Worse? This is the same paper that claims that this kind of “mass migration,” to both Europe and the United States, is a virtue.
One thing I noticed late last week is that in media articles where the topic is the distribution of “refugees,” it is written about as a burden that must be shared, spread around, dispersed. But when the topic is the mass immigration in general, it is written about as a blessing that will solve the problems of
increasing wages skills gap age demographic collapse workers to do the jobs that native born whites won’t do lack of votes for center-left parties, or whatever.
Like I wrote here last week when I broached this same observation, it can’t be both a blessing and a burden at the same time. However, I have a Ferrari of a mind, so of course I know there’s a way both can be true at the same time. It’s a blessing for plutocrats and corporations, because it solves the problem of increasing wages and salaries, and at the same time it’s a burden for the same plutocrats and corporations, because the Patterson’s First Axiom effects of the mass migration is making the natives restless, so they have to find a way to arrange the “refugee” resettlement in such a way to diffuse white reactionary anger. What, you thought I was going to say that it was a burden for the native born whites and for public welfare systems? Name me the plutocrat or corporation that really honestly cares about either.
In related news, this NR article (parts of which read like they were not written in NR) reminds me of a thought I had a few days ago. When, for example, Sweden is taking in enough refugees that if scaled up to the United States, it would mean that we’re taking in another whole state of Indiana. But the numbers don’t interest me quite as much as the precarious situation intra-Hajnal Line European countries and their welfare states are in. The “refugees” are going where the welfare states are the most generous, but the countries where the welfare states are the most generous and ubiquitous can only have those welfare states because their (until recently almost entirely ethnically homogeneous) people have a high level of social altruism and social trust and social capital. Throw enough of a critical mass of non-white moochers into the mix, and it’s going to have a far more rapid and drastic negative effect on the financial health of NW Euro welfare states than even a proportional import of people would have on the American welfare state, which is significantly less generous and ubiquitous than, say, Sweden’s. Our favorite domestic non-white racial group is one big reason why our welfare state never did and never could even rise to British levels, much less Swedish levels.