I have no idea either. Everything people provide as an explanation is a description of the consequences. I have not yet seen a remotely interesting or convincing explanation of the causes.
Henry Nowak’s father praised inclusivity and blamed “knife crime” for the murder of his son. Mollie Tibbetts’ father prattled excitedly about “better food” that immigrants contribute. These young people were murdered by migrants in extremely brutal ways. Their parents then immediately proceeded to make a mockery of their own children’s brutal deaths by spouting replacist slogans.
And yes, I know that there are special governmental services that work with victims of these crimes to make them say convenient things. But so what? I’m surrounded by people at work who look like they bit into a lemon whenever anybody says the words “white people.” I went on Facebook not three minutes ago and discovered a post by a parishioner from my church, a homeschooling Orthodox mother of five, ranting against deportations of illegal criminals. “They are Americans just like us,” she wrote. People absolutely sincerely and genuinely want to undo their civilization and replace themselves. I respect Auron for honestly saying he can’t understand this. I can’t either.
Clarissa's Blog 
From this far after the fact it’s hard to get a read on it.
There were policy changes involved. Who was responsible for those, and did they write about it?
LikeLike
Secular humanism, that’s what happened. Or, if you prefer, virtue-signalling empathy.
In the words of the admirable Flannery O’Connor: “in the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness”, and “when tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chambers”.
It’s the basic principle underlying many of the horrors of human history:”doing it for your own good”; the Inquisition, the French Revolution, Marxism, the Communist Utopia, and all the other great schemes where someone, totally blinded by his monstrously mistaken good intentions, insists on deciding what should be good for you, whether you like it or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://x.com/i/status/2062389260892672443
LikeLike
“And yes, I know that there are special governmental services that work with victims of these crimes to make them say convenient things.”
Kid, given your childhood, you should recognise authoritarian efforts to force one to lie or to hide one’s thoughts…and it doesn’t matter if it is fascist or communist, because ultimately it is all same, same. Remove those preventing building utopia ;-D
LikeLike
https://x.com/i/status/2062024718262075898
This is verbatim what Tucker Carlson’s brother is saying at that same event. And then people will tell me Tucker is not a raging leftie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To me the explanation is very simple and I would be curious why you probably think this does not apply.
People in the West just do not have enough children. If we stopped immigration here in Switzerland (and there is a chance we will do this, there is referendum next Sunday), the population pyramid would evolve in a way that there are not enough working adults compared to retired people. And so the pension system would stop working. Also there would be a shortage of workers in professions like health care, care for elderly people, gastronomy, but also in certain highly specialized, educated jobs where our economy depends on expats/immigrants.
So if we stopped immigration, old people would have to work much longer and would experience worse health care, the economy would certainly start to shrink with the known side effects of having less money for education etc. It would be like in Japan, a society of old people with little innovation.
That is the argument used here and this is why I voted no on that referendum. I see it like this: Sadly our society and values have evolved in a way that makes people very reluctant to have children. So we have to import people from old-fashioned, patriarchical societies because despite everything we dislike about them, they still have a lot of children. And we need these children. We are perhaps too spoilt and lazy to keep up our standard of living ourselves and that is why we need immigration. There are negative side effects of the immigration, of course. But there are also very negative side effects of cars (with a lot of preventable deaths per years), of pollution etc. and we still as a society have apparently decided having cars is worth the cost because it helps the economy. In the same way immigration has costs, but also benefits and we as a society decided that this is worth it.
You seem to think it is not worth it and that is a possible position, but it is not necessarily the most rational one. If I could decide I would instead abolish non-electric cars, open fires, pesticides etc. etc. because I think the cost is too high for the benefit, but also this is perhaps not entirely rational but because of my personal values.
I’d be curious what you think!
