By Max Musson:
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
For most people the concept of ‘our nation’ is inextricably linked to notions of common ancestry and common cultural heritage, and it is therefore understandable that most people are alarmed or at least concerned by the volume and extent of non-White immigration into Britain and more widely into other European countries from the Third World, primarily Africa and Southern Asia. Governments however have sought to allay this alarm and concern by playing down the obvious racial and cultural differences and by pointing to alleged economic advantages supposedly associated with immigration. We are told for example that immigrants are willing to do the jobs that our indigenous people are not prepared to do, and that despite their willingness to work for lower wages depressing wage rates, this factor has the effect of stimulating the economy, thereby making us all better off.
Such arguments are repeated often, but no-one actually explains in understandable terms, how the existence of a pool of cheap labour actually provides a benefit to the wider public. The reason for this is that such benefits are a fiction and that no-one actually benefits from mass immigration other than the immigrants themselves and the unscrupulous employers who wish to exploit their presence in our country.
Economic Fundamentals
Firstly, it is often said if we copy what the Americans do, we can have a society that is as prosperous as that of the USA, but this is not entirely true, not in the sense that the proponents of mass immigration and multiracialism mean it.
All other things being equal, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a nation is limited by the natural resources available to them, and therefore the GDP per capita – a rough measure of individual wealth on average – can be estimated by comparing the land available per head of population.
In the USA for example, there is a population of approximately 321 million people living in a country composed of 2.4 billion acres of land. This means that each person living within the USA has on average the benefit of the natural resources of (2.4 billion divided by 321 million = ) 7.47 acres of land, and the GDP per capita of the USA is approximately $56,000 per annum.
Within the EU by contrast, there is a population of 508 million people living within a land mass of just 1.1 billion acres. This means that each person living within the EU has on average the benefit of the natural resources of just (1.1 billion divided by 508 million = ) 2.16 acres of land, and the GDP per capita of the EU is approximately $32,000 per annum.
The very fact that each American has on average the benefit of the natural resources of 7.47 acres of land compared to just 2.16 acres for the European, means that all other things being equal, Europeans will never achieve the same standard of living as that achieved in the USA. Only if the nations of the EU were to reduce our populations down in total to just 147 million, i.e. reduce them by half and so that there would then be 7.47 acres of land per person, could we in Europe match the Americans in terms of living standards.
Secondly, the population of people capable of being supported on any given area of land depends upon the intensity with which the land is exploited, which again is dependent upon the level of technological development of the people concerned.
For example, if a population has Stone Age technology and a hunter gatherer lifestyle, the yield in terms of food etc., derived from each acre of land will be low and it will therefore require a large acreage to support each person. It is estimated that depending upon the environment, at least 250 acres of land are required to sustain each person in a hunter gatherer society. By comparison, early farmers where able to survive on approximately 25 acres of land per person; modern farmers need less than 10 acres per person and with the most intensive forms of modern agriculture it requires just 0.25 acres of land per person.
As we can perhaps deduce, when hunter gatherer groups find themselves in competition with farming communities, the farmers inevitably prevail, because they are able to raise and sustain far more people per acre of land and they therefore eventually overwhelm the hunter gatherers by sheer weight of numbers.
The level of technological development of the population of the EU is roughly comparable to that of the USA and so an acre of land in the USA will all other things being equal produce a yield that is comparable to that of an acre of land in Europe. Americans are on average wealthier than Europeans simply because they have more land and therefore more natural resources available to them per person. However there was not always the technological parity that exists today.
The Founding of the USA and the American Dream
At the time of the founding of the USA, the economic development of Europe had reached something of a plateau in that farming and mining and the harvesting of Europe’s natural resources was based upon the technology of the time close to being maxed-out and this meant that if the peoples of Europe were to further increase in number, we needed new virgin land to exploit. The discovery of the Americas was therefore a God-send.
With the exception of some parts of Central and Southern America, the two continents of the Americas were relatively sparsely inhabited by Amerindian tribes, many of whom were hunter gatherers and many of whom were nomadic with no permanent settlements, as their lifestyle hunting bison and other game animals, required them to follow the herds of migrating prey.
