns). But who on earth could possibly accept the idea of being demographically replaced in their own country?

   a) Pathological Outgroup Altruism--Who?

In the ethno-suicide sweepstakes, it appears that ethnic NW Europeans have taken the lead.

America's replacement cheerleaders

And these are no longer fringe ideas. From that august institution the Atlantic Monthly:

As a purely demographic matter, then, the “white America” that Lothrop Stoddard believed in so fervently may cease to exist in 2040, 2050, or 2060, or later still. But where the culture is concerned, it’s already all but finished. Instead of the long-standing model of assimilation toward a common center, the culture is being remade in the image of white America’s multiethnic, multicolored heirs. 
For some, the disappearance of this centrifugal core heralds a future rich with promise.
The author, 'Hua Hsu,' presumably counts himself among this enriching, promised future.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton, in a now-famous address to students at Portland State University, remarked:
'Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... 
[These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.'

Not just lefties but righties also have joined to the call to replace ourselves. 'Conservative' NY Times stalwart David Brooks (via Steve Sailer):

In his column Friday taking to task President Trump and other immigration exclusionists, David Brooks writes: “For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many Republicans prefer a dying white America to a place like, say, Houston.”
The utopia to which Brooks is referring is, for the uninitiated, the 4th-largest city in America--with a population that is 26% White. (David Brook's D.C. hood? 85% White.)

Or we have 'conservative' Bill Kristol, reacting to Charles Murray's study on the suffering white underclass:
Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol said Tuesday afternoon that the white working class should be replaced by immigrants as they have become “decadent, lazy” and “spoiled.” 
“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” Kristol told author Charles Murray during an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute titled “It Came Apart: What’s Next for a Fractured Culture.”

But it is not just in America that our leading lights are cheering on these incoming demographic missiles.

Europe's replacement cheerleaders

European leaders also agree that massive demographic change is not only inevitable, but desirable. What Thilo Sarrazin described as Germany 'abolishing itself' is seen by his countrymen as a glorious future:
In an interview with weekly paper Die Zeit, German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble rejected the idea Europe could close its borders to immigrants, and said: “Isolation is what would ruin us – it would lead us into inbreeding.”

In a sign Britain is truly on its last leg, a government minister has been investigated by cops after making anodyne remarks in favor of British workers:
Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s speech to the Conservative Party conference on foreign workers was treated as a “hate incident” by police. In her speech in October 2016 the Tory minister proposed tougher rules on foreign workers to stop immigrants coming to the UK “taking jobs British people could do".
Police have now written to Mr Silver stating the incident “has been recorded in line with the National Police Chiefs’ Council manual as a non-crime hate incident”.
Why this self-flagellation before the foreigner? There seems to be an element of novelty-seeking in it, a classic trait of the hard-wired leftist. For example, Swedish Social Democrat MP Mona Sahlin, in a speech to the Turkish youth organization Euroturk, March, 2002:
'I think that's what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer's Eve and such silly things.'

Or Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, on a state visit to Lagos, Nigeria:

'Look at all the beautiful colours the women here are wearing. Within ten years this is what it is going to look like all over Europe. Back home it’s so bleak and dreary, the colours are devoid of life. ...'

French Socialist MP (and white Catholic) Jean-Luc Melenchon, describing a political rally full of immigrants:
Everywhere you saw nothing but this superb brown color that only the loveliest human beings have... [...]  Personally, I don't want to be Western. I don't want to be a white Catholic; I'd rather be a black atheist.'

Or this classic from German Green party leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt, when asked about foreign-funded mosques in Germany:

'Of course Muslims belong to Germany. And I think that we should be glad about that. It would be pretty boring if we were just to be among ourselves.'

  b) Pathological Outgroup Altruism--Why?

This curious desire to hasten one's own group's demise seems, as we've noted, to be a Western affliction. Why? 
Roots of the problem

There are many theories.  One is 'suicide by idea':

Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America presents the case that Anglo-America committed what one might call “suicide by idea”: White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants were motivated to give up ethnic hegemony by their attachment to Enlightenment ideals of individualism and liberty. 
Anglo-Americans simply followed these ideals of the Enlightenment to their logical conclusion, with the result that immigration was opened up to all peoples of the world, multiculturalism became the cultural ideal, and Whites willingly allowed themselves to be displaced.
Or Ian Jobling's 'competitive altruism':
One of the primary forms of competitive altruism in contemporary white society is racial altruism. Expressing benevolence for non-whites has become a key to success in white societies. It is virtually impossible to achieve high status without overt expressions of concern and benevolence for non-whites, and such expressions are particularly common because they can be made at no personal cost. 

