The latest essay by our Indian correspondent The Kafir considers the European “refugee” crisis from the standpoint of free-market economics.
The Ongoing Muslim Invasion of Europe and the Limits of Human Compassion
by The Kafir
“As long as an increase in population has been made possible by the growing productivity of the populations in the regions concerned, or by more effective utlilisation of their resources, and not by deliberate artificial support of this growth from outside, there is little cause for concern. Morally, we have as little right to prevent the growth of population in other parts of the world as we have a duty to assist it. On the other hand, a moral conflict may indeed arise if materially advanced countries continue to assist and indeed even subsidise the growth of populations in regions, such as perhaps the Sahel zone in Central Africa, where there appears to exist little prospect that its present population, let alone an increased one, will in the foreseeable future be able to maintain itself by its own efforts. With any attempt to maintain populations beyond the volume at which accumulated capital could still be currently reproduced, the number that could be maintained would diminish. Unless we interfere, only such populations will increase further as can feed themselves. The advanced countries, by assisting populations such as that in the Sahel to increase, are arousing expectations, creating conditions involving obligations, and thus assuming a grave responsibility on which they are very likely sooner or later to default. Man is not omnipotent; and recognising the limits of his powers may enable him to approach closer to realising his wishes than following natural impulses to remedy remote suffering about which he can, unfortunately, do little if anything.”
— F.A. Hayek, from the book The Fatal Conceit, page 114-115 of Kindle Edition.
The Fatal Conceit was originally published in 1988. I doubt any among the do-gooders of the West — the men in The UN, WHO, the whole NGO army, the socialist governments across the Western world — ever read it. Even if any of them did, they must have dismissed above passage in it, if not the whole book itself, as the evil propaganda by a bloodsucking capitalist: “Who else can advocate that infants in the poor countries should not be saved by sparing a little from the trillions the west earns every year, often by exploiting the natural resources of the poor countries?”
A little reflection after reading above book by the great Friedrich Hayek lays bare the horror the compassion of the Leftists has wrought over the past one hundred years.
Ideally, for a society, reduction in infant mortality rates, increase in life expectancy, improvements in the level of education of the population, and the availability of better health services should be a function of its increased prosperity. And equally ideally, the increased prosperity must be a result of free market order in place in that society not the result of some unearned windfall, such as oil or other mineral income in the Gulf countries of the Middle East. If the free market operates in a society, that society becomes rich because of private property rights, a contract system, and free trade and enterprise; and as a result its population grows. The children who survive into adulthood have jobs readily available to them in their own countries, because that is what free market order is all about.
But it is also possible to reduce infant mortality rates and increase life expectancy in a society by pumping money in from the outside, for targeted spending on vaccination, nutrition in early childhood, and basic health services. But in such a case, when those children grow up, they will not all have the means to earn a livelihood. They will feel all bottled up, and the skilful politicians will be able to divert the pressure towards the few rich in their own countries, and towards the rich, “colonial” West.
This is exactly what has been done by The UN and all the international aid agencies, duly funded by the compassionate Leftists of the West. In their personal capacities, as politicians in power, as conscience-keepers in the media, and as kind billionaires. Aid poured in Third-World hellholes ruled by the tinpot dictators or Leftists themselves, and assisted by the breakthroughs in the medical science, again brought about the prosperity unleashed in the West by free market order and industrialisation it engendered, has caused an explosion in the population of these countries which ideally should have resulted from the prosperity brought about by free market order.
Free market order, if left to work itself out, automatically creates medical and educational infrastructure enough for the population that it can support. That is, the children it saves in infancy find educational infrastructure and jobs ready for them when they grow up. A society left to its own devices will always have only the population it can support. Nature balances itself out.
(This also readily demonstrates follies of both the Keynesian stimulation through government spending, and the Welfare State. In case of Keynesian stimulation, the borrowed spending on infrastructure is a waste, as the economy itself has not developed to use the infrastructure or to pay for it. And in the case of the Welfare State, fast-forwarding the health and educational status of the poor by subsidising them only creates an army of the unemployed, full of resentment and hatred towards the rich, and needing further benefits such as an unemployment allowance and food stamps. If instead the extended free market order is allowed to work its magic, population growth is always matched by growth in economic opportunities for everybody, and even in case of a stable population, the opportunity for economic improvement is available for everybody, and people grow up knowing that each person himself is only responsible for his own condition, and nobody else’s.)
