Friday, November 30, 2007

The Osmosis of Third World Immigration

Conservative Swede and I engage in a lively and almost non-stop correspondence via email. We discuss the Counterjihad, immigration, Multiculturalism, political correctness, the imaginary bugbear of a resurgent Nazism in Europe, and many other related issues. CS has one of the finest intellects of anybody I know, and, except for dinner-table discussions with Dymphna, there is no more stimulating conversation to be had on these issues.

CS and I exchanged a series of emails last night and this morning concerning PC ideology, Mark Steyn’s writings, and the importation of Third World immigrants into the West. The back-and-forth arguments helped clarify my thinking on the issue, and so I am presenting a slightly expanded version of them here.

Whenever Conservative Swede and I have a spirited discussion on an issue, we inevitably come to a point of agreement, after arguing through the terminology and elaborating on our respective choice of words.

This is one such case, and the essay below is as much his as it is mine.


The Islamic massesAll across the West, in virtually every country except for Japan and some of the recently-liberated former Communist countries in Central Europe, immigration from the Third World has accelerated enormously.

In the United States the flood comes in from Mexico. In Europe the newcomers originate in Turkey, Pakistan, North Africa, and the Arab Middle East. In Australia immigrants pour in from South Asia and the Chinese diaspora. Virtually anybody in the world who can scrape up the money for a plane ticket to Toronto is welcomed in Canada.

This simultaneity of action is, obviously, aided by the pernicious Multicultural ideology which has gradually infected the entire West over the last two generations. The makers of fashionable opinion have determined that it is acceptable for us to dilute, enervate, and even destroy our traditional societies, but they don’t stop there. Such cultural suicide is deemed desirable, and even a moral imperative, by the Gramscians who have imperceptibly supplanted any alternative schools of thought within the academic bastions that generate the conventional wisdom.

However, there is an additional pressure that helps to keep the immigration valves wide open in the West. The demographic debacle that is looming before all advanced Western countries creates an economic process that would be all but irresistible even if there were no politically correct ideology driving the current cultural train wreck.
- - - - - - - - -
Our nations are analogous to cells in an organism, and their borders constitute a semi-permeable membrane. People passing through these membranes are like chemical compounds entering and leaving a cell. An osmotic pressure on one side or the other pushes and pulls people through such border-membranes.

This osmotic pressure is an economic one. As countries become affluent, their birthrates decline, so that eventually their populations also decline, as is happening now to the original natives in several European countries and Japan.

Affluence means that people are relatively well-educated and are accustomed to a high rate of pay and benefits. This generates high expectations — people live well, expect meaningful employment, and resist any reduction of their living standards.

To mix metaphors a bit, the modern Western nations form the “climax forest” of our sociocultural ecology. The denizens of that lofty canopy will do anything to stay up near the top, and strive vigorously against forces trying to drag them down into the dark loam on the forest floor.

But within our societies lawns still need to be mowed. Rubbish has to be collected. Bedpans in our hospitals must be emptied. There are fewer and fewer people to do these jobs, so the wages are bid upwards by ordinary economic processes. If the wage is high enough, obviously, willing workers can always be found

However, because of the welfare state, the people who might do such work are more likely to say, “To hell with that. I can live on the dole and not have to empty bedpans.”

This situation makes it possible for companies that import foreigners, or utilize those foreigners already resident, to make a lot of money by using those foreigners. If there is commercial competition within a country — and there is still quite a bit here in the USA — then the companies using cheap foreign labor will be more successful and prevail against their competitors. The result is that the whole process, acting via the “invisible hand”, tends to pull in more foreigners.

In other words, there is money to be made from doing it. That’s what I mean by “osmotic pressure” — it’s a virtually irresistible economic imperative. As we all know, when money is to be made from an activity, that activity is bound to occur. Where it is not only legal, but encouraged by elite opinion, it will flourish.