LikeLike
My dearest friend. Yes, this argument has existed for years and has been promoted aggressively. However, it is utterly spurious. The immigrants that are being massively brought into developed countries are very specifically of the kind that cannot contribute to the modern economy. Friedrich Mertz said recently that Germans will have to delay retirement in spite of millions of Muslims being inflicted in Germany since 2015.
https://newstime.joyn.de/themen/politik/merz-wir-werden-laenger-arbeiten-muessen-32920
In Denmark, Non-Western immigrants and their descendants often show significantly higher welfare dependency and large negative net fiscal contributions compared to natives or Western immigrants. A detailed projection study found non-Western immigrants impose a substantial net cost (e.g., billions of euros annually in aggregate, driven by lower employment and higher transfers
Click to access dp8844.pdf
In Netherlands, migrants have large negative lifetime net fiscal impacts (often €200k–€400k+ per person in some estimates), due to lower labor participation and higher benefit use.
In Sweden, migrants receive up to 4 to 6 times the assistance from the state that natives receive. They also show much lower workplace participation. The data regarding low workplace participation of migrants bears out in Germany.
Click to access D6.3-The-net-fiscal-contributions-of-foreigners-in-Germany.pdf
Instead of saving the European welfare system, migrants are destroying it. This happens because the number of people does not automatically translate into the number of workers. The only thing it translates into is the number of people on welfare. You have added to your already overburdened welfare system an enormous number of new recipients who will need an unprecedented amount of resources, including policing, courts, family services, and so on into infinity. People, my dearest friend, are not interchangeable widgets. You cannot simply bring people who breed more aggressively and expect them to integrate into existing cultures and economies. This is simply not how it works. You have just imported, or voted to import, as in your case, an enormous underclass, with which you will have now been saddled in perpetuity, deriving no benefit and handing over to this underclass the benefits that you used to have.
I provide only a very small sampling of links about the very high net cost and very low economic contribution of migrants. There are many more. This has been studied for many years now. There is absolutely no data and no experiences that you can observe in the countries who have been doing this for a long time that mass migration is doing anything but destroying welfare and overburdening the economy with people who cannot possibly integrate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also want to mention that Somalians, which is a very small migrant community here in the United States, consume billions in welfare, contribute in extraordinarily high numbers to crime, and are a gigantic drain on the economy. Curiously every developed country seems to want Somalians as immigrants. These countries, however, would never even consider having people like me, my husband, or my sister, all highly productive and at least two of us in the kind of professions that are extremely needed by the modern economy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So I checked the numbers for Switzerland and found the following.
The number of retired people will increase by 26% in the next ten years. The number of working people will only increase by 2% in the same time span. This is even with immigration. Without immigration, the number of working people would be shrinking. Since in our pension system, working people pay the retired people, the system would have to be abandoned or painfully reformed without immigration.
In our case, 70% of immigration is from the EU and those immigrants are net payers into the welfare system, the rest is from other countries and you are right that those work at a lower % than Swiss people. But since we have good public schools and there is some (probably not enough) effort to integrate people well the % of working immigrants from non-EU states in the second generation is closer to those of the Swiss population according to the official numbers. Whether or not they are net payers over their life is hard to find out from the statistics.
As I said, I agree there are downsides to immigration. But what is the alternative if we want to keep our pension system and our economy with a dramatically shrinking/retiring population?
The Germans will have to work longer despite immigration, that is true, but as I understand it they would have to work even longer without it…
But we might be talking about slightly different things anyway. Our referendum wants to cap the population at 10 million and does not distinguish between EU and non-EU immigration, and I guess you are mainly opposed to non-EU immigration?
LikeLike
The median IQ in Somalia is 67-71. In Ghana it’s 64-67. In Switzerland it’s 100-104. Which is why Switzerland is Switzerland and Ghana is Ghana.
Every year I train a Kenyan, a Moroccan, and a Ukrainian to teach at my department. Each of these people achieved a Master’s degree in their country. Training them, however, is a dramatically different experience. The suggestion to go to the website, find information about their course, and copy/paste that into the syllabus leads to extremely different results in all of these cases. A public school system cannot change it as evidenced by persistent generational differences in IQ among groups, for example in the United States. The post I recently published about the Academic Awards Lottery is one of the many efforts we make to address precisely this issue.