As we all know, there are significant racial and cultural differences between the Amerindians and the European settlers, which resulted in fighting between the two populations, much to the Amerindian’s cost, but let us for the sake of this examination based on economic analysis, ignore such factors.
From the standpoint of economic development and in comparison with Europe, the continent of North America was vastly under exploited and it must have been evident right from the start that if the immigrants could construct a ‘new Europe’ and employ the same intensive farming, fishing, mining and construction practices that had been developed in their homelands, it would be possible for hundreds of millions of new people to be supported and profitably employed in this new ‘land of opportunity and plenty’.
By the middle of the last century a ‘new Europe’ had been created in North America and though the population of the USA for example had risen massively, there was still unexploited or under-exploited land available which could accommodate and provide a high standard of living for even more people.
What we see here is that in a situation where there is plenty of vacant land or land that is under-utilised, and where there are no racial and or cultural differences between peoples, immigration can proceed in such a way that everyone benefits. The new immigrants do not deprive the existing indigenous population of resources and through the creation of new communities and new settlements, greater opportunities to prosper are created, and with regard to the USA this was what gave birth to the notion of the ‘American Dream’. The American Dream was not the result of a ‘melting-pot’, of a land full of disparate immigrant groups, it was simply the inevitable outcome of a vast untapped wilderness suddenly becoming available to large numbers of people who were able to apply intensive farming, mining, fishing, construction and manufacturing practices to realise the benefits of rich natural resources that had hitherto been scarcely touched.
In reality, the Founding of the USA however brought about the genocide of the Amerindians, not just because they were racially and culturally different and because of the rivalries and enmities created, were hunted and driven almost to extinction, but also because the introduction of intensive farming, fishing, mining and construction practices meant that the immigrants rapidly expanded in number, literally ‘crowding’ the Amerindian hunter gatherers off their own land.
We can therefore deduce that while mass immigration into North America did produce a massive increase in GDP per capita for the resultant population, and could therefore be hailed as an ‘economic success’, the indigenous Amerindian peoples’ participation in the enjoyment of that new wealth was minimal and came to them at great cost. Despite some recent small scale reversals of fortune, Amerindian peoples have been displaced and until recently, completely marginalised by the mass immigration into their country. There is a salutary lesson to be learned here for indigenous peoples who find their homeland being colonised by people able to sustain a faster rate of reproduction, because although some people of aboriginal Amerindian ancestry still remain within the USA, they are almost all of mixed ancestry, part Amerindian, part European and part Negro. In genetic terms, they have been virtually obliterated.
Mass Immigration into Modern Europe
Modern Europe is vastly different to the Americas of the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. Far from being a continent largely composed of untapped virgin wilderness into which large numbers of people can be absorbed and even larger numbers of people born, it is a densely populated region already intensively farmed and in which the natural resources of the land are already being exploited to maximum capacity. There is no scope here to replicate the ‘American Dream’ within a European context.
Furthermore, the newcomers to Europe are not people bringing with them new and more sophisticated technologies that will enable a greater yield to be extracted from the land. The newcomers are relatively speaking and on average, poorer than the indigenous peoples of Europe, less well educated and practicing cultures that are not only different, but based upon lifestyles that are outmoded if not primitive by European standards.
Europe, particularly Central and North-Western Europe, and Britain in particular are already largely maxed-out in terms of the exploitation of the land and therefore, the arrival of new immigrants does not increase the size of the ‘cake’, it merely necessitates the ‘cake’ being divided into an increasing number of increasingly small ‘slices’ per person.
If for example we assume that the British Isles is already producing 1,000 million ‘units of wealth’ during any given time frame, and this wealth is divided between a population of 50 million people, then each person will enjoy (1,000 divided by 50 = ) 20 units.
If over time the population is increased through immigration by 10 million people, that 1,000 million units of wealth will then be divide among 60 million people, giving each person just 16.67 units. Mass immigration is making us poorer on average.
