Note: This post was a “sticky” feature, and was on top for a couple of days. Scroll down for more recent material, including the news feeds.
A few days ago I stumbled across a batch of statistical data on European migration that has been uploaded to the European Commission’s official statistics website, EuroStat. The website has made the data available in .TSV format, which means it can easily be imported into Excel or an Access database.
The site provided me with migration statistics, in terms of asylum applications filed, for the last few years. A comparison by year looked promising — from year to year you can see the German figure double, then double again, and then in 2015 reach a stratospheric level. But that type of analysis is time-consuming, so instead I decided to gather some additional data elements to line up with the asylum applications for 2015 — the year when the Great European Migration Crisis began.
Wikipedia provided useful tables of population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for European countries. The GDP amounts I used were from 2013, because that was the most recent year for which complete figures were available. That gave me three variables that could be compared with one another and displayed on color-coded maps.
One of the most interesting statistics available for examination was the number of migrants per capita in the various European countries. I thought I knew which country would be #1, above Germany even: Sweden. But when I collated the results, I was in for a surprise.
Let’s start out with the demographics. Here’s a map of Europe color-coded for population. Rather than label the countries with their names — which would be time-consuming, and difficult for tiny countries such as Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, etc. — I numbered them and provided a key at the top. The greyed-out countries are the ones for which data were not available; it seems the EuroStat agency only collects figures for the Schengen Area. I left out Liechtenstein, since it was really too small to represent.
The countries with the most intense blue have the largest populations. Germany, of course, is #1:
(Click to enlarge)
And here’s a list of the top ten most populous countries, in descending order:
| Country | Population (Millions) | |
| Germany | 80.72 | |
| France | 66.03 | |
| United Kingdom | 64.10 | |
| Italy | 60.78 | |
| Spain | 46.70 | |
| Poland | 38.48 | |
| Romania | 19.94 | |
| Netherlands | 16.86 | |
| Belgium | 11.20 | |
| Greece | 10.82 |
Now let’s consider their relative wealth, as measured by per-capita GDP:
(Click to enlarge)
This time Luxembourg heads the list, followed by Norway and Switzerland. Despite its being such an economic powerhouse, Germany is all the way down at #8:
| Country | Per-capita GDP 2013 (thousands USD) | |
| Luxembourg | 91.05 | |
| Norway | 65.64 | |
| Switzerland | 56.94 | |
| Netherlands | 46.16 | |
| Ireland | 45.68 | |
| Austria | 45.08 | |
| Sweden | 44.65 | |
| Germany | 43.89 | |
| Denmark | 43.78 | |
| Iceland | 42.04 |
Our third variable is migration, as measured by the number of initial asylum applications. The countries with the most immigrants are the greenest ones on the map:
(Click to enlarge)
As expected, Germany is at the top of the list, with almost half a million initial asylum applications. But notice that Hungary is #2, ahead of Sweden and Austria:
| Country | Asylum Applications 2015 (thousands) | |
| Germany | 476.51 | |
| Hungary | 177.14 | |
| Sweden | 162.45 | |
| Austria | 88.16 | |
| Italy | 84.08 | |
| France | 75.75 | |
| Netherlands | 44.97 | |
| Belgium | 44.66 | |
| Switzerland | 39.45 | |
| United Kingdom | 38.80 |
The gross number of migrants is not the most interesting figure, however; we learn more from the number of migrants relative to each country’s population. As we all know, Sweden is a small country, population-wise, yet it has absorbed a huge number of migrants. So the number of asylum applications per capita is the most interesting figure.
