Europe waking up to the futility of the Muslim immigration solution

April 12, 2010

 A sharp rise in support for right-wing populist parties opposed to Islamic immigration is occurring in Europe, as an increasing number of indigenous Europeans start to ask themselves why a continent plagued ongoing economic problems has been busily importing low-skilled immigrants from an alien culture.

 The obvious clue that Europe’s economic problems can’t be solved by bringing in cheap labour,  is the continent’s persistently high level of unemployment. Generally speaking, there are two main reasons for high unemployment – either people can’t find work because there is a recession, or there are jobs available but the unemployed don’t have the skills do the available jobs. Conversely, where jobs are available that people are capable of doing, they will usually do them.

 While recessions come and go, major structural problems with the economy take much longer to sort themselves out. Europe’s structural is that it simply doesn’t have a lot of jobs than low-skilled workers can do even if they want to. Economically, Europe has been on coal face of the global battle for industrial supremacy between East and West, and unlike colonial countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it can’t survive by exporting resources or selling real estate to Asians – in other words, it actually has to make or design stuff.

 In this extremely competitive environment, Europe is having to compete with high-IQ oriental workers who not only seem to be genetically well-suited towards the world of high-end manufacturing but are also willing to work for third world wages, and unfortunately for Europe, most of its Muslim immigrants can’t seem to compete on either price or IQ.

 Admittedly it’s doubtful if even East Asian immigration could have saved European manufacturing. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have been importing large numbers of Asian immigrants for about 20 years now, and even with the high education levels of these immigrants there’s little evidence to suggest they have developed any new industries in their new homelands. Even high IQ people often struggle to perform in a multicultural society which is not of their making.

 While high crime rates, terrorism and rioting have been the main reasons for the rise in populist opposition to Islamic immigration, there are worrying signs that this immigration may already starting to erode the technological standards of Western European culture. One thing that hasn’t been talked about in the media (strangely) has been the ominous decline in the reliability of German cars, which has been occurring at the same time as the big increase in the percentage of non-native German workers in its car plants.

It seems pretty obvious that Europe’s elites have failed to take account of cognitive factors in their quest for cheap labour, but their blunder doesn’t stop there, since they’ve also failed to take account of cultural differences as well. The other main reason elites have been pushing Muslim immigration is to try to prop-up the tax base so there are more young workers paying taxes to support the growing elderly population.

 Unfortunately, Muslims tends to have large families, but don’t tend to draw in big enough wages to support them. This means that instead of being net contributors to the tax base, many end up being net consumers of welfare. Compounding this problem is that as offspring of welfare dependents, it’s unlikely these Muslim welfare kids will grow up into productive high IQ workers. One of the ironies of life in a developed country, which today’s elites fail to grasp, is only the most successful can afford to have large families without government help, yet it is the most intelligent and successful who tend to have the smallest families.

 Centre-right governments may be able to repair some of the damage from Muslim immigration by insisting that in future immigrants can’t raise more than two children on welfare, but it would be politically and socially difficult to restrict welfare for those Muslim citizens who already have large families and now can’t survive without state handouts. Subsequently, it’s vital that Western European governments act fast to stop further Muslim immigration and to discourage the next generation of young Muslims from using the welfare system to raise large families that they can’t support on their own. If European governments fail to do so, then it’s likely that Europe will slide down to socio-economic level of the overpopulated Middle-Eastern countries from which Muslim immigrants are trying to escape from.

2 Comments | Economic issues, Europe, Immigration, Islam, Middle East, conservative populism | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Some thoughts on liberalism in Europe and America

February 2, 2010

  Among right wing thinkers in both Europe and North America there is often debate about which continent is more politically correct, with American commentators like Mark Steyn arguing Europe is by far the worst off, and the European New Right arguing that American is the primary source of modern liberalism.

 However, rather than getting into a parochial blame game about who’s the more corrupting influence, I think it’s more interesting to look at how the influence of left liberalism differs between the two continents and what this reveals about their political traditions.

Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments | Education, Europe, Left liberalism, Liberalism, US politics, United States | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Birth rates and western decline

December 20, 2009

  Low birth rates are cited by many conservatives as a reason for western decline, but on a country-by country-basis there is little correlation between low birth rates and non-western immigration. By far the biggest factor drawing immigrants to the West seems to be the state of the economy. This makes a lot of sense, since it isn’t land and resources that non-western immigrants are looking for, but jobs provided by westerners themselves. If low fertility rates were the decisive factor, then there would be a lot more immigrants trying to get to Eastern Europe and East Asia, where fertility rates are just as low as in Western European countries like Spain and Italy.