But “the expectations and obligations” discussed by Hayek in the above quoted-passage stand created. They are created by the follies and the misplaced compassion of the Left in the West, and the youth in these countries are now knocking at the gates of the West, asking the ruling Western oligarchs to discharge their “responsibility” toward the “less fortunate” they talk of at the time of increasing taxes.
And so masses of humanity are swarming, from Latin America towards the North America, and from the North Africa and the Middle East towards Europe.
North America may still turn out lucky. The Latin Americans rushing into it may not be equipped for the economy they are entering, but they are not designed to kill their hosts. With time, they may indeed acquire skills needed to live in, say, New York. The fact that they are not commanded by their God to kill the economy of their hosts by increasing lawlessness, to rape their women not deemed properly dressed, to enslave their hosts once they are impoverished enough, or kill them if they still resist, may give North America time.
In contrast, Europe is in real trouble. The “youth” invading it are obligated by their religion to kill the commerce of their hosts, to rape women not sufficiently covered, to impose sharia, and kill those who resist any of it.
The Left’s horrors have not ended with the famines and gulags of Stalin and Mao. The deaths it caused in 20th century are going to look like rehearsals in comparison with what it is going to cause with its “mitigation of suffering in the poor countries of the world.”
All the increase of the population in Muslim countries is the doing of the kafirs. The medical advances were made by the kafirs. The aid to the poor Muslim countries was given by the kafirs. The oil wealth was made possible by kafirs by inventing the internal combustion engine. And now the Muslim world is just throwing those increased numbers at kafirs themselves.
There are no good choices before kafirs: They must either fence the Muslims in the Muslims’ own countries and let them kill each other, or let them come to the kafir countries and then kill their kafir hosts, or kafirs must kill their Muslim immigrants.
Or kafirs may recover their senses and kill Islam itself. Some deaths will still be caused, but they will be very few when compared with any other alternative.
And kill Leftism also, simultaneously, in all its forms, before it creates more monsters.
Or kafirs may embrace Islam, here and now, and be done with it all, and on the desolate and barren earth that will result, wait for the Sun to run out of fuel.
Previous posts by The Kafir:
It really is possible to predict long-term consequences of ones conduct.
The European disease, however, is to deny even the immediate consequences of official actions and to broadcast fairy tales about the near term.
The need to do so is so urgent and so imperative that furious efforts must be made to shut down any and all who even notice immediate ill effects, and positively crucify those who voice any anger.
” Before I was 9 I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brothers; me and my brothers against our father; my family
against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribes; and the tribes
against the world and all of us against the infidels…” Leon Uris ” The Hajj”.
Or, if you are a Pashtun: “Women for sons, boys for pleasure, and watermelons for pure ecstacsy.”
This is a rather confused essay. The population increase in Muslim countries is the infidels’ fault, as they invented the internal combustion engine which burns the oil produced by Western technology. But, that’s the free market by any definition of the term.
It is quite possible that oil countries like Saudi Arabia can exist quite well without the proceeds of redistribution from the West. They can subsidize their own populations. Or, would The Kafir advocate kicking the Muslims out of the oil-producing territories, and let the wealth flow to those Westerns who are skilled enough to extract it? Of course, that’s an imperial solution, rather than a free market one.
In parts of Africa and other places, the population may simply be too low IQ to support the concept of a free market, e.g. the concept of property rights may be completely foreign and beyond their ability to comprehend. In those places, left on their own, individual, particularly children, will die off until the resources are sufficient to meet the needs of the remaining people. This will be a balance most desirable, but has nothing to do with the free market.
Libertarian philosophy does not take sufficient account of nation, culture, and tribe. Being focused on individuals, a Libertarian would not be able to see the desirability of keeping out some peoples, even in a strictly free society where there is no public subsidy whatsoever. Theoretically, the immigrants would simply die, having no skills to earn a living. In practicality, the immigrants would band together on the basis of tribe, and take power from the free-market individuals.