And this is where it gets surprising: Sweden is not #1 in this list:
(Click to enlarge)
That’s right: Hungary heads the list, with almost 18 asylum applications for every 1,000 residents. Sweden is second with just under 17. Germany is #6, after Austria, Norway, and Finland. It processed slightly less than six applications per thousand of population — that’s less than a third of the number processed by Hungary:
| Country | Asylum Applications 2015 per thousand pop | |
| Hungary | 17.93 | |
| Sweden | 16.72 | |
| Austria | 10.37 | |
| Norway | 6.06 | |
| Finland | 5.91 | |
| Germany | 5.90 | |
| Switzerland | 4.82 | |
| Luxembourg | 4.56 | |
| Malta | 4.13 | |
| Belgium | 3.99 |
But it gets even more interesting when we look at the relative wealth of the countries with the greatest per-capita figures for migrants. Hungary has just slightly more than half the per-capita GDP of Germany, which means that processing all those migrants really hurts, financially speaking.
In order to look at the migrant load relative to wealth, I divided the GDP for the country by the number of asylum applicants. To get an intuitive feel for these numbers, think of the GDP as the country’s bank balance, which means the figure represents the maximum amount that can be spent on each migrant. Rich countries can spend more, obviously, but a relatively poor country that takes in almost no migrants may have a lot of money available to spend on each of those few culture-enrichers.
In order to make the GDP/migrants differences more visible in the map below, I had to use a logarithmic scale to assign the level of color. The most intense yellow means that the country has the least money to spend per refugee — i.e., the greatest level of hardship:
(Click to enlarge)
Once again, Hungary tops the list. It has less than half the GDP per migrant than Sweden, which is in second place. Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, and Malta also have less resources than Germany, which has almost six times the resources per migrant as Hungary:
| Country | GDP (millions USD) per asylum applicant | |
| Hungary | 1.30 | |
| Sweden | 2.67 | |
| Austria | 4.35 | |
| Bulgaria | 5.69 | |
| Finland | 6.74 | |
| Malta | 7.05 | |
| Germany | 7.43 | |
| Belgium | 10.42 | |
| Norway | 10.84 | |
| Switzerland | 11.81 |
At $1.3 million per migrant, if the situation became much worse, Hungary would be literally unable to pay for the associated costs, even if it taxed all its citizens and corporations at 100% and employed every citizen in the care and feeding of migrants.
No wonder Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has fought so tenaciously against the refugee quotas and other migration-related diktats from Brussels.
For readers who are interested in the raw data, I’ve uploaded the full table in PDF format.
What can and can’t be learned from these numbers
I used the number of asylum applications to measure the amount of migration, because that’s what’s available. Migrants who enter a country without applying are not accounted for by these statistics. By definition, there is no reliable way to count them. Estimating the total number of people entering is very difficult. Aside from using statistical analysis of aerial photos of the flow through border crossings, I can’t think of any way to quantify the actual number of those who arrive.
Furthermore, these numbers don’t tell us the final destination of all those asylum-seekers who were registered when they arrived in the Schengen Area. Anecdotally, we know that the vast majority of them wanted to continue to Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. But how many actually did?
EU rules forbid member states from penning up the arrivals and not allowing them free movement (although Hungary seems to be ignoring those rules now). Once the refugees went through the crossings and filed the paperwork, they were able to disappear. So where are they now? Berlin? Rotterdam? Malmö? No one can say for sure.
But consider this: almost all the migrants who entered Hungary and applied for asylum had passed through Greece, which is also in the Schengen Area. Yet Greece only registered about 13,000 asylum applications — somewhat over 7% of the number that Hungary recorded.
Why is that?
Schengen rules require the first country that a migrant enters record his asylum application and process it. But Greece didn’t do that. Neither did a lot of the other poorer Schengen countries. They just waved the migrants through to the next country along the route to Berlin.
They broke the rules because that’s what they were instructed to do by Brussels. The Schengen rules were to be ignored so that the migrants might pass as swiftly as possible to Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
The Hungarian government, to its credit, insisted on following the letter of the Schengen law. They stopped the migrants from proceeding until they had filed asylum applications and had them processed. And those who did not qualify for asylum (Moroccans, for example) were slated for deportation.