Furthermore, when you add ideology to the mix, the problem becomes much worse. In Sweden the ideological motive may far exceed the economic one, since business competition is greatly reduced in Sweden due to the overwhelming intervention of the socialist state.

But that’s not so true in Ireland, for example, which has healthy economic competition, and the Multicultural regime there is not as advanced. Yet Ireland has imported an astonishing number of Muslim immigrants in recent years. So ideology alone is not a sufficient explanation of what is occurring.

If the demographic issue were the only one in play, then the problems brought on by a declining population would be self-correcting. Eventually, when the ratio of elderly people to young people became high enough, the welfare state would collapse. Old people who could neither rouse themselves from retirement and do productive work nor be cared for by their families would be euthanized. Young people would have economic incentives to have children, since after fifteen years or so a batch of children would be a productive asset to a household.

The outcome would be ugly, unprincipled, and sometimes violent. Correction would take a couple of generations, but it would happen.

However, when you combine the multiculti ideology with an economic osmotic pressure drawing in Muslims at an accelerating pace, the problem becomes much, much worse. Hence the potential apocalypse that is rolling towards us so rapidly.


Note to those who love to quote me out of context: the nasty scenario described above is not one that I prefer or recommend. It is simply one that I deduce to be likely under the assumed premises.

17 comments:

spackle said...

As to the economic side of the argument. I have touched a bit on that in my own blog where I believe that another "Depression" global or otherwise might be the only thing to slow down or dare I say, reverse mass immigration to the west. Is it something I wish for? yes and no. A global depression would be a horrible thing to contemplate, but the other side to that coin is much worse.

Anonymous said...

There is another related issue, that of world trade.

The apparent view of the founders of the World Bank and the various international economic agencies such as the OECD, was that trade barriers could be lowered and the movement of goods could be increased without a parallel movement of peoples.

They thought, no doubt, that immigration barriers would remain high while trade barriers could be progressively lowered.

But, as we all now know, labour is a constituent input in any economy. It cannot be divorced, one from the other. So when we lowered trade barriers, we lowered them to all inputs.

This will prove, as I'm sure we all agree, to have been a very unwise decision.

In my dream of dreams (if I were king), I would simply ban all international air travel. To come to the West, you would have to get on a boat. Just like the old days; the days before the current Islamic invasion, the days when getting a Visa was both necessary and difficult.

Anonymous said...

Spackle, I've also wondered about the social consequences of a another global depression in western countries with large disparate immigrant communities.

Nothing like economic hardship to bring out suppressed feelings...

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

A fine intellect? I don't know about that. He called me a fanatic in some discussion without any explanation and for no apparent reason. Basically a hit a run troll attack.

Baron Bodissey said...

JCS,

Oh, I'll agree that CS can show distemper in comments, and even be a real pit bull.

But in email (and in person) he's a genial and easygoing fellow, even if he does like to argue. And his intellect is truly formidable.

spackle said...

Lee s.
True. I find it hard to believe that even a loony leftist would sit by and watch his child go hungry so an illegal could have his job. In a global depression, touchy feely PC platitudes would go out the window. Although in their sick and twisted philosophy some would find it "noble" to do so. Poor kid.

Lex said...

Baron--more like your own trained pit bull. Actually, I'd say more like a terrier refusing to leave a subject alone. I can only begin to imagine ConSwede emails, egads.

That said, multiculturalism is based on a completely false premise. It doesn't exist. The very concepts of "culture" depend on a cohesiveness that is refuted by the mere idea of "multi-culturalism" as applied to one particular society. Subcultures are one thing, but this is rather a sticking point for many Anthropologists, this notion that "multiculturalism" can even exist.

Only those on the extreme left would truly ascribe to this notion if properly defined. Otherwise, I think that those more to the left are not so much disagreeing but rather opposing more racist elements who claim to be conservatives.

But never mind me, carry on with the exercises in divisive politics. Heaven forbid, we'd never want Americans to all agree on basic points.

Charlemagne said...