The only way to deal with the cruelty of nature is by accepting it and your natural instincts of survival: outsiders stay out, except for a few judged to be friendly and useful.
Once we understand the consequences of our altruistic acts, it is a matter of ethics to not subsidize an unsupportably high level of reproduction and survival for people, whether inside or outside of our borders. It would be almost as destructive for a Bill Gates or George Soros to devote their fortunes to the survival and viability of crack babies in the ghetto, but self-limiting if they are not able to dragoon the wealth of others into their pet projects.
So, the choice is stark: allow babies and mothers to die of starvation or preventable disease, or have their many offspring starving and killing each other and asking you to admit them as refugees. There is no way to get off with a pure conscience. You have to make choices in a real, Darwinian world.
The verb “allow” should be banished from the lexicon of these issues. It’s not to the unparalleled hubris of Western men to “allow” the natural processes of nature to take place. Each territory, each culture, has its own population carrying capacity. Left alone, it will attain a sustainable balance.
A similar human error was the killing of wolves because they are “bad,” bloody predators. At least now, ecology-minded people — 90% of whom whom are probably leftists–know that wolves have a positive function to fulfill in nature, and killing them off leads to a dysfunctional imbalance. One wanders why they can’t understand that man and society are an ecological–even biological–system too.
Having allowed a resurgence in the wolf population, the lefties are now scratching their heads as to why the deer population has plummeted! Could it be global warming? Can’t possibly be that deer is wolf food.
There is no plummeting of the deer population on the West Coast of the US; I don’t know about the rest of the country. The West Coast I know well, and countless deer are pretty much a major consumer of what grows in peoples’ gardens, even commercial orchards….
The argument, as I understood it,wasn’t that oil is the cause of the population increase – but advances in medication and food aid. Meaning that the populations of many countries, especially in Africa, grow to far beyond what their country is able to sustain. Such donations may be charitable, and evidence of a “caring” human nature, however they are not symptomatic of a free market.
Ok, sorry – I read the second part of it now!
That is a very profound comment RonaldB, so deep in thinking that while I would like to reply to it I cannot at this time gather my thoughts on what to write as there are so many conflicting images running through my mind.
Suffice it to say though, we have through hubris and perverted religious idealism become our own executioners!
“Or kafirs may recover their senses and kill Islam itself.”
It may well have to come to that, or Islam will kill the West and ultimately the world.
We have all been wringing our hands over Africa for decades. Joseph G. Amamoo (from Ghana) is about to publish a book on the African paradox – the richest continent on the planet in terms of natural resources and potential food production – yet it remains in the basket case.
After acknowledging the negative legacy of colonialism, (especially the failure to introduce universal education), he states that the main reason for the mess Africa is in is the intractable presence of tradition tribal culture. Tribal loyalties are narrow and therefore the political elites do not have a national focus. They are not trying to do the best for their national populations (as these include many tribal ‘enemies’). Rather, the leaders see themselves as magnified Chiefs, who need to display their wealth by cannibalizing what they can rip out of their country’s resources.
This accounts for the endemic corruption and theft of public money which is then unavailable for healthcare, schools, roads etc. Literacy rates remain appallingly low. Also, business profits are gutted by the need to bribe officials, so private enterprise hardly gets off the ground!
Secondly, there is the acceptance in tribal culture of polygamy. Men don’t have a second thought about fathering children with no intention of caring for them. This leaves the poverty-stricken mother unable to give her child a good education or often, even enough food to survive. When one of Joseph Amamoo’s employees was told that in the West there is such a thing as Child Support deducted from the father’s wages, he was horrified. This explains the out of control population growth, the continuing poverty and the epidemic of AIDS (real men don’t use condoms).
He specifically states that the aid and agricultural investment of the West have been counter-productive. First, except in some marginal lands, Africa is well able to produce its own food, however, as in South America, arable land has been turned over to cash cropping for export. Aid, whether clothing or food, puts out of business the small, local home grown industries that already exist!