Mr. Orbán’s punctiliousness did not sit well with Brussels and Berlin. The powers that be in Brussels — with the United States, George Soros, and the whole NWO crowd glowering behind them — ratcheted up the pressure on Hungary until it was forced to allow the new arrivals to proceed without registering.
After that Mr. Orbán, with the approval of Parliament, ordered the construction of the fence, first along the border with Serbia, and then along the border with Croatia. If I am not mistaken, there is even a partial fence now on the border with Romania.
As a result, there will be far fewer applications for asylum in Hungary this year. Which is a good thing — if events had continued in the same direction, Hungary would have been destroyed.
Which was not the intended outcome — the intention is to destroy Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Britain, the power houses of the EU.
Hungary was just collateral damage.
That, in a nutshell, is why Hungary processed 177,000 asylum applications last year. The country was hit hard by the “refugee” crisis, and Viktor Orbán took measures to stanch the bleeding.
Sweden and Germany took big hits, too. But the difference is that they asked for it. They invited in the refugees. They begged them to come in.
Sweden started even before Germany. Years ago, not long after the “Arab Spring” hit Syria, the Swedish government announced that it would take in any Syrians who wanted to escape the war and come to Sweden. First under Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, and then under Stefan Löfven, the Swedes solicited more and more cultural enrichment from the Middle East, leaving the country in the sorry mess that we see today.
Chancellor Angela Merkel was late to the game. A year ago she threw open the door and invited the entire Third World to come to Germany. Millions of Muslims in the Middle East and Africa accepted her invitation, and with the help of George Soros and other interested NGOs, they set off for Europe.
Hungary just happened to be sitting athwart the easiest and most direct route — the “Balkan Route” — from Lesbos to Neukölln. That’s why all the migrants showed up at the border crossing between Serbia and Hungary. And, because Viktor Orbán insisted on abiding by the rules, that’s why Hungary received 177,000 applications for asylum last year.
There’s no doubt that Mr. Orbán interfered with the globalists’ plans. His fence started a trend: Austria and Slovenia began constructing their own fences. The Balkan Route has now been all but closed off. As a result, if the fever-swamp rumors are true, Germany has resorted to flying in the migrants on chartered jets in the dead of night, so that Angela Merkel can get her desired fix of cultural enrichment.
How long can Hungary hold out against the arrayed power of the entire New World Order? If Donald Trump is defeated in November, and President Hillary takes office, the pressure may become unbearable. If he fails to comply with the ukases emanating from Brussels, what will become of Viktor Orbán then?
Well… It’s possible that he may accidentally fall out of a high window, in the Czech tradition. Or he may commit suicide by shooting himself in the back two or three times. Who can say?
The Hungarians are caught between a rock and a hard place. May God help them.
“what will become of Viktor Orbán then?”
We will fight, like we fought so many times in our history. We will fight and maybe die, but we will die free!
One of the famous Orban speech was this year March 15th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0ALwYDY_74
Celebration of one of many bloody revolution where Hungarians risen up against tyranny and enemies of the nation.
There is a Hungarian poet name is associated with 1848 March 15. Sándor Petőfi. His poem became a hymn of the revolution and pretty much burned into the soul of all Hungarian patriots:
National Song
On your feet now, Hungary calls you!
Now is the moment, nothing stalls you,
Shall we be slaves or men set free
That is the question, answer me!
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
Slaves we have been to this hour,
Our forefathers who fell from power
Fell free and lived as free men will,
On land that was their own to till,
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
Whoever now his life begrudges
Deserves his death with thieves and drudges,
For setting his own worthless hide
Above his country’s need and pride.
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
The sword shines brighter than the fetters
It is the finery of our betters,
Of slaves and fetters we grow bored.
Leap to my side, ancestral sword.
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
Magyars, once more our name and story
Shall match our ancestors’ in glory
The centuries of shame and hurt
Can now be washed away like dirt.
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
And wheresoever we may perish
Grandchildren those graves shall cherish
Singing our praises in their prayers
To thank us that our names are theirs.