But at their roots, where do these impulses come from? We here at TWCS have taken a dive into the question before, in Why Do Progressives Get [Multicult] Religion?. We encourage interested readers to consult this piece for a detailed dip into the deep origin theories of NW Euros' pathological out-group altruism.

 An alien elite's desire to multiculturalize

Some argue that one reason Westerners have become so open to demographic replacement is due to the pressures from other alien groups themselves. French researcher Hervé Ryssen:

Jews have always encouraged immigration into all the countries in which they have ever settled, not just because a multicultural society corresponds to their politico-religious plans, but also because the resulting dissolution of national identity protects them from any “nationalistic” upheavals. 

Scholar Kevin MacDonald agrees:
There is also evidence that Jews, much more than any other European derived ethnic group in the United States, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that the United States would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society. Pluralism serves both internal (within-group) and external (between-group) Jewish interests. 
Pluralism serves internal Jewish interests because it legitimates the internal Jewish interest in rationalizing and openly advocating an interest in overt rather than semi-cryptic Jewish group commitment and non-assimilation, what Howard Sachar terms its function in “legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.”

As MacDonald's research shows, prominent Western Jews have widely contributed to such 'open-doors' movements over the years, including in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden.

One of the most powerful Jews in the world, Hungarian billionaire George Soros, has been in a war of words with Hungarian president Viktor Orban over using his money to push for open borders (via Sailer):
“His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle,” Orban said in an interview on public radio Kossuth. 
Soros vs. Orban
Soros said that a six-point plan published by his foundation helps “uphold European values” while Orban’s actions “undermine those values.”“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle.  Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national border as the obstacle.”

As we have seen, then, for a variety of reasons, the weapon of demographic replacement is being wielded by some… and being welcomed heartily (some may say pathologically) by others.

IV) The Rich's Weapon Against the Poor: Brain Drain

Our final 'weapon of mass migration' is in fact one that rich countries wield against the poor. It is one of the biggest sources of the third world's continuing spiral into poverty and misery. 

Well-meaning Westerners refer to this deadly weapon as 'merit-based immigration.' Who are the casualties?

1) Who's Losing Their Smartest?

From a study on brain drain in the world:
Besides directly lowering the labor supply of high-skilled workers, the emigration of high-skilled workers drains the country of its most innovative and productive workers, which makes the entire economy less productive and decreases everyone’s wages.
The effect on small countries can be gigantic:
Smaller countries tend to have higher rates of skilled emigration. Close to 93% of highly skilled persons born in Guyana lived outside that country, followed by Haiti (75%), Trinidad and Tobago (68%) and Barbados (66%).

This phenomenon has been particularly devastating in Sub-Saharan Africa:
A 2013 United Nations report shows one in nine Africans with a tertiary education – 2.9 million people - were living in developed countries in Europe, North America and elsewhere. This is a 50% growth in the past 10 years, more than any other region in the world.
This movement and crisis is most clearly shown by examining Africa’s medical field. In East Africa, Uganda has less than 5,000 doctors and 30,000 nurses for a population topping 35 million people, according to WHO data. 
Professor Magoha, former Vice Chancellor for University of Nairobi, recently told AMCOA’s conference between 30-40 per cent of the estimated 600 doctors who graduate in Kenya annually leave the country after completing their internship.
Medical brain drain is perhaps the kind that hurts the most:

Do destination areas (the largest of which are the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) have an ethical obligation to alter systemic practices and conditions that contribute to medical brain drain? 
An ethical argument has been made here that not to oppose brain drain actively is the moral equivalent of supporting it and, hence, supporting a violation of a human right—namely, access to an adequate level of health care for all people as stated in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In 2010 the WHO adopted a global framework, known as the Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, to address the ethical dilemma of workforce movement from the global South to the North, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Studies have shown, however, that this policy implementation has had no effect on slowing down migration to the United States—in contrast, the rate of migration from sub-Saharan Africa has actually increased.

2) Who's Poaching Them, and Why?

So who is siphoning off the third world's best and brightest from the countries who so desperately need them?

   a) 'Merit-based' Immigration Policy

The NYT sings the praises of the Great White North's immigration policy:

Canada can sometimes seem downright Scandinavian. Yet when it comes to immigration, Canada’s policies are anything but effete. Instead, they’re ruthlessly rational, which is why Canada now claims the world’s most prosperous and successful immigrant population. 
Canada’s foreign-born population is more educated than that of any other country on earth. Immigrants to Canada work harder, create more businesses and typically use fewer welfare dollars than do their native-born compatriots.
But Canada’s hospitable attitude is not innate; it is, rather, the product of very hardheaded government policies. Ever since the mid-1960s, the majority of immigrants to the country (about 65% in 2015) have been admitted on purely economic grounds, having been evaluated under a nine-point rubric that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at their age, education, job skills, language ability and other attributes that define their potential contribution to the national work force.