 During the last decade Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland have had relatively high birth rates by western standards, yet have also experienced high levels of third world immigration. The main difference between the Anglosphere countries and those of Eastern Europe and East Asia, is that the former have experienced a decade of relatively high rates of economic growth and low unemployment. The significance of economic growth in immigration rates in the United States for example, has been highlighted by the fall-off in immigration from Mexico and India since the start of the current recession.

 Economic wealth has also been a big driver of immigration patterns between developed countries. Australia has significantly higher minimum wage rates than New Zealand, and so many blue-collar workers from this side of the pond have moved across the Tasman. Highly qualified - workers by contrast, have been more likely to move to Britain and United States.

 In the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, high immigration rates has also been driven by the strength of the Pound and the Euro, which influences how much money immigrants can send home as remittances. Now that the pound is on a downward slide, fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa are looking for low-skilled jobs in London.

 Among Continental countries, France has relatively high birth rates and low immigration, but also has serious economic problems with high levels of unemployment and poor economic growth. It’s non-white population is growing rapidly, but this is mainly due to high birth rates rather than recent immigration. About the only European country with low growth and low birth rates to still experience signficant immigration pressure is Italy, where opposition to non-western immigration is also relatively high.

 Low fertility rates may well create problems in the future, but current immigration rates are mainly due to western businesses and governments being unable to resist the lure of cheap labour and short-term immigration-driven economic growth. This temptation is particularly strong in lightly populated western countries like Australia and New Zealand where there is still a lot of money to be made from selling land to newcomers.

 Interestingly, birth rates in East Asia are now even lower than in Europe. According to the latest figures from the CIA World Fact Book, Singapore has a fertility rate of 1.09 per woman and Macau just 0.91. If English-speaking countries had these kind of fertility rates, there would be enormous pressure to open up the borders and let in more immigrants, but oriental countries don’t seem particularly concerned. One possible reason is that they can always top up their aging populations with fellow East Asians from China, whereas most western countries can only bring in immigrants from non-western countries.

1 Comment | Demography, East Asia, Europe, Immigration, United States, Western civilisation | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Switzerland’s conservative populist response to Islam

December 2, 2009

 Yes, the Swiss have finally bitten the bullet and become the first western European country to restrict the building of Muslim minarets.

For those of us in other parts of the Western world we now finally get to see what happens when there is a genuine conservative response to creeping Islamisation – will there be an increase in extremism, as the left and the progressive Muslims claim, or will the threat of a Muslim backlash turn out (hopefully) to be a damp fizzer?

The Islamists claim the terrorist actions against the U.S, Spain and Britain were a reaction to Anglo-American actions in the Muslim world, particularly the occupation of Saudi Arabia by the United States, and that the West has nothing to fear from Islam if it doesn’t invade Muslim countries. This sounds like a reasonable deal, but what about the behaviour of Muslim minorities in western and non-western countries that haven’t invaded Muslim countries. Why are Muslims rioting in France or causing insurections in India and Thailand if these countries aren’t interfering in the Middle East?

Like western conservatives and nationalists, the Islamists are opposed to the liberal new world order, but unlike western nationalists and conservatives they argue the way to oppose the NWO is to replace it with an ‘Islamic new world order.’ If that means trying to take over peaceful western countries with alien Muslim values then who can blame these countries for trying to defend themselves?

As well as giving us a chance to see how Muslims react to conservative western policies, if may also put pressure on the Muslim world to put nation-building ahead of international terrorism and agitation. If communist China can put nationalism ahead of globalist Marxist subversion, and Central Asia can put nation-building over supporting the Islamic Jihad, then perhaps more of the rest of the Muslim world can be influenced in a more nationalistic (ie, nation-state respecting) direction also.

Oh, and the sticky beaks at the UN, have quickly stuck their noses into Switzerland’s democratic business, remind me again why this organisation deserves western tax dollars?

Leave a Comment » | Ethnic Conflict, Europe, Islam | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

A few thoughts on western multiculturalism

February 29, 2008

With the country having a bit of slow news week, I thought I might give my two cents worth on the modern western penchant for multiculturalism.