By all the gods of Hungary
We hereby swear,
That we the yoke of slavery
No more shall wear.
(by Szirtes, George)
Oops accidentally linked in the Polish subtitled version of the video. Here is the English one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is-wgVzc7qw
As a child who attended a Hungarian parochial elementary school in the US, we celebrated Hungarian Independence Day every March 15th with the banner/ theme of “Nem, Nem, Soha!” (No, no, never!). . .as in never again to wear the yolk of the conquered.
Europe should permit Muslims only if they forsake Islam. But that is not such easy especially in a religion like Islam as if ever their fellow religionists come to know about their intention they would slaughter them. But this dilemma can be overcome by adapting the Sanatana way of life as by doing so they need not change their name, diet, customs or undergo purification ceremonies; or say prayer in an alien language or visit places of worship; all these which attract the attention of their neighbours. See http://ilovesanatanadharma.blogspot.in/
Europe should STOP accepting asylum seekers or migrant workers regardless whether they are Moslems or not.
They can stop being Moslems in their countries of origin, that is if they are really serious about it. But then Moslems have been treating their religion like a race. And it is difficult for them to change their racist attitude due to them being genetically racist and also due to the fact that they have been brought up in a supremacist racist Islamic community.
They need to reverse the tide and expel every single last one, they bring nothing, but trouble.
You don’t understand the gist of the article.
The leaders of Europe and its larger, more wealthy countries, are not misguided dunces looking to protect Europe,but doing it badly. They are actively trying to destroy Europe. Their only mitigating factor is to stay in office to complete the job.
The simplest, cheapest, and most effective solution would be to deport or refuse entry to all Muslim and other refugees, obviously. But, that frustrates the design of the leadership and bureaucracy, which is to change the nature of Europe and destroy its nations.
The situation illustrates perfectly the dangers of entering into international unions, whether the UN, the EU, the International Court of Justice, NATO, or the TPP. The unions develop their own bureaucracies independent of elections, and press relentlessly for more money, influence and power.
The very same arguments applied to the creation of the United States through the development of the Constitution. The founding fathers recognized very well the dangers of a federal government, and sought to balance regional state interests with the federal interest. The problem with a weak federation is, it become susceptible to foreign intervention, which was a major factor in developing the federation, rather than the Confederation.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the stresses of regional differences had become so great that the southern states broke off and developed their own country, the Confederacy. Logically speaking, it was neither slavery nor tariffs that motivated the separation, as slavery was protected and tariffs were low before the Confederate states left the union.
Anyway, I personally think we’d all be in a much better situation if the Confederate States had continued to exist as a country. They’d have eliminated slavery 10 or 20 years after the US at most, and we’d have stronger countries on the continent without the stresses and strains generated by trying to standardize the very different cultures of the north and south.
The Confederacy was the weaker country, and they made the very, very fatal mistake of acting as a complete military equal to the north and attacking a federal installation, Fort Sumter. Note to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia: if you thumb your nose at Russia because you’re in NATO, you are jeopardizing your independence and your countries. Sometimes you have to rely on diplomacy and compromise, rather than bluster and confrontation.
Anyway, hopefully Hungry and the other eastern European countries will be able to maintain their independence from the totalitarian EU. Their best strategy is to keep on doing what they’re doing, while paying some lip service to the EU rules. Fortunately, the EU doesn’t have its independent military yet, but I think the EU would love the excuse to request NATO to intervene with the eastern countries. Hillary would be completely compliant; Trump wouldn’t.
And Ukraine… Ukraine looks on the map like a wedge into the heart of Russia, a fact that was not lost on the Russians. Russia would NEVER allow anybody to posses such a wedge. They offered the Ukrainians a forever peace, energy supply and no visible intervention in their independent internal affairs, just for staying neutral or within the Russian sphere of influence. The stupid Ukrainians chose to ignore the facts of life and, boom, they lost the Crimea and the eastern part of their country. If they continue that way, there would be a war and with the current balance of power, the main loser would be Ukraine.