But this is by no means only a conservative hobby horse. From candidate Hillary Clinton's policy proposals:
"Hillary would 'staple' a green card to STEM masters and PhDs from accredited institutions -- enabling international students who complete degrees in these fields to move to green card status."

   b) Shortage of Doctors in First World

Because of the eternal doctor shortage, first-world countries have taken to poaching doctors on purpose:

A recent report in The Lancet shows that the US simply does not train enough doctors to meet its voracious appetite for medical attention. Each year many more doctors retire than graduate from its medical schools and so the US is compelled to raid the world to make up the difference. 

For decades about 25% of doctors practising in the US received their training elsewhere.  ... In 2002, there were 47 Liberian-trained doctors working in the US, and just 72 working in Liberia. And even when a doctor is recruited from Canada, Canada then looks to South Africa, and South Africa to wherever it can. The poorest will always lose out. 
In most countries, especially in the developing world, doctors are trained at public expense. If a doctor from Ghana is recruited to the US, not only does Ghana lose its doctor, it loses the money paid for the training.  ... In sum, the US is receiving a massive subsidy from the developing world in training its medical staff.

Aside from Canada, who takes all these doctors in?

More than 34% of MDs practicing in New Zealand were from overseas in 2000. Other developed countries have similar proportions of foreign MDs, including the United-Kingdom with about 31%, the United-States with 26%, Australia and Canada with more than 20%.

   c) Compliant Workers

As we saw with the blue-collar illegal workers mentioned above, bosses love a scared, compliant workforce. But this is also true at the higher end of the wage scale:

The H-1B program is designed to let U.S. companies hire foreigners at prevailing wages when they can't find qualified Americans. And U.S. companies, especially those in Silicon Valley, have been clamoring for years to raise the cap of 85,000 so that they can hire more foreign workers. They've long denied the charges that they've exaggerated the employee shortage, so they can instead reduce wages by importing workers.  … But now we know major H-1B users have in fact rigged the system to do exactly that.
A commenter at The Atlantic explains:

'The abuse of the H1B program is nothing new. The idea of there being a worker shortage is a complete myth. Companies just don't want to pay the market wage. Instead they'd rather import workers from overseas. And even if they aren't cheaper, as this article maintains, they're still more easily exploited. If you're an American and you hate your job, you have the option of quitting and finding another one. Easier said than done, but still better than what the "guest worker" has to face, which is deportation.'

Though little talked about, our brain drain-supporting policy is one of the cruelest weapons we wield against the 3rd world today, and one for which we at TWCS believe our descendents will judge us harshly.   

*     *     *

We have seen, then, the many types of 'weapons of mass migration' with which countries threaten each other.

Poverty bombs are lobbed, meddlesome minority missiles are launched, and the Trojan horse of population replacement is marched in. Rich countries even get in the game by poaching the best and brightest from the third world, leaving these countries in a hopeless spiral of poverty.

But one man's weapon is another man's gift—and we often can't seem to agree if an incoming population group is a curse or a blessing.

Here at TWCS, we have long written about the impacts of mass migration: criminality, low-trust and low future-orientation, economic impactimporting Islamic culture, and of course the recent fake refugee debacle

But it is also important to explore the forces behind these mass movements of people.
Each society is an ecosystem. Like any tropical rain forest or tundra, when introduced to alien fauna, disturbances should come as no surprise. Inserting thousands or millions of low-trust people into a high-trust society, for example, can be devastating to the landscape. It will eventually result in over-run and wholesale ecosystem collapse.

How to make oneself less of a target? Many have shown the possibilities:

  • Build walls: From Israel to Hungary, it's been shown that good old physical barriers  do have a deterrent effect.
  • Turn away boats: Unlike Europe, Australia does not let a single boat person land on its shores. All are detained on third-party islands, and processed / deported from there.
  • Culturally vet refugees: Poland and Czechia have flat-out said 'no' to Muslim refugees; Israel refuses non-Jews. Refugees should go to culturally kindred countries only.
  • Culturally vet citizens: In Switzerland, it's not faceless bureaucrats who decide on your naturalization--it's your next-door neighbors. If you don't fit in, you don't stay. 
  • Birthright citizenship: Only a handful of countries offer the chance to waltz in and give birth to 'anchor babies,' and many of them are beginning to restrict it--as should the U.S.
  • Embrace homogeneity: While not applicable everywhere, Japan's strictly ethno-centric regime is very popular with its people, as in their mind it creates a harmonious and peaceful society. 