While a number of European conservatives, such as Fjordman, have argued that western enthusiasm for multiculturalism is based on secularized Christian ideas of universal compassion and support for the underdog, few seem to consider the possibility that support for multiculturalism may be based on overconfidence due to early success, rather than ideology.

The Christianity theory assumes ideology is the driving factor behind multiculturalism, rather than actual events and conditions experienced by westerners, which in my view is putting too much emphasis on ideas at the expense of concrete factors like history and evolution.

Ideology, such as liberal autonomy theory, is very influential, but it is also heavily influenced by material and historical factors, which are ultimately the main influences on human behaviour. The dogmatically ideological Soviet Union collapsed in part, because it’s leaders could not point to successful working examples of Marxist states which would help lend empirical support to their ideological claims (intellectuals often forget that most people are more impressed by concrete achievement that elegant rational argument).

Looking at the racial and cultural history of Continental Europe, it’s noticeable that while Europeans are essentially all of the same race, they are made up of numerous sub-races that to a certain extent, look and act quite differently.

Thanks to the Continent’s varied topography and wide range of climates, there is considerable variety in the builds, appearances and temperaments of the various people’s of Europe. Added to this is the fact that Europe has developed a large number of distinctive cultures, each with its own language. But despite all this potentially divisive diversity, the continent has become, to a certain extent, a showpiece for the potential of liberal multiculturalism.

Over the last 500 years Europe may have had its fair share of bloody wars, and even the occasional genocide, but overall, the benefits of inter-cultural competition and rivalry have played a vital part in helping Europe overtake the less dynamic civilisations of China and India, and lay the template for North American growth and development. Intense competition between states and city states has meant European countries have had to maximise their national advantages, such as French flair and German efficiency, and this in turn has speeded up the economic and cultural development of the continent as a whole.

Arguably this growth-through-competition experience has helped give rise to the liberal idea that the tension in ethnic diversity provides stimulus for economic and cultural development. Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, America is, in many respects, what the contemporary EU wants to be, a large pan- European superstate with enormous economies-of-scale advantages, and a political system that is a greatest hits package of European enlightenment thinking.

Add to the mix Australia, and you suddenly have three successful examples of pan-European cultures operating on a continental scale.

However, while modern Europe, North America, and Australasia are now successful pan-European continents, they are still mono-continental cultural entities, and this is what contemporary multiculturalism fails to take into account.

Buoyed up by their success in developing not one, but three economically successful continents that have provided a model for global economic development westerners have fallen into the trap of believing that peoples from non-European backgrounds can be successfully assimilated into western countries in the same way that non-English speaking Europeans from Eastern and Southern Europe have been integrated into the United States and Australia over the last century.

Liberal diversity theory also fails to take into account that it was only after Europe was freed of non-European powers like the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire that it really begin to take-off culturally and economically – a point probably taken into account by Al-Qaeda in its scheduling of the 9-11 attack to coincide with the 12th of September 1683, the date the Ottomans were repulsed during the Battle of Vienna, which marked the high-water mark of Muslim incursions into Europe.

So far, phase one of the West’s audacious multi-cultural experiment hasn’t gone to badly, The immigrants from the 1950s to 1970s have, on the whole, been successfully integrated without too many difficulties, and western economies are still keeping most middle-class westerners in the material affluence to which they have become accustomed. Crime rates and economic inequality have increased, but the economies and infrastructure of most western countries have so far survived remarkably well.

The West as a civilisation may be suffering a serious crisis of confidence, but among the managerial class, multiculturalism, like deindustrialisation, is regarded as just another challenge that can be overcome by reason and creativity. Even the increasingly worrying pattern of different races voting according to ethnic interest does not seem to be raising much concern among western elites.

Meanwhile a different set of attitudes has developed in the Far East.

The relatively monocultural Chinese and Japanese civilisations, have maintained a suspicion of foreigners throughout their long histories, but at the same time have had a relatively open to many foreign ideas.

Being more concrete and pragmatic thinkers, the East Asians have felt less threatened by imported religions and philosophies than more idelogically minded westerners and this can be seen with the arrival of Buddhism and Communism in China. However, the example of communism shows that although orientals do have a penchant for imported ideas, their enthusiasm for such imports rapidly fades if the idea or ideology in question proves to be impractical. Nor are East Asians very interested in ideas like globalism and open borders, since these threaten to undermine the blood and soil foundations of their civilisation itself.