Africans have been brainwashed to think that Western food is better, so they import expensive potatoes when all around them are yams, cassavas and sweet potatoes! It’s insanity! Where farmland has been confiscated in south and east Africa from the white farmer and turned over to Africans, it has deteriorated, because the local populations lack the education or the experience in larger scale farming.
African soil is so rich that the peoples have had to make little effort in the past to survive. The concept of maintenance is foreign. My engineer neighbor has spent time, effor and money installing water pumps and water cleaning apparatus in remote communities and eventually had to give up because the local people refused the simple steps needed to maintain those machines, even though it would provide them with pure water and therefore, better health!
As we know only too well, traditional cultures are male-dominated, chauvinist sanctuaries where human rights law is completely alien. A study many years ago, comparing Australia and Argentina, revealed that although before WW2 they had similar economies, the subsequent development of Australia’s and the stagnation of Argentina’s was due to one thing – the dominant cultural value of male chauvinism in South America, with its unintended consquences.
I submit this is also the reason for economic and/or political failure in the Third World in general. If this be the case, the Middle East and Africa will never cease to be a thorn in our sides, as well as their own, until there is universal Western education and respect for basic human rights law, which means the ending of Sharia Law and Tribalism. Many good people in Africa (like Joseph Amamoo) and the Middle East know this, and would welcome a change for the better, but the political elites remain entrenched, and the West’s need for their commodities will continue to prop them up.
Here is Joseph Amamoo on British TV talking about, not the book I’ve just referred to, but an earlier book on his life.
http://www2.pulsetv.com/prodinfo.asp?number=7176
SORRY! The wrong internet address ! Here is the correct address for the British TV interview with Joseph G Amamoo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZll6Yn6CQ
You say that “male chauvinism” has prevented stupid societies from succeeding. I say that feminism is destroying all of the intelligent societies that it infects.
Very nice comment, Dimu,
Much of what you say was taught by the under-appreciated free-market development economist, Peter Bauer. Bauer taught the foreign aid and government assistance was devastating to smaller local economies.
I once heard a two-hour presentation by Bauer, fortuitously, as I had never heard of him, and it blew my socks off.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.567.7227&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/VasquezSymposiumMay2007.pdf
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/standing-fast-against-planning-poverty-0
The experience of your engineer friend may serve as evidence that some peoples may be simply too low-IQ to appreciate or use technology, however simple it seems to us. These people will not be helped by bringing technologies they are unable to use, and will certainly not fit in if allowed to migrate to more advanced societies.
The men in AIDS-infested areas thought that “real” men didn’t use protection, and the people in ebola-infested areas refused to give up the traditional washing of a relatives body, even though warned this was a primary means of spreading infection. In effect, these people are taking steps to control their own population, and not only we shouldn’t interfere: any attempt to interfere will be futile.
Imagine the futility of Obamas plan to send US soldiers to ebola-infested areas in Africa to help with medical treatment. Without such insane gestures, the life of an ebola victim in Africa will be short, and the epidemic self-limiting by wiping out the natives too low-IQ to understand prevention.
The Great Suicide will be examined in decades to come (by the invaders and their professors of course). The next generation will be taught the art of this war in order to complete the conquest of planet earth.
Perhaps we will have a Lord of the Rings victory yet!
They don’t want the whole planet, even if they say they do. They want the wealthy parts and to be able to command the educated classes to do their bidding. They have always loved the West’s martial superiority, but burn its art and literature, smash its musical instruments and any engineering projects they don’t find useful. That is the history of Egypt under the Arabs: make a desert out of the rice and wheat fields and take anything useful. People submitted in order to live.
The West is an Egypt of its day. It will eventually look like that if Islam takes over. The Chinese option is far less soul-killing, though it’s no paradise.
Let’s make one very important thing absolutely clear. None of those Muslims arriving in EU is a refugee from Syria. All those Muslims used to be Syrian refugees in Turkey, a Muslim country. They left Turkey for much better economic conditions in EU. Therefore, they are not refugees anymore, but economic migrants, illegally entering EU. Yes, they are illegal migrants, pure and simple. EU is obliged to stop the invasion of Islam, pure and simple. If EU cannot do its job, we better walk out of EU, instead of surrendering our country to Islam.