Who can fight back against these weapons of mass migration? More than anyone else, it is our elected officials who hold the key. We who value our social ecosystem humbly implore them to act wisely--before it's too late.

Thank you, as always, for reading.

(1) Greenhill, Kelly. Weapons of Mass Migration. Cornell U. Press, 2010.


Anonymous said...

Always a pleasure to read your work, and very important work it is. Just wanted to say your time and effort are greatly appreciated.

Xeric said...

This is the best Christmas gift for my season.
Always the greatest of mind-food for a long winter night with the threat of winter storm bearing down.

Thanks, M.G.

M.G. said...


Thank you for your kind words, they're very motivating. Merry Christmas!


Glad you've found so much of interest here! Thanks for stopping by.

Buckle in for that winter storm and enjoy your Christmas holiday.

witch PHD said...

Thank you again for another concise essay. An unexpected Christmas gift for me! Thanks again and have a splendid Christmas.

Allyn71 said...

“In the past, rich countries colonized poor by the sword. Today, the poor colonize rich countries via economic migration. “

Amazing how things balance out, given that Europeans from 1492-1800’s seized precious minerals, timber, and raw materials for their own economies. It seems the natural progression is for those former colonies to reclaim what had been rightly their property.

“This is a real windfall for their home countries, due to the cash they wire home every month--a.k.a 'remittances'"

The industrialized nations want cheap labor. They are a slave to profits. What better way than to import it to ensure that their economy prospers? Why on earth would a company raise wages and better working conditions for their own people…unless citizens demand it through legislation. But that would be socialism!

“In a country like the U.S., leftists are happy to use this weapon of mass migration—for a bigger electoral base with which to pummel their opponents.”

Absolutely. What is so inherently wrong with politicians using whatever means necessary to win an election? Any legislation interferes with freedom of association.

“On the other side of the aisle,  Chamber of Commerce Republicans are thrilled to have a compliant, cheap serf labor class to keep their bottom line low. The weapon in this case? Aimed directly at America's blue-collar workers”

To maximize profits. What is so inherently wrong with companies trying to earn as much as they can? Any legislation interferes with freedom of association.

“All over the planet, states are lobbing 'troublesome minority missiles' onto their neighbors, trying to make them someone else's problem--or, more specifically, to create a problem for someone else.”

Except, of course, the groups you listed are NOT troublesome minorities, but merely groups of people who are experiencing political and economic turmoil, and as a result, whose people are seeking a better life for themselves. The INDIVIDUALS from those groups who arrive to the West are troublesome, no different than the riffraff nativists in the 1850’s and 1890’s claimed would forever change American demographics for the worse.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax dollars to resettle refugeesand asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious groups.”

Merely carrying out the mission of God.

“Full scale demographic replacement is, of course, a whole other kettle of fish.”

Which is a fetish of the Alt Right, considering the quotations employed were generally radical Islamics.

“European leaders also agree that massive demographic change is not only inevitable, but desirable.”

The way of human history.

“Anglo-Americans simply followed these ideals of the Enlightenment to their logical conclusion, with the result that immigration was opened up to all peoples of the world, multiculturalism became the cultural ideal, and Whites willingly allowed themselves to be displaced.”

The logical conclusion of the Enlightenment being that the universal human concepts of life, liberty, and property be exported around the world. Moreover, Jobling’s theory is predicated on the false notion that altruism is competitive and status driven for white people, given the fact that science still has much to learn about the genetics of altruism. Considering that white people within the past 500 years have engaged building the world in their image by destroying things that do not represent their image along the way, it is natural for white people to work toward repairing that damage as a way to acknowledge that despite great things they created, they also inflicted almost irreparable harm.

Mr. Rational said...

Amazing how things balance out, given that Europeans from 1492-1800’s seized precious minerals, timber, and raw materials for their own economies.

It more than balanced out with the advances in transport, medicine, agriculture and government bestowed on the natives, benefits they are not returning in any way, shape or form.  Railroads alone eliminated famine in India.

I note that you don't believe that colonization is wrong, you believe in hurting White people.

The industrialized nations want cheap labor.

No.  The economic elites want cheap labor.  Most everyone else wants no immigration, period.

To maximize profits. What is so inherently wrong with companies trying to earn as much as they can?

When they're stealing, by socializing their costs while privatizing profits.  Destroying the social capital underlying their own economic success is self-defeating in the long run and a crime against the people.  Arguably, it's treason.

Any legislation interferes with freedom of association.

By a large margin, the people of the USA don't want to associate with foreigners in their own land.  They are forbidden to refuse.  That's not freedom.