Spackle - I've sometimes hoped for a severe downturn myself so the illegals here in the US would stop coming and maybe even leave. The recent housing downturn doesn't appear to have had any impact and neither does the cold weather (grass cutters). But then I think, "well what would a severe downturn or even a depression do to me?!" and then dismiss the idea of a depression.
This thinking highlights a problem we face in the West, we are much too comfortable to really get down in the trenches and fight, especially if it impacts our own well being.

whiskey_199 said...

Lex -- Multiculturalism DOES exist. It is in it's essentials the demonstration by elites of "moral superiority" or "superior enlightenment" by acknowledging other cultures superior position to that of the West.

In other words, displays of social status, position, power etc. by elites.

What is likely to happen to kill it and cause huge fights is an economic downturn. Cheap energy has fueled the current global expansion and that is threatened by various political instabilities and growth in China and India (and demand for energy). Costs of cheap manufacture abroad (not only in China) abound, and trans-Pacific trade also depends on cheap energy and political agreement between the US and China. Those container ships don't run on magic.

Europe is least well off, relying on a welfare state instead of growing economies. The riots in France and elsewhere are merely a fight over resources, likely to be replicated on wider scales. Importing all those workers and then being stuck with them when times turn bad is a guarantee for social discord. It's also given the amount of elitism and the refusal of European political structure to accommodate populism in any form, an open invitation to Napoleonism in one form or another.

But in this country we also see a huge divide between corporate interests and various electoral/grievance groups that want a huge pool of cheap Mexican labor (and votes) and people likely to be without jobs in an economic downturn.

What then?

A huge fight, politically, and one likely to result in Jacksonian populism. Which is both good and bad. And not without cost either.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey 199 said:

Europe is least well off, relying on a welfare state instead of growing economies. The riots in France and elsewhere are merely a fight over resources, likely to be replicated on wider scales. Importing all those workers and then being stuck with them when times turn bad is a guarantee for social discord. It's also given the amount of elitism and the refusal of European political structure to accommodate populism in any form, an open invitation to Napoleonism in one form or another.

I'd like to take exception to Whiskey 199's argument, above, which is roughly that the Paris riots are somehow associated with the Muslim youths in the suburbs being disadvantaged. The fights in Paris and elsewhere are not over 'resources.' They are over ideology, on the one hand a secular, social-democratic welfare state and on the other hand the eager adherents of a 7th Century imperialist, expansionist, autocratic theocracy.

Economics be damned, as we well know from the terrorists on the planes on 9/11, from the British bombings and from the 'Doctors' conspiracy in Glasgow. I think we have to put all this economic causation in a box and shove it under the bed; the issue (IMHO) is religion + politics.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Here's what I posted on the Daily Express, a British nationwide newspaper, a few days back, on this very subject. As you might be able to tell from what I say, I'm expecting that economic crash and depression, and think we should be self-contained in providing at least the basics for our people. And no, I don't believe "our people" is necessarily only white people. I was married nearly a quarter-century to a S. Asian woman, and my daughter is mixed race.

"" In 1941/2 the population of this country was about 38 million. Germany almost succeeded in starving us into submission because we were unable to properly feed that many people from the land and fisheries available to us.

What chance with even the 60 million we currently have, never mind the projected 80, or 100, or 110 million?

Don't say we can trade for food. Our trade depends on cheap oil, and that era is rapidly coming to an end. Also, the whole world is undergoing a population explosion - those countries with food surpluses to trade are going to need those surpluses to feed their own increased populations. Anyhow, what, exactly, are we going to trade with? We have exported the bulk of our real wealth creation - manufacturing. The City? All smoke and mirrors. The City doesn't create wealth: all it does is concentrate money. The creation of real wealth is the creation of manufactured goods. Suppose you had all the money in the world, and I had all the manufactured goods. But tomorrow you need to buy a car to travel somewhere. How much do you suppose I'm going to make you pay for that car? By the day after tomorrow I would have all the manufactured goods in the world minus one car, and I would also have all the money in the world. All you would have is one car. How would you pay for fuel for that car?

