Thank you, uh… I think this might be what you’re after. Let me know if it’s not.

~:~

Besides the desired outcome of the extermination of the peoples of the Western world, the secondary reason for immigration is the average Westerner has $20,000 in debt. That’s a lot. They are what economists call “debt saturated.” They can’t take on any more debt without being unable to afford to repay the interest alone. These people cannot drive the economy because they can barely spend any currency. What do immigrants not have? Debt. What can you do when an immigrant enters a country? You can give him loans! Loans with interest rates he’s too stupid to understand but which he has to pay off nonetheless. For each immigrant who takes a loan to buy a car, a TV, a house, or a new pair of shoes, bankers can make currency out of thin air (through the process of fractional reserve banking) and put it straight into their own pockets. They can also count both the loan itself and the items the immigrant buys in the country’s GDP calculations. This allows politicians to claim the GDP is growing and use the media to celebrate their “success.”

This pyramid scheme only works with a steady influx of new debt-free people. If immigration slows or stops, the nation’s economy slides into recession. This happened in Japan. They adopted the West’s economic policies while maintaining racial purity. With their economy currently in shambles, they believe they’ve “made a mistake.” Talks have begun to bring non-Japanese immigrants into Japan. Sweden, too, is importing more immigrants because they have compounding economic problems… because they imported immigrants.

There was a point somewhere before the era of mass immigration when intelligent people said, “Immigration won’t solve the fundamental issues with our banking and economic systems. We must instead change how our economy works.” They were ignored or discredited by the media. If they had enough influence to solve these problems, they were killed. People who benefit from unlimited immigration don’t care they’re ruining entire nations. They don’t care about the destruction of entire cultures and millennia of racial achievement. These people aren’t part of the nations they’re destroying. They feel nothing in their actions–no social obligation to end immigration and no moral obligation to do unto others as they would have done to them. Their only concern is for their personal pleasure. They’ll destroy it all–all of civilization–for a single lifetime of hedonism and debauchery funded by the suffering of billions.

When sophists claim that immigration is good–or even acceptable–in a location with a decreasing population, there is a disconnect between the statement and the desires of the people living there. People are not–and do not see themselves as–interchangeable parts. The society, economy, and civil structure of a nation–such as Germany–does not remain the same simply by “maintaining” its population at 80 million with an arbitrary ethnic makeup. People do not want to be replaced by strangers who do not look like them, and certainly not by strangers who share neither their language nor culture. It terrifies sophists to consider this, but people are tribal. We prefer our own kin.

Arguments such as “we should encourage immigration to maintain population levels” can only be entertained if you ignore natural inclinations. It doesn’t make sense to claim Germany can be “saved” by importing Turks and Algerians because a Germany inhabited by Turks and Algerians wouldn’t be Germany. When this argument fails, sophists invariably turn to an imagined “responsibility”–moral or otherwise–of the invaded nations to allow immigrants due to conditions in their homelands. “You should allow your nation to be invaded while simultaneously paying to rebuild the lands whence the invaders came. Will they return home after their nation is fixed with your money? Of course they won’t! That would be racist!”

Neither Germany nor the EU can solve all the crises that affect the world. Nor can the United States, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the West. Nor should we. Is the West supposed to dismantle Boko Haram, bring democracy to Eritrea, a stable government to Somalia, peace to Syria, and prosperity to Morocco–to say nothing of quadrupling the GDP of the developing world? Saying “eliminate the causes of mass migration!” is a platitude. Under the current international paradigm, it cannot be done, nor is it the responsibility of individual or collective citizens of the West to suffer economic hardship and criminal violence in their streets because the government wasn’t able to wave its magic wand and turn Namibia into Switzerland. In a time in which people are worried about demographic replacement, crime, and terrorism, leftists trot out 18th-century solutions, imagining that the same dynamics still apply.

Back then, industrialists imported people from a nation’s countryside to work in its cities’ factories, not from across the world. Majority illiterate countries have no place or use in the West’s high-tech industries, nor even its services. The overwhelming majority of invaders do not work now, nor will they ever work in the future. As drains on the welfare state and bolsterers to crime statistics, they don’t even have use as “wage slaves” for oligarchs. Their purpose here is exclusively demographic replacement. Even if we accept the claim that the West has caused “everything bad in the world,” that gives us no solution to the present crisis. These people–whose IQs are in the 80s and 90s and who harbor a hostile attitude to the very concept of Western civilization–will never be educated or assimilated. But governments still don’t want to send them back. They don’t even want to stop them from coming! Nor do the governments of the West even care how they come here, legally or illegally.