The logical conclusion of the Enlightenment being that the universal human concepts of life, liberty, and property be exported around the world.

When we did that, it was called... colonialism!  I suggest we export you and all other shitlibs as ambassadors of the Enlightenment to the turd world.  Your job won't be done until they are all advanced as Europeans, and not until then should we allow you to come back.  Further, as long as all those "economic assets" are needed to uplift their own countries, none of them should be allowed to come here either.

M.G. said...

Witch PHD--

Great to see you here! Hope it's interesting reading. A wonderful Christmas to you as well.

M.G. said...

Mr. Rational--

Nothing to add to that! Your rationality is always appreciated. Merry Christmas.

Allyn71 said...

"It more than balanced out with the advances in transport, medicine, agriculture and government bestowed on the natives, benefits they are not returning in any way, shape or form.

"Railroads alone eliminated famine in India."

Actually, famine increased in frequency and intensity with the arrival of the British. Export crops displaced millions of acres which could have been used for domestic subsistence. While railroads stabilized food prices and brought quick distribution of food, the British administration enabled private traders to carry food stocks, either for exports or for indulging in speculation which led to famine.

"I note that you don't believe that colonization is wrong..."

Colonization and imperialism have its benefits and detriments to both mother country and colony.

"you believe in hurting White people."

"Tis the season to be jolly, not lying through your teeth.

"The economic elites want cheap labor. Most everyone else wants no immigration, period."

Not the economic elites, just companies desire to maintain their profits. And as far as most everyone, there are some people who favor immigration, those who want to limit it, and those who seek to eliminate it. You see, there is a divergence of opinion here.

"When they're stealing, by socializing their costs while privatizing profits."

There is observably no stealing taking place, just using current law, as promoted by Trump, to one's advantage.

"Destroying the social capital underlying their own economic success is self-defeating in the long run and a crime against the people. Arguably, it's treason."

Big business has actually enabled the social capital to grow by way of new technology and closer interactions among individuals and groups. There is no treason being committed here, assuredly.

"When we did that, it was called... colonialism! I suggest we export you and all other shitlibs as ambassadors of the Enlightenment to the turd world."

They are already here. No one is going back.

"Your job won't be done until they are all advanced as Europeans, and not until then should we allow you to come back. Further, as long as all those "economic assets" are needed to uplift their own countries, none of them should be allowed to come here either."

Funny you say that, given that your own ethnic background was not allowed to enter our shores. Now you want the playground for yourself. Doesn't work that way.

Anonymous said...

Amazing article. I am very disturbed by developments in Europe and in my home country, Canada. I am deeply concerned about the wave of legal and illegal immigrants in this country. I am seeing population replacement on a grand scale and I do not believe it is for the betterment of Canada. Yet any discussion about wanting to protect the positive cultural elements of Canada is met with attacks and accusations of racism and bigotry. We have a good thing going with our country. I do not want us to be ruining it by making large scale changes to our demographic regime. For the first time, I am able to understand the big picture thanks to this amazing article. I am concerned that like the proverbial frog being boiled in cold water, most Canadians have no idea that our population is being replaced. And sadly, those of us who see what is happening are in a very small minority. We are in fragmented groups, which limits our capacity to be a strong force that selects and supports and influences the media, politicians and other key power players who can prevent the demographic catastrophe that is headed towards Canada - one that is currently hitting England, France, Switzerland (eg Basel), Italy, Greece and Germany.

peterike said...

One of the simplest ways to put a huge dent in the economic invasion is to tax remittances. These are largely electronically sent and can easily be garnished. Put a tax of, say, 90% on wire transfers out of the country. It's now economically pointless to be in the United States while trying to funnel money back home. But as always, simple and effective solutions are never used.

As for Allyn71, dude, why do you show up just to scat in our sandbox? Everybody here sees through the obvious lies of your tiresome received wisdom -- after all, we've heard the same lies for decades. Go comment at The Atlantic or someplace where the readers are stupid enough to believe you.

Anonymous said...

the memory of Jewish experience was spurring other Jews to raise their voice on behalf of Syrian refugees.

It was the memory, or the my family's memory, of of the Great (Artificial) Famine in China during the 50s-60s that drove my Christian Aunt to sponsor kids in Africa, and for me and my parents to give to feed the hungry children. Over time though, we noticed that the problem persist, the famine in China ended within 3 years, but the famines in Africa seem to be constant, it never ends - but so, why were they having 4 to 18 kids?

Some people are not like the rest of us.

Jewish Whites need to remember that whatever they identify as or whatever other people identify them as - they look white, and Jewish women and girls are coveted by negroes and muslim arabs.

Calchas said...