As for our population dropping without immigration, and we need the immigrants to support our elderly: does anyone suppose those immigrants aren't themselves going to grow old and need support? Only now there will be vastly more elderly to be supported. Ever more immigration to bring in more young people? We are trapped in a vicious circle.

We are going to have to bite the bullet on this one and break that circle (yes, I know - don't mix metaphors ...). Our population dropping is NOT a problem. It is only the natural aftermath of the tailing off of the post-WW2 baby boom, as our population gets itself down to it's more nearly normal natural level for the territory we occupy. So, for a couple of decades this will mean difficulty for our eldery. Well ok, our elderly - which will very soon include me: I'm 55 and not wealthy or even comfortably off - are just going to have to live and die through it. There was a baby boom which just naturally brought itself to an end. That inevitably has led to an elderly boom, which will equally naturally bring itself to an end. What's the problem?

Leave the EU. No negotiation, no discussion - just leave and seal our borders. Nobody at all allowed in. This brings to an end the 'right' to all EU citizens to live here - so they can all go back. If this means that our own citizens resident in the EU have to return here - fine, they are welcome back, bringing their skills with them. All illegals to be hunted down and deported - no tribunals, no appeals. Find them, put them on the next boat or plane out. If they refuse to say where they come from, just legally assume them to be Afghans and fly them there. Release them out of the front gate of Bhagram Air base, which we share control of. They'll soon enough be glad to tell us where they came from.

Revisit the cases of all the "asylum seekers" who have arrived in the last 20 years. Re-assess them with a hard hard mind. Those we still think are genuine can stay - otherwise, back they go. No further tribunals, no appeals. All immigrants who came here to take jobs that British people are quite capable of doing - one thinks, for example, of the 10,000 or so current British born and raised trained medical graduates who can't get work because the places they could have had are taken by immigrants - can go too.

Repatriate our manufacturing industry. If you have shares in a manufacturing company that has expatriated its production facilities in order to take advantage of cheap labour, then you have a choice - bring your company home, or you go out to join it.

And all Muslims will have to go - they are un-integrate-able. They say it themselves: Islam must dominate. Well thank you and all, but I, and millions like me, beg to differ. They all have to go. All.

By the time we've done all this, and taken a few other minor measures, our population will be down around the 45 million mark - all in just a couple of years. Then we can let our population gradually reduce itself down to something like an indefinitely sustainable level. at somewhere around the 30 million mark. Plenty of space for everyone, plenty of housing for everyone, plenty of work for everyone. And think what it'll do for our national carbon footprint.

And that lot is just straight off the top of my head without having to think particularly hard about it (obviously, some of the more politically correct will say ... :) ).

The good Reverend Malthus was, is, and always will be, correct. ""

People may argue about my reference to Malthus. My take on it is we have only been able to keep his predictions at bay by use of cheap fossil fuels and using technology to force our soils to produce more than their natural carrying capacity. That is, by, in effect, forcing soil to run flat out - it will eventually become so exhausted its crop growing capacity will eventually become depleted, and it will need some years of recovery time.

Also note that every technological fix for a problem has, sooner or later, always brought new problems of its own, and these new problems have invariably been more severe than the originals. We can't keep doing this forever: it will eventually overtake us.

We not only have a world economic crash coming: we also have a world population crash on its way. Nations, for their own individual good have to start getting selfish. We look after our own, and that's it.

Lex said...

I was speaking in terms of those who make it their lives work to define and study ideas of culture. To them the very term is an oxymoron. Cultural relativism and the misuse of the original ideals of that academic theory are a different matter, and more of what you are speaking of, Whiskey.

Regarding the argument posed by Frank regarding the "youths" in Paris, I think that is a far too narrow and simplified look at that situation. I really don't think that the rioters are all doing this based on Salafi ideologies, though I think they need to be stomped on hard and that the French would benefit from a charity drive for spines. But both groups most definitely are guilty of thinking themselves superior to the other and treating the other so, though that in no way excuses rioting and trying to destroy part of a country and the inhabitants of that land when these are not the native population. OTOH, most French I know or have spoken with have made themselves clear that they never were willing to see these people as "French" no matter how hard they tried to assimilate.

Or, in short, Vive l'America. They've made their own beds, far away from me.

Snake Oil Baron said...

While this is a fine post with some interesting points but I disagree with the main conclusion as I see it. I would like to mention a few points:

First, decline in birth rates is not limited to wealthy nations, it is just more advanced in them. While poor nations often have higher fertility rates they are, in most cases, dropping faster than they did in Western and industrially developed eastern nations. Mexico is running out of immigrants.

Secondly, not all immigrants are staying. Some came in to make some cash to bring home and invest in a home or business (Mexicans especially). Others are being lured back out by changing circumstances in their nation of origin. Companies who hired Indian I.T. workers are finding that they need to work harder to keep them as opportunities for them grow back home.

Thirdly, while some in the Mexican and Chinese communities of North America have expressed anti first world sentiment, the vast majority of immigrants have expressed a strong desire to learn the English language, get education for themselves or at least their children and start businesses.

There are two forms of multiculturalism being debated these days: the academic multiculturalism where all ethnic groups are encouraged to rigidly retain every single aspect of their culture of origin and avoid any possible flexibility or adaptation to the larger culture as "assimilation" and the real world multiculturalism where people enter, adapt to and contribute to their new home. The later has always been happening and defines America's 'melting pot' approach. The former is just a failed experiment and is only a threat where it is enforced by policy since it does not occur naturally.

East Asia was once the "third world". All of eastern Europe was once part of the "second world". Now, the second world consists of Russia and a hand full of their dufus allies. And China and India are pouring investment dollars into Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. We are converting the third world, not the other way around.

While I am a secular guy, the fact that so many immigrant communities in "first world" nations have significant Christian communities must indicate that immigrants are by no means rejecting Western values and culture. The Islamic ghettos of France and other European cities do not represent the immigrant experience for all of the West.

In short, I think immigration should be diversified not reduced and if one really wants to reduce immigration, buy more products from the nations of origin, demand that tariffs on non-dictatorial third world nations be made illegal and invest in the these nations.

Snake Oil Baron said...

PS, the osmosis analogy and that of the climax community are evocative and innovative ones, even if I disagree with how much osmotic pressure is present or whether there are "climax communities" in the arena of human affairs.

Profitsbeard said...

Nature pulls the rug out from under all delusions, like "multiculturalism", eventually.

Anti-natural gambits tend to implode or explode.

Inviting in a hostile alien ideology and hoping it would not try to destroy yours is an intriguing thought experiment.

Putting it into practice, though, is dangerously suicidal.

Unless people in the West tire of the slaughter part-way through the slicing and fight back against the societal seppuku.

And start declaring:

Muslims belong in Mecca.

Their aim is an anti-human rights, despotic, dogmatic theocratic tyranny.

How anyone in the EU or US or OZ or Canada ever dreamed anything but disaster would flow from this invitation proves the depth their woefully unhistorical mentality and wishful level of folly.

The one-way Hadj is needed.

It is the kindest solution.

spackle said...

Lex

I am just curious. On two separate threads you said you were done commenting on GOV. Yet here you are again. You obviously can come and go as you please, but whats the deal?

Ypp said...

Recenntly I came to conclusion that God's will manifest itself not only in theory but very obviously in reality. For example, there is a split between those who are against muslim immigration (Gates of Vienna) and those who are not against it untill muslims behave well (LGF). That difference is the result of important ideological differences, and it could split anti-jihad movement. But it will not. Because muslims do not behave well. Finally, even liberals have to admit it.

The same with economy. Even though muslim immigrants are invited to fulfill the needs of economy, the reality is that they are no good for economy. Their ideology of nomades makes them useless. And even business will finally have to admit it.