Low Propaganda: “Report” Claims Illiterate Refugees Will Net Europe Big, Big Profits

/51 Comments/in , /by

The Guardian has coverage of a new report by an NGO arguing that, while the bringing in of African and Muslim refugees into Europe will worsen budget deficits, this will be more than offset by rising GDP growth.

The migrants, we are invited to believe, are quite the bargain:

Refugees who arrived in Europe last year could repay spending on them almost twice over within just five years, according to one of the first in-depth investigations into the impact incomers have on host communities.

Refugees will create more jobs, increase demand for services and products, and fill gaps in European workforces — while their wages will help fund dwindling pensions pots and public finances, says Philippe Legrain, a former economic adviser to the president of the European commission.

Simultaneously refugees are unlikely to decrease wages or raise unemployment for native workers, Legrain says, citing past studies by labour economists.

Most significantly, Legrain calculates that while the absorption of so many refugees will increase public debt by almost €69bn (£54bn) between 2015 and 2020, during the same period refugees will help GDP grow by €126.6bn — a ratio of almost two to one.

“Investing one euro in welcoming refugees can yield nearly two euros in economic benefits within five years,” concludes Refugees Work: A Humanitarian Investment That Yields Economic Dividends, a report released on Wednesday by the Tent Foundation, a non-government organisation that aims to help displaced people, and Open Political Economy Network, a new thinktank.

A fellow at the London School of Economics, Legrain says he hopes the report will dispel the myth [sic] that refugees will cause economic problems for western society. [. . .]

While their absorption puts a short-term strain on public finances, Legrain says, it also increases short-term economic demand, which acts as a welcome fiscal stimulus in countries where demand would otherwise be low.

In the longer term, refugees will increasingly contribute to tax revenues — and also create jobs.

Read more

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (4): Neocon Angst About A Fascist America

/29 Comments/in , , /by
noitisnt

Previously posted at VDARE.com 

The reactions of anonymous people on Twitter criticizing Jews are now fodder for news stories by both “right wing” Jews like Ben Shapiro and more liberal journalists like Jonathan Weisman.  [Trump’s supporters unleash anti-Semitic attack on New York Times editor, by Sophia Tesfaye, Salon, May 20, 2016] Somehow, all the death threats,  vulgar criticism, and actual violence  conservatives have received over the years never become  a source of sympathy from the Main Stream Media!

One of the more spectacular examples of an MSM frenzy over supposed anti-Semitism: the reaction to the attack by David Horowitz against his fellow Jew Bill Kristol, leader of a campaign to destroy Donald Trump [Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, May 15, 2016] The headline, written by Horowitz, alluded to Kristol being Jewish.

As Jonathan S. Tobin [Email him] notes in Commentary,

[T]he real offense here is … his attempt to wrap him in the Star of David and to somehow brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel cause. …

[H]is invocation of “America First” and the use of a term like “renegade Jew” in the headline (though not in the text of the article) seems to echo the smears of the pro-Trump alt right racists who have attacked conservative critics of the candidate with an avalanche of anti-Semitic invective.

[Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace, May 16, 2016]

Horowitz’s offense was not simply criticizing Kristol’s campaign against Trump. Lots of people have done that without incurring the wrath of Commentary. And even saying that Kristol’s views are not good for Jews and Israel is commonplace:  Mondoweiss, J Street, and Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby argue that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby have a tragically mistaken view of Jewish and Israeli interests—also discussed in Charles Bloch’s and Steve Sailer’s VDARE posts. Read more

Dreams of Eurocide: Non-White Immigration as a Weapon of Race-War

/107 Comments/in , /by

Martin Luther King had a dream. So did Europe’s compassionate and caring Jewish community. After the Second World War, they thought that importing millions of Muslims would give them staunch allies against the White Christians who had persecuted them so unfairly for so long. With Muslim help, they hoped to bring about Eurocide: the death of White Christian Europe and its replacement by a rainbow continent firmly under Jewish control.