"A recent report in The Lancet shows that the US simply does not train enough doctors to meet its voracious appetite for medical attention."

You see, this is a very pernicious mechanism of that weapon of mass-migration. They are telling us insidiously that we need more doctors — but at no moment, nobody is going past the sophistry of "we do not train enough of them" to explain our shortage of doctors. If there is a shortage, this is because we have let millions of foreigners colonize and pop-up millions more foreign children within our lands.

As one of your graph showcases, 10% of the doctors practising in France are foreign-trained. On the other hand, there are some 15 millions of non-French living in France, that is grossly 25% of the population. Thus, if there were no foreign third-worlders in France, there would be no need for foreign-trained doctors. And actually, there would be more doctors per inhabitants, which would raise the quality of medical consultations (currently, you do not even have the time to get into the consulting room that you have to leave...).

This is the same for the building construction field. Why do we need to build so much buildings and infrastructures ? Because the "French" population is artificially increased. If those 15 millions Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans were not there, we would not need to let in thousands upon thousands Africans to work on construction sites, as our French workers would be enough. And by the way, Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans are likely the worst workers you can hire...

And if western workers would not have to compete with Chinese workers, we would not have to have recourse to cheap labor in our lands. This "global market" is an insanity for everyone, bar for a few...

The hubris of our "elites" will be the end of us.

Calchas said...

I see that you are living in France, thus I presume you can understand French, so I will provide some informations in French that might broaden the examples you give in the articles.

1°) You should also talk about the medicine industry. Why would you import millions of people full of dangerous disease — people that cannot even pay for food, let alone their medicine ? Because you will be able to steal huge amounts of money through the welfare system.

In France — see the link below —, 40% of newly known case of aids come from immigrants, especially sub-saharan immigrants. It creates a huge new market for the medicine industry (Africans in Africa cannot pay for the medicine, but French can pay for it for Africans in France). By the way,some other 40% come from the gay community...


Secondly, in 2018, the budgetary for medical services granted to illegal immigrants — that is, aliens — amounts to 918 millions !


This is how you artificially manufacture benefits : (i) you manufacture a problem which did not exist until now — that is, people full of diseases — ; (ii) you do a little humanists speech — that is, "it is our duty to help them" — ; (iii) since those people full of diseases do not have any money, you steal the money, through the welfare system, of people who have no diseases.

2°) You should check what Francis Bouygues, the director of one of the biggest French — nay international — construction companies, was thinking about immigration in the 1960/70s. Basically, he says that arabs are formidable workers but something bother him : they come in France to work for a few years, then when they have enough money, they get back to North Africa to build a house and live amongst their people. So he says that something should be made in order to keep them.

And — magie magie —, a few years after, under French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (1975?), the "Family Reunification" law was voted in.


M.G. said...

Canadian Anon--

Yet any discussion about wanting to protect the positive cultural elements of Canada is met with attacks and accusations of racism and bigotry.

It's hard to accept, but yes, we are living in a kind of intellectual Dark Age. When we deliberately forget truths we once knew--like that ethnic groups have deep differences, both cultural and biological--how can we call it anything else? The fact of group difference (at least cultural) was utterly uncontroversial throughout all human history, until just a few decades ago.

Now social science is moving backwards, regressing into a more primitive, almost religious state, as it tries to describe the reality of human inequality via a series of totems and spells--'implicit bias,' 'white privilege,' 'heteronormative patriarchy,' etc. I really feel for you fighting that in a place as indoctrinated as Canada.

The question is, is our (NW Euros') suicidal altruism mostly nature, or mostly nurture? If the latter, there's still hope--look how totally the Soviets abandoned their Dark-Age ideology when it finally proved ruinous.

If it's the former, though, all bets are off. It wouldn't be the first time a species has bred itself into success for one environment, then, when the environment changes, all those 'advantages' become deadly.

Try to check out the linked piece, 'Why Do Progressives Get [Multicult] Religion?', for data from researchers who've looked at this question. There's some interesting stuff there.

And sadly, those of us who see what is happening are in a very small minority.

Know that you're not alone, there is a minority of 'those who can see' out there, and we're just trying to help each other get through the feeling of living in Crazy World every day. Keep your head up and believe that sooner or later, sanity will come back to the West.

M.G. said...


I thought I'd heard the idea of taxing remittances floated during the Trump campaign (not sure by who), as a way to pay for 'The Wall.' While searching I found out that Oklahoma has devised a clever scheme:

Oklahoma collects 1% from all out-going, out-of-state, person-to-person wire transfers of money; many of these transfers are remittances from illegal aliens in Oklahoma to their relatives in their homelands. It is the only state to do so.

The money is not, strictly speaking, a tax; it is a deduction, ... If you pay your state income taxes, you can use these 1% deductions as a tax credit. In that case the whole procedure is a wash.

But Oklahoma tax officials told us a year or so ago that 96% of the wire transfer fees are not used as income tax credits.

This should be a dream for politicians — 96% of this funding source is being collected from people who are tax cheats and who cannot vote. [...] why doesn't Congress adopt this procedure?

Why indeed? Simple and effective and... only one state out of fifty has thought to do it.

Anonymous said...

A superb analysis and compilation of supporting information and data. It should be required reading for all voters and decision makers.

In my enlightened and smug liberal California town, many expensive homes display a sign in their yard. Written in English, Spanish, and Arabic it states “No matter where you are from, we are happy you are our neighbor”. It’s a meaningless sentiment because the homeowners know they will never have low income, fresh off the boat neighbors. There will be no Section 8 housing next door, unassimilated thugs cruising the streets, or yard apes knocking down mailboxes. Apparently, other citizens are supposed to be happy with their new and exotic neighbors.

Thanks for a great article.

M.G. said...


Thank you for the interesting data. I've added your links about French health spending for illegals and the AIDS data into Part I, Number 2), B) 'Economic Weapon.'

If there is a shortage [of doctors], this is because we have let millions of foreigners colonize and pop-up millions more foreign children within our lands.

You're right that high-immigration countries are partly creating the problem by simply importing too many people. But the 'doctor shortage' question seems quite complex and variable.

For example Japan, a very low-immigration country, has a doctor shortage too. This says it's because of 'burn-out' from long hours:

In terms of the average number of patients one doctor examines per year, while a Swedish doctor sees 900 patients, the number is 2,200 in the U.S.A. A Japanese doctor examines as many as 8,400 patients. As the average number among the OECD countries is 2,400, Japanese doctors work 3.5 times more.

I've seen other reasons noted:

-Medical Deserts: Most doctors want to work in cities, not in the countryside. So we import foreigners. Personal example: Last year, in a small provincial French town (40K inhabitants), I had an out-patient operation at the local hospital--both my surgeon AND my anesthesiologist were off-the-boat (spoke with accents) Africans.

-Ageing population: See Japan above, but all over the West this is true. Old people require a lot more care than the young and healthy.

-Female doctors: There are more than ever, and they work far fewer hours than men. Another anecdote: My sister-in-law is a general practitioner. After having 2 kids, she took several years off completely, and today, ten years later, is back to work... three days a week! Her slot in medical school could have gone to someone else.

...And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But I agree that countries like the U.K., France, and the U.S., with their open-doors immigration policy, are knee-capping their own health care system--as well as their schools, infrastructure, and much more.

M.G. said...


Also wanted to comment on your 1969 video of Francis Bouygues lamenting that guest workers couldn't stay forever.

This is a really interesting point, and I think that many were naïve about what was happening while the big businessmen were, once again, screwing everyone else. The Turks in Germany are a similar example. Here's Der Spiegel with some accidental truth-telling:

German companies [in the 1960s] were mainly interested in semi-skilled or unskilled laborers for poorly paid, unpopular jobs on assembly lines and in shift work.

Jobs on assembly lines are popular indeed... when they're well-paid!

Poor, remote regions of Turkey were the preferred recruitment areas. ... many of the new arrivals could hardly read or write.

Compliant, easy to manipulate quasi-serf labor.

A "rotation clause" intended to limit a foreign worker's initial stay in Germany to two years was removed from the German-Turkish treaty in 1964, partly as a result of pressure from German industry, which was loath to pay the costs of constantly training new workers.

And loath to pay a wage that would make these jobs attractive to Germans.

Besides, the Turkish immigrants had proven to be reliable workers who made fewer demands than their German counterparts but were no less productive.

Wow, sounds just like our North Carolina slaughterhouse quoted above, happy to have powerless Mexicans who 'make fewer demands' (pesky things like worker safety, overtime pay, etc.). Now Germany's got a whole sub-population who can't integrate and is a net drain on the country, all so that the Francis Bouygues of the world can save a few coins.

Plus ça change...

M.G. said...


Thank you for your kind words.

It’s a meaningless sentiment because the homeowners know they will never have low income, fresh off the boat neighbors.

I wish someone would keep a running tally of all the famous Multicult Activists who preach diversity to others from behind the walls of their all-white enclaves.