Yes. Thank you for that observation.
To Russians, when they just about surround someone, the part they have surrounded looks like a wedge.
Putin has invaded Georgia twice, and Ukraine twice. Russia has no right to a square inch of either.
Any russian heritage people in Ukraine that want to be part of Russia only have a short train ride to get there.
Hello DonM,
We didn’t justify a Russian invasion of the Ukraine or rationalize a territory grab by Russia.
But, practical politics and diplomacy as they are, it’s a bad idea for close Russian neighbors and former subject nations to become part of NATO and host military installations that could be used against Russia. It’s simply a bad idea for neighbors of a country that has been invaded multiple times with huge losses of life in the past two centuries.
What zackthefrench was saying was that Ukraine would have been fine, with internal freedom and independence, if it had stayed non-aligned.
I’m less familiar with the case of Georgia, but as I remember it, Russia carried out an invasion that was totally unjustified and hugely destructive. I’m not defending Russia. But, Russia has its sphere of interest, and views hostile military alliances right on its border to be a threat to its vital interests. Sometimes, realpolitic dictates discretion is the better part of valor.
If you have an argument that it’s a good idea for Russia’s small neighbors to join a potentially hostile military alliance, I’d genuinely like to hear it.
Putin has invaded Georgia twice? Go reread your recent history; he didn’t invade even once. Georgia invaded S. Ossetia, an autonomous oblast, which was under peace keeping forces from Russia and Georgia. Russians were killed in this attack and the russian army promptly kicked the georgians back across their own border in short order. The then president of Georgia, a CIA asset named Sarkashvili, was subsequently diselected and has now been parachuted by the CIA into the government of Ukraine. Please get some of your information from another source than the NY Times. Thankyou
“Chancellor Angela Merkel was late to the game. A year ago she threw open the door and invited the entire Third World to come to Germany. Millions of Muslims in the Middle East and Africa accepted her invitation”
Not to forget that three generations from the original Gastarbeiter (Guest workers) now have German citizenship and many *still* identify with the increasingly islamic Turkey, instead of really integrating into German culture.
Orban is presented as a fascist by the left-leaning press.
He seems to me to be a nationalist who actually cares about his country.
The very compliant press is following the policy of the mega-governments to set up the eastern European countries for NATO intervention. I don’t think it’s too difficult at this stage to avoid giving the totalitarians their excuse, but stupid leaders at this point could definitely lose big for their countries.
Fascinating analysis. Thank you.
One minor correction: it’s not Schengen rules, but Dublin rules, that regulate the asylum process. Dublin, however, was killed by Mutti mms Merkel.
One more thing: the Balkan route may be closed, but the top secret numbers of illegal migrants are staggering. These numbers are slowly making their way into the papers.
We shouldn’t rest any hope in a closed Balkan route.
But please keep in mind that this is about asylum applications!
Not actually asylum seekers who are still in Hungary.
Almost not a single asylum seeker wants to stay there.
And many have just been registred for the first time in Hungary and made their applications there, because Hungary for them was the first EU-member state they officially entered.
Hungary like all EU-border states is obliged to register them first and also start the asylum procedure.
That`s one of the reasons why “Schengen” doesn`t work.
The migrants in truth enter the EU via Italy or Greece, then sometimes leave the EU fe. by crossing over to Macedonia or Serbia and in Hungary they enter the EU again.
Basically it`s Greece and Italy who dont do what they are entitled to.
And that is why Hungary is pissed off and has closed its borders (to not let them in, and not take them back).
It`s a similar situation with Austria and Italy (at the “Brenner” border station) Italians are transporting the migrants by the thousands into the EU but afterwards tell them to leave their country (to Austria and Switzerland), and the Germans on the other side who send many asylum seekers back to Austria (hundreds every week).
Btw. many migrants will apply for asylum every time they are picked up by the police in a european country.
