The one thing that Europe has in common with America is the thorny issue of immigration, especially the problem of Muslim immigration. Europeans are also facing the problem of sub-Saharan African immigration, which is a different problem. Black Africans are not yet forming up terrorist rings and threatening to destroy Western civilization, at least not on purpose. The daily drumbeat of terrorism stories we see in the news are all tied to Islam and its hostility to Western civilization. The fact is, Islam is incompatible with the West.
The question that never gets asked is why are European politicians so wedded to the idea of open borders, when it means Muslim immigration? Letting Poles move from their homelands to London, as tradesman, is one thing. There’s an economic argument there, not a good one, but at least there’s an argument. Making it easy for Mercedes to build car parts in Slovakia has an economic argument to it. Again, it is a fallacious argument, but you can see how some people, especially politicians, could be dull enough to fall for it.
There’s no economic argument for importing Syrians or Turks. Muslims are overwhelmingly represented on the welfare roles. In Denmark, people from MENA countries make up 5% of the population, but consume 40% of welfare benefits. This is a story across Europe. It is not just the new arrivals. Turks in Germany have been there for a couple of generations and have been the worst performing economic group in the country. Estimates put the total working population at 20%, while the rest live off welfare benefits. Then there is the issue of sky high Muslim crime rates.
There is no economic argument in favor of importing these people. Businesses that want cheap labor have options within Europe. Like US companies, global European firms have used Asia for slave labor in the old dirty industries. Just like Silicon Valley, European tech firms have used indentured servants from India and China to undercut domestic wages and dodge local labor laws. The fact is, human capital from MENA countries has little value in modern, Western countries. The only people benefiting from the importation of them are security firms and prison builders.
That leads to the other possible reason the political class is in love with mass immigration from Muslim countries. Is there popular support for importing these people, despite their uselessness as citizens? Again, there’s no data to suggest this is the case. European leaders could have put the issue to the voters, but they fanatically avoid it. In fact, anyone who dares run on the issue is branded a Nazi. Politicians love democracy when they are assured of winning. They avoid it when they are assured of losing. Therefore, it is safe to assume they don’t think this is a winner for them.
What makes the political math crazy is the polling shows quite clearly that the majority of the public would support a ban on further Muslim immigration. Clever politicians could easily dress such a thing up in flowery language and have a winning issue. Even not-so-clever politicians could simply call for a halt to further immigration, without naming Muslims directly. One of the French candidates could cut Le Pen off at the knees by simply adopting a restriction position on immigration. Yet, all of them go the other way.
If it is not good economics or good politics, why is the European ruling class hell bent on replacing their native population with openly hostile foreigners? Mass insanity is the tempting response, but that’s just another way of blaming magic. If it were mass insanity, it would have some sort of external cause, like a virus that strikes middle-aged white politicians. How come it only seems to cause hyper-altruism among people in political power? It’s a fun thing to say, but it is not fruitful speculation.
A better answer may be that this is the inevitable result of the feminization of Western civilization. The most important country in Europe is ruled by a barren old women, who started out in life as a communist. The most masculine politician in France is Marie Le Pen. Germany’s opposition party is led by a mousy little wood nymph named Frauke Petry. Even the Brits turned to a woman to lead them out of Europe after the Bexit vote and the collapse of Cameron’s government. The West is now a matriarchy.
Look at the reaction to Donald Trump among the ruling class of the United States. He is detested, mostly by upper class women. Their reason is he has a penis and enjoys using it. As a comparison, Le Pen’s support is lowest among upper middle-class women in France. Sweden, which now runs on the principles of the womyn’s studies department at your local university, is also the poster child fro immigration restriction. The broads in charge of that country have destroyed at least two of their cities with Muslim migrants.
The fact, men and women are different cognitively and well as physiologically. This is not just old school male chauvinism. It is solid science. Women like drama and emotional theater. They also like the idea of the alpha male coming to their rescue. Put women in charge of a country and they will set about creating danger and chaos so that the males will come rescue them. That’s where the swarthy rapists from the south come in. Europe and America settled their differences and ran out of dragons to slay, so the gals created new one in the form of Muslim lunatics imported into the West.
The trouble is the men of the political class are mostly pussies. Look at the men in positions of authority in the West. Barak Obama was a wigger dork. Paul Ryan is a ridiculous pussy, afraid of his own shadow. The males in Western politics are effeminate, fragile peopel, who spent their youth in the library. There are no tough guys, former soldiers or adventurers in Western politics. It’s all power-skirts and the men who secretly wish to dress like them. The result is the female side is creating drama and the male side is sobbing in the corner, promising to hold the camera steady.