Beyond the economic concerns and the sheer impossibility of integrating certain groups into the digital economy, let’s remember that we’re talking about people and not cardboard boxes. Being torn out of your culture, your language, your network of connections, the familiar landscape, the familiar food, and so on is an enormous blow to the human psyche. This is why I am opposed to mass migration from anywhere to anywhere else. Unless you can remove the native population and recreate the society and the culture of the migrant’s origin, the results are not going to be pretty. America, Canada, and Australia, for example, were created precisely as a result of the removal of the native population and the recreation of England in New England, in New Hampshire, and so on.
Here is a small anecdotal example. Our new priest is Ukrainian. He immigrated to Canada 30 years ago at the age of 22. He’s Ukrainian with a standard Ukrainian IQ so he has been extremely successful economically in Canada. So here’s that economic success story of an immigrant who never used any welfare and has contributed economically a lot. His English, however, is at the low intermediate level and he has no French. He’s making huge efforts to attract Russian speakers to the church because he only feels comfortable among them. At lunch he sits at the table with the Russian speakers while American parishioners hang around, sad and abandoned. He lights up whenever I approach him at Communion and there is only one reason for that: it’s the language. This is an immigration success story of a person who, 30 years after leaving his country of origin, does not feel at home with anybody except fellow immigrants who share his language and culture.
As for the pension system and the welfare state, they were a short-lived and wonderful byproduct of the nation-state. They are not going to survive. What I recommend is doing what I do and investing in the stock market to ensure that you personally have money to live on after you retire. Everything else is going away. Mass migration is going to hasten this process but with or without it, the welfare system of the nation-state is dying everywhere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s an update from Brussels on the amazing success of the integration of second and third generation of migrants into the economy:
https://x.com/i/status/2062523403102236912
I have a similar update from France, if people are interested.
LikeLike
” pension system and the welfare state …. are not going to survive”
It’s hard not to think that a lot of non-western immigration is precisely about that – collapsing things like pensions, social benefits, public education, even infrastructure.
LikeLike
Yes and it’s actually quite smart: you justify mass migration by the need to preserve the welfare state and then you use mass migration to take apart the welfare state.
What I find hard to understand is the persistence of the belief that mass migration is helping keep the welfare state in place. There have been years of very intense mass migration. It’s impossible not to notice the exploding crime rates, the rapes, the murders, the horrible things that are happening. It’s impossible not to notice that austerity has not diminished but increased in these years. Yet people still think that they are saving the pensions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Investing in the stock market is how pension funds were invented in 17th century Holland.
LikeLike
The subject deserves a proper historical analysis. But offhand I would say: the Holocaust and defeat of the Axis were a turning point. As codified I think in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, ethnic identity and ethnonationalism were denigrated in favor of universalist humanism, especially within the western bloc, which was entirely under the influence of the United States. That set the scene.
There must have been a turning point from the mid-1960s forward, which is when the US began broader immigration. It must have fit the 1960s zeitgeist along with domestic anti-racism. There’s also the global village sensibility, easily seeing and traveling across borders thanks to modern communication and transportation, which encouraged seeing the world as one, an attitude consciously articulated among some elite liberals of the kind who have charitable foundations (e.g. Rockefellers).
In the decades since then, this one-world worldview has just compounded, while also finding support from economists who believe in the fungibility of all humans, the demographic weakness of western populations, the growth ambitions of national oligarchs who want populations as large as possible (e.g. the “movement” for a Canada of 100 million). The main political impetus has clearly been coming from the “centre-left” parties like US Democrats and UK Labor, Tony Blair’s people apparently thinking they were on an electoral winner by bringing in as many non-whites as possible (although the center-right parties have been happy to join in, with the economic rationales).. And all this kept going until the problems piled up and created the Brexit-Trump break with liberalism as such in 2015-2016.
Commenters like Walnut would undoubtedly say that the Elders of Zion are the ultimate ringleaders, but I would say it’s more the technological conditions which made it easy to start dissolving borders, the same as how drones are changing warfare simply because they now exist. Jewish liberals have definitely been pioneering and enthusiastic advocates for mass immigration and a borderless world, but I think technology and liberalism in general are the structural forces which led towards the neoliberal utopia of borderless individuals.
LikeLike