Besides David Brooks up there singing the praise of 26% white Houston from his 85% white D.C. bubble, there's also 'White Like Me' Tim Wise, who claims to hate 'whites like him' but lives in a 97% white neighborhood. Also Michael Moore, who left his hometown Flint after it shot down to 35% white, off to the greener pastures of 93% white Traverse City (black population 0.7%... yes, that's seven-tenths of one percent). Seems 'Stupid White Men' don't make such bad neighbors after all...

Really wish there was a link to send people to, just a list of addresses: 'Do as I say not as I do' multicult hypocrisy on full display. This type of thing really opened my eyes back when I was a still-indoctrinated blank slatist.

dc.sunsets said...

Remittances: Funds borrowed into existence by rich counties by issuing IOU's by the galaxy, which then flow to poor countries. They are one of the means by which people in rich countries are quite literally PAWNING their nations, their industries, their very existence.

All of these policies of openness rest on a high tide of social trust never before seen at this amplitude. The measure of this social trust is also found in the seemingly limitless valuations assigned to an equally limitless supply of intangible assets called bonds and stocks. Counted properly by aggregating the nominal prices of every asset, a credit inflation of simply indescribable size has occurred, giving great power to the oligarchs so enriched. This is true of Saudi princes, George Soros and all the world-saving clowns who head(ed) large corporate empires.

I remain of the view that this high tide is something with a finite duration, and that when it finally reverses after at least 36 years of collective insanity, most of the baleful trends will reverse. This portends a period of social upheaval, death and destruction commensurate with the amplitude of the mania.

It's going to be ugly in ways that we simply don't see in history. Nature's culling of stupidity didn't stop, it just was saved for "later."

dc.sunsets said...

PS: The USA's medical system is a black hole paid for by issuing bonds. Medical services are subsidized from hospital to pharmaceutical company, and insurance mandates at the state and federal level seemingly create a vast captive market.

Paradoxically, letting the doctors get their hooks into you often harms your health. And the "give me a pill" crutch leads to vast moral hazard where people pay scant attention to maintaining their own health.

Tens of millions of people in the USA or pulled here from abroad have invested many years of their lives (and for US citizens paying US rates for US college degrees, VAST sums of borrowed money) to qualify for well-paid jobs in medical fields. All of this is to serve monetary demand emanating from the central government, demand that is entirely a product of issuing debt.

Since 1981's bond market low, every dollar borrowed (by the FedGov or any other entity) and spent counted as AT LEAST two dollars in wealth: One or more (depending on the velocity of money) cascaded through the "GDP" economy and at least a second dollar went into the Bond Ocean where it was counted as an asset, i.e., a receivable.

Since intangible assets like bonds do not price via supply and demand, the bull bull market since 1981 meant that prices rose even as supply issued SKYROCKETED. No matter how much was borrowed and spent, bond prices rose (so prior issues experienced a CAPITAL GAIN!!) and interest rates fell. They stopped falling a year or so ago.

What happens when (not if, when) sentiment toward intangible assets shifts? Rates will rise, bond market capital value will plummet, "wealth" counted in the bond market will collapse, and borrowers will be CRUSHED by rising interest expenses, and that includes Uncle Sam. Consider how many tens of millions of good paying jobs will simply WILT, like roses grown in a Fargo, ND greenhouse in January when the power fails and the furnace quits?

All roads now lead to a cataclysm, and the last couple decades have shuffled into these countries people who will be very suddenly, viscerally UNWELCOME. Violence WILL occur. They will have to go back....or they'll be buried in mass graves.

M.G. said...


a credit inflation of simply indescribable size has occurred... when it finally reverses, ...a period of social upheaval, death and destruction

There's certainly a reckoning coming, such a massive house of cards can't just keep going up and up forever...

All roads now lead to a cataclysm, and the last couple decades have shuffled into these countries people who will be very suddenly, viscerally UNWELCOME.

If there's one thing history's shown us, it's that when things go pear-shaped, visible minorities often become a target. In the West we seem to have forgotten just what horrors we're capable of. When people feel they have nothing left to lose, things can change in the blink of an eye. I have to say I unfortunately share your pessimism about the coming years. A cycle seems to be coming to an end.

Yankee Imperialist said...

From the venerable Vox Day...The Italians and the Irish were the original problem. They could have, and should have, been handled like the Chinese were. But they laid the groundwork for the Jews, the Germans, and the Scandinavians, who made things even worse. And they paved the way for the Mexicans, the Africans, and the Muslims. At this point, the USA probably can't get back to 1986, let alone 1965.

Interesting. Basically, a specific group of whites, in this case European, who were deemed undesirable, which then opened up the floodgates to other "alien" Europeans to invade our shores.

Regardless, violence will not occur, and no one is going back.

Bartolo said...

Fantastic. Your blog could be called "ALL you need to know about immigration - and the some". Thank you.