This dream of a progressive alliance was still alive in 1995, when the radical Franco-Jewish director Matthieu Kassovitz released a searing indictment of France’s racism and xenophobia:

The film was called La Haine (Hate) and was the story of three young men in one of the wretched housing projects outside Paris, commonly referred to as la banlieue. The three lads were a north African, a black guy and an eastern European Jew/ … They were cheeky, funny and likable — a gang of what the French call “branleurs”, which is literally translated as “wankers” but really means young guys who mess about. The core of the story was, however, that they were also full of rage — against the police, but ultimately against a society that has pushed them to the margins. Much of the film’s comedy as well as its social comment comes from the gang’s misadventures in central Paris, a world as distant and alien to them as America.

la haine

The plot is relatively simple, centring on the fact that Vinz, the angry young Jew, has got hold of a gun stolen from the police. He threatens to use it against them if his mate Abdel dies from his injuries after being held in police custody. When Abdel does die, Vinz’s moment for revenge comes when he has the chance to kill a neo-Nazi skinhead. He backs away, however, and finally hands the gun over to Hubert, the black boxer who is the most philosophical of the gang and totally against violence. The film ends with Vinz being accidentally shot dead by a policeman, who is taunting him with a gun. The shocking and powerful final scene is a standoff between Hubert and cop pointing guns at each other; the scene is framed by the traumatised face of Saïd, the north African member of the trio, and a voiceover saying that this is the “story of a society falling apart”. (La Haine 20 years on: what has changed?, The Guardian, 3rd May 2015)

Read more

Kooky Qatar — More dough than you can sheikh a stick at, Part 2 of 2

/5 Comments/in , /by

1220x500-qatar

Part 1.

Minorities have no chance to become refugees in the Gulf Arab states since they have scapegoated sectarianism from the start. With Druze you lose and what about that Alawite privilege? Christians and Yazidis have had their skin in the game from the beginning, and if a Tunisian report is to be believed, have had some of it forcibly removed. For the BBC, presenting views that express concern for Arab security, identity and social harmony when the same but proportionately greater threats of terrorism and non-integration exist for Europeans beset by the immigration nightmare, must be their idea of “speaking peace unto nation.”

Qatar however reserves refuge for very special individuals, like last year’s break-out hoaxer, “Islamophobia clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed, whose bomb-looking clock in a suitcase provoked a reaction by authorities deemed racist and Islamophobic. Ahmed was uncooperative and passive-aggressive with police investigations, likely instructions provided by his Muslim activist father, who has previously been part of a media circus set up with Florida reverend Terry Jones of “Quran on trial” fame. Still, Ahmed became the improvised martyr for President Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Harvard and even NASA — perhaps envisaging a career in ballistics.

Striving for social justice in America appears not to have meant much to Ahmed’s family, who promptly pulled up stakes in Irving (Texas) and left for Doha in an undisclosed arrangement. However, the Texan predilection for everything bigger seems to have rubbed off on the Mohameds, as they are suing the school and city of Irving for $15 million. Read more

Kooky Qatar — More dough than you can sheikh a stick at, Part 1 of 2

/20 Comments/in /by

Qatari architecture - Burj Doha

Midway down the Persian Gulf, a small peninsula the size of Connecticut rudely juts out opposite the world’s largest gas field. This fateful geomorphic kiss has made the state of Qatar the Gulf’s own version of The Provisions State, amassing vast wealth since its amicable independence from the British in 1971. An overnight cornucopia of new opportunities and problems alike have tumbleweeded in, but the regime shows little in the way of restraint. Much like its topography, Qatar is protruding sharply into regional politics and shaping up as an influential player whose political wake is being felt many seas away.

Qatar is an underestimated high-flier because it is often pigeonholed with the other spoiled Gulf States whose wealth is inversely proportional to their humility. Rather than be a wealthy, neutral and independent state, Qatar is a politically promiscuous country that attempts to buy everyone’s affection, some more than others, in a strategy termed “hedging.”[i] Qatar manages to maintain close relations with America, Israel, Iran and Palestine. Qatar is not nearly as much a nation state as it is a family estate, but the ruling al-Thani family does manage an approval rating that would make most Western democracies envious.