NATO bombs Muslim countries, and as a result Muslims swarm to NATO countries. This is a real boomerang, a magnificent blowback. NATO countries are now paying for the wars they created without thinking of consequences. NATO engineered all color revolutions and other revolts, turning peoples against their rulers with huge propaganda via internet, fireflies, and NGOs.
Germany needs Muslim slaves for its heavy industry at any cost to its culture. Islam now invades EU. Muslim pseudorefugees swarm amuck to UK and Germany. The stupid European Commission forces millions of Muslim pseudorefugees down our throats. The stupid relocation of pseudorefugees policy should be replaced with a push-back policy. EU encourages the illegal immigration of Muslims, even though the annual cost of a pseudorefugee is forty thousand euros! Corrupt Erdogan asks Turks to drastically multiply in order to Islamize Europe!
Germany could receive one million asylum seekers in 2015, many of them Muslims. The situation is dangerous and has gotten out of control. Every nation, state, and government has to be able to control its borders. The state and independence begins and ends with control of the borders. Each asylum seeker or refugee tends to bring an additional four to six immigrants: parents, children, or wives. In reality, one million immigrants could therefore turn out to be five million, when all is said and done. That is merely the result of one year of mass immigration. If current trends continue, Germany could end up with 20 million inhabitants from Africa and the Middle East a couple of decades from now. Experience shows that immigrants from Africa and the Middle East on average do not integrate well. They often have high crime rates and a high dependency on welfare.
The stupid European Commission engineers the replacement of Eurosceptics with cheap Muslim slaves who will obey all stupid commands of Fourth Reich. This is genocide of Europeans, pure and simple. EU will become the European Caliphate! Especially Germany is exploiting refugee suffering to recruit slaves. Any objection to this stupid policy is branded hate speech! But hate speech is part of free speech, protected by natural law.
There are forty million immigrants in England. There are twenty British towns including London where the English are a minority. London is only 40 percent English, but there are towns like Bradford, that are only 10 percent English. It’s happening in Germany and France but on much less a scale than in England.
The Australian solution of push-back policy should be tried. When pseudorefugees arrive in Australian waters, they are send back immediately. If their boats aren’t seaworthy, Australia provides them with new and safe boats, food and water, navigation aids, whatever they need to get back alive.
What needs to be done is to stop admitting asylum seekers to EU. None whatsoever! Enough is enough! We have more than enough asylum seekers in EU. Send them back, send them safely back, but do send them back. And let filthy rich Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, who don’t do anything at all, take care of Muslim pseudorefugees, or pay for them to be cared for in Africa.
https://venitism.wordpress.com
Venitis,
What you say is true, and an excellent summary of the situation. Except that it is now quite apparent that the Muslim “slaves” will not be suitable to take over jobs in Europe, even low-level jobs.
It should be apparent to all by now, even amoral business owners wanting a free ride on subsidized external (government) support of their cheap, immigrant labor, that the mass immigration will not benefit their business or profit in the least.
We all know the wealthy Middle East Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia are not going to do anything for the economic migrants. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a tribe which, primitive and Muslim as it is, recognizes its own interest…and admitting savage, Muslim, non-Saudis is most assuredly NOT in its interests.
The free market, if it exists in Western countries, could not function without education, police, infrastructure etc provided largely by the State, and paid for by taxation- which rich individuals and corporations constantly try to avoid paying in proportion to their earnings.
Mark, there is no such thing as ‘free’ trade, there is only trade between villages, towns, cities and countries that generally benefit the trader or importer and those who work for them. As a rule, a country will benefit from trade so long as that country has its own commodities with which to trade to offset those commodities that are imported.
The West was the powerhouse of trade for hundreds of years and trading assisted in technological improvements through local manufacturing/ industry and business to which the West has now lost most of its industrial advantage to Russia and China who now make to send to the West what the West used to make for itself.
Please consider that ‘Free Trade’ agreements have been used to undermine the West’s ability to make even a simply light bulb!
What we have here is Europe’s new version of the ‘Dark Ages’.