Given enough time, the West might swing against multiculturalism through ideological change bought about by intellectuals as part of the wider reaction against liberal ideology. However, the speed with which immigration and divergent reproduction rates are transforming the ethnic composition of most western countries, suggests that it’s pragmatic necessity and political agitation which are most likely to lead to a swing against multiculturalism, and towards some kind of post-liberal amalgam of conservatism and nationalism.

This process is already beginning in France, Britain and the United States, where the sheer number of immigrants is putting pressure on politicians to start introducing measures to significantly curtail immigration and take account of majority opinion.

6 Comments | Europe, Liberalism, Multiculturalism | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Islamic Immigration in Europe

December 18, 2007

Reading through Christchurch’s Press last Saturday it was pleasing to come across a relatively right-wing review of Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept: How radical Islam is destroying the West from within.

The reviewer, an Anglican vicar from Christchurch called Ron Hay, points out that Bawer says he left America partly in reaction to the Christian right. However, setting in Europe with his gay partner, he discovered that Islamic fundamentalism made its US counterpart look benign:

“Falwell was an unsavoury creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imans wanted to drop a wall on me.”

Bawer acknowledges both the rapid growth of aggressive Islam in Europe and Europe’s present policy could well end in disaster. Like many US critics though, he criticizes the Europeans for failing to integrate Muslim immigrants, without recognising that Europe is not the United States, or that the US has no experience of dealing with large numbers of Muslim immigrants.

In contrast to Europe, life is much cheaper in the United States, where recent immigrants can afford to buy cars to get around in, and the economy revolves around flexible labour laws and economies of scale production. Since the cost of living is cheap, people have more disposal income and there is a greater demand for domestic services. Subsequently the US is a great place for someone with limited skills to find work (or a least it was until it became swamped by central American immigrants).

By contrast, life in Europe is crowded, bureaucratic and expensive. Fewer people can afford cars and even if you have a car, the roads are crowded and difficult to navigate. Since life is more expensive, there is also much less need for hired hands like nannies and gardeners. Manufacturing firms have to be smart and innovative to compete with larger US and Japanese competitors, so they need skilled workers who can work with minimum supervision.

Furthermore, since every country has its own language and customs it is difficult to move around and seek out opportunities in other parts of the EU. Europeans countries also tend to have generous and intricate welfare systems, which are largely paid for in advance, and many people feel they should not be extended to recent arrivals.

All this means Europe does not have the ability to accommodate large numbers of immigrants, particularly if they are unskilled and do not understand local laws and customs.

Perhaps the biggest concern though is reproduction differences. In some European countries Muslim immigrants are having three times are many children as indigenous Europeans. As the problems in Palestine show, major differences in reproduction rates between ethnic groups will eventually lead to serious conflict, and the only solution is to keep the different groups apart.

The Europeans do have a right to demand that immigrants adhere to local values, but while you can make it compulsory to learn the local language in schools, its not really possible to force people to integrate if they don’t want to. Just because non-English speaking European immigrants responded to aggressive assimilation policies in the United States during the first half of the 20th Century, does not mean non-European Muslim immigrants will respond in the same way.

Since many Muslim immigrants appear unwilling or unable to integrate, the only options are to curtail further Muslim immigration, introduce voluntary repatriation schemes, and increase incentives for indigenous Europeans to have more children.

A major reason why European birth rates have fallen so low, is the high cost of housing in western Europe, and the dire shortage of housing in Eastern Europe (a legacy of Soviet-era mismanagement). Economic libertarians may loathe to admit it, but subsidised housing was a major factor in the demographic growth that occurred in Europe and Australasia after the end of WWII. (It’s an interesting irony that many baby-boomer libertarians might not have existed if it wasn’t for state subsidised housing!).

If the EU started an ambitious programme to provide more subsidised housing in Eastern Europe, it would help to ease the overcrowding in parts of Western Europe, while providing housing and work opportunities for young Eastern Europeans who are presently flooding west and competing for the limited number of low-skilled jobs with low-income Europeans and recent Muslim immigrants.

2 Comments | Europe, Immigration, Islam | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman