THE ECONOMIST WOULD BENEFIT FROM MASS IMMIGRATION

Mass immigration – Neo-Liberalism's poisoned panacea

by Colin Liddell

The Economist is one of those smug, know-it-all publications that think they've got the inside track on the way the world works but in essence know nothing, or even worse than nothing, existing as veritable black holes of anti-wisdom.

You can tell they know nothing because in any given situation, regardless of differing circumstances, they invariably repeat the same message. I notice this particularly in their Japanese coverage, which I had a chance to peruse again in a recent article "Why the Japanese are having so few babies" prompted by a Japanese public official's suggestion that the country could boost its low birth rate by issuing secretly punctured condoms.

This was a stupid enough reason for an article on Japan, but Japan, both because of its continuing economic power and anti-globalist tendencies that stem from its non-Western nature, seems to be an object of obsession for the hacks at The Economist. A typical article on Japan by The Economist tends to follow these lines: JAPAN  → STAGNATION → ABENOMICS → ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION → WOMEN’S LIBERATION → LOWER BIRTH RATES → MASS IMMIGRATION.

The really stupid part is that The Economist wholeheartedly approves of every step in this descriptive and prescriptive chain of cause-and-effect. Yes, the Neoliberal rag thinks women should be working more and longer (thereby pushing down their own effective wage), getting married later, having less children, and forcing a demographic crisis and population vacuum that could and should suck in masses of immigrants to help feed the magazine's one true god – the ever-consuming Moloch of endless economic growth everywhere and always.

Even assuming that bringing in the dregs of the Third World – the non-dregs have less reason to emigrate – to replace a population honed to hardiness, efficiency, and intelligence by millennia in the frozen wastes of Asia and centuries of intense Malthusian overpopulation in their present home could work, what would be the ultimate logic of such a move?

Would the most advanced economies of the world then merely exist as massive, affluent death camps that perpetually sucked in new waves of increasingly brown immigrants, training them up to keep the vast economic machinery going, while inexorably pushing them – through narcissistic materialism, degendering, and the other perversions of advanced modernity – to the same genocidally low birth rates that finished off their predecessors? Would the process be endlessly repeated, drawing ever-increasingly on the less developed elements of the global population? Or is this pattern of ultra-economic development something that the drones at The Economist hope to see rolled out over the entire face of the Earth to depress all populations equally?

The Economist is not being very economical – except with the truth – as you can’t have economy without demography, and immigration of the lowest from the poorest is no substitute for the anti-natalism of the brightest from the richest.

Here is an example of the typical tone of these Economist articles, pushing inexorably to the cherished conclusion that Japan, like most countries, would benefit from mass immigration:

"Thankfully there is little the government can do directly to boost productivity in the bedroom. Yet labour-market reforms could make a difference to the birth rate in the long term. If companies gave greater protections to new, young hires in return for lessening the privileges of other employees, young couples would have a more stable basis on which to marry and raise families. So far the government of Shinzo Abe has talked about such steps, but shied away from taking them. Instead Mr Abe is acting to help women combine careers with children. Many demographers reckon it is already too late to lift Japan’s birth rate, now at 1.43 children per woman. The eventual answer, they say, will be more shocking even than spiked prophylactics: mass immigration."

Yes, creating a healthier environment for young couples is given a token nod. That serves to mask the true malevolence of the article, but, as the writer presumably knows, such measures are unlikely to be enacted in Japan, and, even if they were, it is obvious that they have done little to reverse demographic decline in the more natal-friendly European economies, like those in Northern Europe, where they tend to give immigrants that extra boost in displacing than natives.

Based on the long-term consequences of this, a more appropriate name for The Economist would be The Genocidist. Ultimately the survival of the Japanese and European races – as well as all others similarly threatened by the toxins of neoliberalism – will depend on the rejection of economism, materialism, and the system of interchangeable androidism that seeks to mix race with race and gender with gender for the convenience of globalist corporatists.

It is also clear that it is not Japan or the West that needs a massive influx of outsiders, but instead the offices of nefarious media organizations like The Economist.