Its also not uncommon that some have two asylum applications running.
The majority of these people on the move are neither asylum seekers nor migrants. They are invaders.
Yes, of course.
I just didn`t want to sound to harsh in my verdict. 😉
Better yet – accept one migrant ( not economic free loaders from North Africa, Bangladesh or Pakistan) that can prove they are GENUINELY fleeing terror, with genuine documentatation, for every one migrant accepted by Saudis Arabia.
The flow will become a trickle overnight.
Actually, Pakistan has been unusual (if not unique) among Islamic countries in taking in may migrants/refugees, although it’s relatively poor.
The reason for that may just be one of gaining or securing influence in the region.
Many of these refugees are just ethnic Pashtus from neighbouring Afghanistan.
They also get little or no help from the state.
And of course pakistan officials cant controll the border-region anyway.
Its a clan territory.
It`s not humanism that drives them.
Of course Saudi Arabia not accepting a single migrant because it does not make sense to do Hijra into an already Muslim country.
Saudi’s stated justification for refusing even a single Syrian refugee/migrant was “for security reasons”. So Syrians are a security risk for a fellow Muslim country to take in but non-Muslim Europe should accept them in the millions! NOTE that Saudis offered to build 100 more mosques in Europe for the colonists they were sending to achieve conquest by colonization (Hijra).
I think it is not due to “security reasons”. I think it is more due to the fact that they can’t profit from poor refugees/migrants while they see it as more profitable to leech off
Western countries or fund mosques in order to profit more from their eerie colonization in Western countries.
To my knowledge, there has never been a clear cut explanation why any of the U.A.E. would not take their brethren in. Surely that should have been the first question asked by Junker and Merkel.
Why on earth did Hungary go along with this in 2015? Why did they let in THREE times as many as Germany? Then Merkel jumped on the band wagon, why? What’s the globalists’ endgame? If we assume they aren’t pumping for civil war and millions dead, how is flooding their countries with violent, supremacist fighters with an average IQ of 80.0 going to benefit anyone? I understand the globalist project is similar to many leftist causes, destroy the ‘old’ so there’s no going back, and they can then dictate what the ‘new’ world order will be, with themselves in the driver’s seat. It seems a cracked plan doomed to very dire unintended effects.
Hungary could NOT keep out the migrants until it built the fence. That was the problem.
It could either pass the migrants on through to Austria, without registering their asylum applications, or it could follow the Schengen rules. All the other countries chose the former, while Hungary chose the latter.
When Berlin and Brussels increased the pressure on Viktor Orbán, he was forced to yield and allow the migrants to continue into Austria. At the same time, he decided to build the fence, so that the EU and the NWO could no longer put him in such an untenable position.
By the way, I don’t see the point of Trump’s harping on having Mexico pay for the wall. It’s cheap and highly cost-effective, even if the US pays every cent. His supporters don’t really care who pays for it as long as it’s built.
I was thinking a lot why is it good for the NWO to destroy Europe. I think the NWO doesnt need that much qualified smart people. They dont need labour organisation and they dont need democracy. These things just disturb the “business”. The want to replace us with robots and everyone would get monthly a small sum of money to spend as credit. They want to stop any progress and inventions. In the new world there would be the super-rich and the slaves controlled by the super-rich people. They want that everyone except them has an IQ of 80. What do you think is their plan?
I think you got it! They figured if humanity continue to progress the social economical changes will naturally take away the power from them. Also their financial system is running out of steam. They have to do something fast, I guess that is the plan you just described there. For them Islam is the perfect tool for a self policing indoctrination system, killing everyone who dare to question the status quo.
I think you give the “elite” too much credit for rational planning.
My impression is that they are over-educated in the liberal arts and policy studies area, under-educated in the sciences, and discouraged from any creative or original thinking. In other words, they are idiot-savants, adept in political and bureaucratic fighting, but hopelessly naive in any productive enterprise.