Economists will argue that the arrival of immigrants will make the economy larger, because instead of providing for just 50 million people, the economy will provide for 60 million, yet this can only happen if there are as yet untapped natural resources in terms of land and mineral that the arrival of the new immigrants can realise the benefit of. If no such untapped natural resources exist, as is the case with Britain today, any apparent increase in GDP is merely an illusion conjured through false accounting and flawed economic analysis.
If we assume that the arrival of further immigrants will increase the volume of work that can be done, converting imported raw materials into export goods that can then be sold abroad to raise foreign currency, then it could be argued that they might increase the size of the national ‘cake’, however, by and large, this is not what has been happening. Most European countries have virtually stagnant economies in terms of economic growth, most barely out of recession with minimal annual or quarterly growth. The ‘cake’ simply isn’t getting bigger, or if it is, not by enough to accommodate the increase in population cause by immigration.
What is actually happening is that certain jobs have not been filled because the employers concerned do not want to pay a liveable wage and too few people from within the indigenous population can afford to take up work on those meagre terms. These jobs are then termed ‘work that the indigenous people do not want to do’, and the vacancies are filled by immigrants who are often single people able to make ends meet by living in multiple occupancy, barrack-room style accommodation, and in extreme cases living in ‘hot bed’ accommodation in which three people use the same bed for eight hours each day while working rotating eight hour shifts.
In other scenarios, unscrupulous employers make their indigenous employees ‘redundant’ and then later employ new immigrant workers to do the same work on lower wages. Such employment practices enable the employer firms to make greater profits and in a minority of cases win work from abroad that their newly lower operational cost allow them to, but such ‘gains’ are then negated because the indigenous workers that have been made unemployed, and their families, are left with no option but to claim state welfare benefits.
There are people who say, they don’t mind immigrants coming to our country as long as they are prepared to work, but what is the difference between a situation in which an immigrant comes into our country to claim welfare benefits, verses a situation in which the immigrant obtains work by being prepared to work for inadequate wages and in doing so puts one of our people out of work, who will then be forced to claim benefits in his place?
Let there be no mistake, in a country such as Britain and in most other European countries, in which there is virtually zero economic growth, and in which the natural resources of the countries concerned are already fully exploited, each additional immigrant simply requires the national ‘cake’ to be divided into increasingly smaller ‘slices’ per person and through this process the indigenous peoples of Britain and Europe are being displaced, impoverished and increasingly marginalised in our society by immigrant communities whose sole advantage in the competition for jobs, rests upon their willingness to work for less.
The Immigrant ‘Entrepreneur’
We are often told of immigrants who bring to Britain a ‘talent for making money’, sometimes described as a ‘talent for generating wealth’, and we are told that these people are responsible for ‘enriching our society’ by providing employment for others. I have dealt with this issue in great detail before in an earlier article, which I would advise our readers to revisit.
Almost without exception, such ‘entrepreneurs’ were unable to ‘create wealth’ in their homelands and were unable even, to accumulate wealth, because in their homelands they were members of the majority community and were not able to benefit from Organised Minority Advantage (OMA). Only when they came to Britain or another European country, in which they became members of a minority community, were they able to take advantage of OMA, and rather than ‘create’ wealth, they simply accumulated it under the influence of OMA and at the expense of the host community.
If these ‘entrepreneurs’ were actually able to create wealth, they would have been able to do that in their ethnic homelands and there would have been no reason for them to migrate to Europe. Their presence in Europe does not ‘create’ additional wealth, it is their ‘minority status’ and their belonging to an ‘organised minority’, in which the individual members give preference to fellow members of their minority community that enables them to acquire wealth that already existed and which was originally created by the indigenous European peoples.
We don’t want or need immigrants to come to our country to work, because their presence here will deprive our people of work and will drive down wages. We don’t want them to come here and become wealthy ‘entrepreneurs’ either, because in reality they do not ‘create’ wealth, they simply acquire it for themselves and the minority communities to which they belong, and they acquire it at our expense.
We don’t want or need Third World immigrants. We don’t want or need them for economic reasons and we certainly don’t want them for racial and social reasons and for reasons of national interest. We need them to go back to their own lands.
By Max Musson © 2015
# # # #