Qatar’s wealth cannot be overstated since the consequent social effects and political leverage are perhaps without precedent. Qataris pay no income tax or sales tax, and utilities like electricity and healthcare are provided free of charge. Citizens have come to expect the state’s general allowances, which can be as high as $7000 per month, along with free land, guaranteed civil employment and interest-free loans.[ii] In order to grasp just how brimming the Qatari coffers are, one has to turn to the state’s $250 billion sovereign wealth. Read more

Guillaume Faye: Seven Mistakes That Explain The Failure Of The European New Right

/44 Comments/in , /by

The weakness and shallowness of the mainstream Right has been noticed a thousand times. In 1896, Robert L. Dabney described the GOP as “a party that never conserves anything,” that always growls against the Left’s innovations but ultimately rallies to them, to the point of being “a mere shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward.” This emptiness allowed for the GOP to be taken over by crypto-Trotskyite neoconservatives once they had purged the old guard.

The very repetition of the critique, though, shows that making the point — and re-discovering it again and again — is not enough. Those who made the point were right but could not change the “Mighty Left And Spineless Right” system. Dogs bark at cars, but dogs can’t drive, and the astute critiques of Conservatism Inc. have never yet achieved power in the US.

The non-mainstream Right must find an alternative beyond this simple critique. But before today, before the Internet became public, others already tried. Though barely mentioned in the mainstream today, these dissenters were able to coalesce into an intellectual big tent associated with the French magazine Le Figaro. They became intellectually fashionable, sparked debate among a wide range of political issues, and sought genuinely new grounds in order to replace the Left in its role of cultural authority able to shape the mainstream norms, narrative and core concepts. These thinkers were known under the name of Nouvelle Droite (“New Right”).

It may come as a surprise to many, but the biological roots of IQ, sex differences, the soundness of eugenics, the Indo-European-Aryan roots of Euro-American civilization — such were the topics raised by fierce, fearless “New Righters.” Indeed, Nouvelle École (New School), one of the main journals of the New Right, listed names such as Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Henry E. Garrett, Arthur Jensen, and R. Travis Osborne on its masthead. Many of their positions overlapped with today’s neo-masculine points. Of course, they were targeted by cultural Marxists, labelled “fascists” and “racists,” but for some time they seemed rather stimulated than weakened by the Leftists’ attacks. Read more

A Review of “The Mighty Dead” by Adam Nicolson — Part 2

/21 Comments/in , , /by
A scene from the Odyssey from a Roman mosaic

A scene from the Odyssey from a Roman mosaic

Part 1

Homer was central to the Ancient Greeks’ conception of themselves and their origins. At their most holy and self-conscious moment, the quadrennial festival of the Panathenaia, the Athenians  “gathered for total immersion in the Homeric stories, drinking up the tales from which most of their great tragedies drew their plots and characters, thinking of Homer as the source of what they were.”[i] According to Nicolson, these origins are fundamentally northern. He observes how, particularly in the Odyssey, the Greeks are depicted as outsiders to the Mediterranean world, with Odysseus portrayed as an impoverished northern wanderer not entirely at home in the Mediterranean world, who, after many trials and tribulations, returns home a broken king, an outsider with few allies. While Odysseus and the other Greek chieftains conceive of themselves as noble kings, the civilized states of the Mediterranean see them as barbarians.

When Odysseus and his crew find themselves facing Polyphemus the Cyclops, the notion of the Greeks as outsiders is manifest. “Strangers, who are you?” the man-eating Cyclops asks them. “Where do you come from, sailing over the sea-ways? Are you trading? Or are you roaming wherever luck takes you over the sea? Like pirates?”[ii]  Nicolson notes that, “he may be the king of Ithaca, the son of Laertes, a man whose fame has reached the sky, but that is not how the world of the Odyssey treats him. Everywhere he arrives anonymous, not somebody but ‘nobody.’”[iii] This epithet features prominently in the same episode from the Odyssey when Polyphemus asks Odysseus his name. Odysseus replies that his name is “Nobody.” When Polyphemus is later blinded and cries out for help, the other Cyclops ask who has hurt and blinded him. “Nobody!” he answers to our amusement. Read more