The upshot is, they don’t understand genetics and don’t care. They are importing populations for momentary political benefits. They genuinely think the immigrants will adapt in a generation or two, and studiously avoid and ignore any of the literature on the heritability of IQ and character.
They also don’t understand religious fanaticism. They think everyone is, or will become, cynical like themselves with regard to any belief system taking precedence over the individual. The classic model is that of communism. By the 70’s and thereafter, nobody believed in communism who lived under it, especially the leaders, but they maintained the orthodoxy because the pretense kept them in power.
A system steeped in cynicism and self-benefit gives the greatest advantage to genuine sociopaths like Merkel, who see personal power as virtually the only motivating factor. I think Hillary is cut from the same cloth.
I hope you are right and I am wrong. I think the events like migrant crisis are orchestrated events and those people who organise it behind the curtain are evil people not just stupid. If you dont mind I recommend you to read Rudolf Steiners lectures about the manifestation of Ahriman. I really do hope that the elite is only stupid and not evil, because if they are stupid they do less harm when they are evil til we get rid of them.
Where did I say they weren’t evil? I said they were stupid and not well educated, so they didn’t realize the ultimate consequences of their policies. Now, what they would do if they were scientifically literate: I don’t know.
But, you’re giving them credit for thinking ahead. You say they only want consumers with an IQ of 80 or less, so they, the elites, can rule the world without challenge.
This implies rational planning for the future, however evil it it. It’s also deeply mistaken. If you have passive consumers so you can make money producing goods, why not do away entirely with the consumers? Why would someone profit from producing goods for someone with no means of paying them?
Anyway, I think the planning to which you’re referring is generally beyond the capacity of most of the leadership of the Western world. I just don’t think they look that far ahead. They know importing primitive people increases their constituency. Also, the businesses are able to get cheap labor and socialize the welfare costs. I think, however, the businesses are overestimating the value of immigrant labor. The kind of peoples they’re importing will be a net deficit for any business employing them, even with the education, medical, and welfare costs picked up by the state.
Does pure evil factor into the mess? I think it does. George Soros is as degenerate and evil a person as any country or time has produced. I think of him as Genghis Khan in a suit: building mountains of skulls just to show the world that he can. Merkel is also a completely evil person. She goes beyond simple power-mongering to actively seek the destruction of her country. But, I don’t think she has any grand plan. I think her horizon extends to the end of her life, and that’s it. She’ll take a cushy and powerful job with the EU or UN after she finally gets shoveled out of German.
Excellent overview. The only thing that it leaves off is the amount of migrants arriving prior to the past couple of years. Some countries have been accepting legal immigration as well as higher numbers of asylum applications consistently over years which distorts the impact of new arrivals when judged on a per capita basis – the result is that each new migrant feels like a larger burden to the existing native population while in pure numbers it looks less.
I don’t know about all the countries but the above is true for the UK, The Netherlands and I think also Sweden.
It would be interesting to see similar analysis carried out whereby the per capita is based on the existing native population of each country rather than including those who migrated (in any form) prior to the past couple of years. I think the results would show quite a different picture as well as illustrate which countries have native populations most feeling the ‘culture squeeze’ of having their relative population to migrants dwindle. I have come close to doing such an analysis in the past myself but to do it properly would require time I don’t currently have – partly due to the difficult task of determining native populations for each country when governments keep reporting statistics that include migrant families who have gained citizenship etc.
Let us note, that now as Germany, Austria and Sweden decided to kick some of their migrants back, as a thank you to Hungary they want deport them there, because they were registered in Hungary. 177,000 migrants got registered here and as “No good deed goes unpunished!” the government now have to fight on two fronts: the southern border and not take this people back from the west. Our defense: yes, we registered them (because it is the law), but they did not enter the EU in Hungary, but in Greece.
Good point, The E.U. leaders do indeed have the quaint habit of ignoring their own laws when they don’t fit in with their crooked agenda.
Same with that other criminally bent moslem influenced organization; the U.N.