German and U.S. Rulers Are Using Weapons of Mass Migration to Divide-and-Rule Us

The German public is now divided between the increasingly popular AfD party that calls for deporting immigrants and those who support Chancellor Olaf Scholz in wanting them to stay.

Read the Guardian article here.

As this Guardian article reports, members of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party discussed “mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate” at a meeting of extremists that included some Neo-Nazis. The Guardian also reports that “the AfD is soaring in opinion polls.”

Some background first.

“A country of more than 84 million, Germany has the second-largest Muslim population in Western Europe after France. It is home to more than 5 million Muslims, according to official figures.” [source here]

“Germany’s Muslim community is diverse, with the majority claiming Turkish roots. Others originally emigrated from Arabic countries such as Morocco or Lebanon. Many first came to West Germany more than 60 years ago, when they were recruited as “guest workers” to help the country advance economically.

“The first generation of Muslim immigrants were mostly employed in coal mining, steel production and the auto industry. Many who initially came as temporary workers decided to stay and bring their families, giving Berlin, Cologne, Frankfurt and other cities in western and southwestern Germany large immigrant communities.

“About 19 million people, or 23% of Germany’s population today, either immigrated to the country since 1950 or are the children of immigrants — not just of Muslim background but also from countries such as Poland, Romania, African or Asian countries, and most recently Ukraine.

“The researchers found that [anti-] Muslim hostility is common in basically every aspect of life from schools to the police, national, regional and municipal agencies, the private job sector, the housing market, the media and politics.” [source here]

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?

Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy, a book by Kelly M. Greenhill, sheds much light on what is going on.

Greenhills’ book is online here, at the website of the United States Naval Postgraduate School, which says of itself that “The Naval Postgraduate School is a defense-focused graduate university offering master’s and doctoral degrees in fields of study core to Naval-unique needs, the U.S. Armed Forces, DOD civilians and international partners.” [source here]

In her book, Greenhill explains how the ruling class of one nation uses forced ("engineered") mass migration of refugees into another nation (the "host" nation) as a weapon to coerce the rulers of the host nation to do this or that. The coercion works best, Greenhill argues, when the population in the host nation is sharply divided into two opposed camps, one saying let the refugees in and the other saying keep them out. This division of the host population, according to Greenhill, creates a huge problem for the host nation leaders, especially if the host nation is a "liberal democracy" such as the United States in which the leaders must try to accommodate the desires of all the people in its population. To escape the dilemma of having to satisfy the two camps with opposing demands, the host rulers are inclined to accede to the demands of the rulers who have engineered the mass migration.

Greenhill's book is written for an elite ruling class audience and people making a career of serving that ruling class, but it is also a book that can be read by anybody. For this reason some of the things Greenhill is communicating to her intended audience cannot be stated explicitly. A sharp example of this is the fact that Greenhill cannot "let the cat out of the bag," i.e., she cannot acknowledge the well-known fact ( also see here and here and here) that the United States is a dictatorship of the rich--an oligarchy or plutocracy to be precise. Instead she "plays the game" of pretending that the United States is a genuine democracy in which the rulers must do their best to accommodate the desires of all the people in the general population. It's as if she's winking to her elite readership. Greenhill thus pretends that the only people who would ever want to create a sharp division of the population of a host nation, into a camp in favor and a camp opposed to the engineered mass migration, are the (presumably “bad guy”) rulers of a different nation. She never so much as hints that the (presumably “good guy”) rulers of the host nation, itself, might want to divide-and-rule "their own" people.

​But surely Greenhill and her intended elite readers get the point, without her having to "spill the beans" to the other readers by making the point explicitly. The ruling class of the United States uses divide-and-rule all the time, especially along racial lines, and it is not hard to see that it is using mass migration for the same purpose. Nor is it hard to see that the ruling upper class in Germany is also using mass migration for the same purpose. Part of this strategy requires creating as much internal conflict as possible between those for and those opposed to allowing the immigrants (be they Mexicans or Muslims) to enter. The liberal "Let the Muslim refugees immigrate--it's bigotry to keep them out" politicians and the ones like Donald Trump or the AfD saying "keep the Muslim refugees out" are implicitly if not explicitly in cahoots; they are not real antagonists. The ruling class divide-and-rule strategy requires both a Donald Trump and a Hillary Clinton on opposite sides in the United States on the “ban illegal immigrants and deport them” issue, and an Olaf Scholz and an AfD on opposite sides of the "deport all the immigrants" issue in Germany.

My Egalitarian Take

I have written about illegal immigration into the United States in “ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.: MYTH vs. REALITY,” where I show that the U.S. ruling class for decades has been doing things south of our border to force poor people to have to immigrate illegally into the United States just in order to survive. I also discuss in some detail in that article why it is wrong to say—as many do—that the only reasons why American citizens oppose the massive illegal immigration from South and Central America is bigotry and racism. American citizens have perfectly understandable non-racist and non-bigotry reasons for opposing this massive immigration such as a) not wanting to be made to compete against much cheaper illegal immigrant labor (cheaper because the immigrants fear deportation if they go on strike for higher wages) in not only agriculture jobs but also construction and other such jobs; b) not wanting to suffer the consequences of their towns and cities being insufficiently funded to deal with the massive influx (insufficiently funded because all the money goes to the upper class for its needs and desires, not those of ordinary Americans.)

I am not familiar with the situation in Germany, but I wonder if Germans have similar non-bigotry and non-racism complaints about the massive Muslim (and other religions) legal immigration there. For example, the IMF reports on a paper, saying, “It finds that new immigrant workers earn on average 20 percent less than native workers with otherwise identical characteristics.” The British Sociological Association has an article titled, “‘Good’ Bad Jobs? The Evolution of Migrant Low-Wage Employment in Germany (1985–2015)” in the Abstract of which one reads, “The article examines the evolution of migrant low-wage employment in the context of structural changes in the German labour market. By drawing on data from the Socio-Economic-Panel, it seeks to answer why low-wage jobs disproportionally rose among migrants since the late 1980s.” Sounds like cheap labor competing with non-immigrants laborers to me.

Additionally, the Institute for Market Integration and Economic Policy, in an article titled, “The costs of immigration to Germany and Western Europe – a meta-analysis,” reports the following about Netherlands, which I think probably also sheds light on what is happening in Germany:

A study entitled “Immigration and the Dutch Economy”, published in 2003 by the Central Plan Bureau, which is affiliated with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, found that it takes immigrants 25 years or more of continuous employment to provide a positive net payment to the state security systems. The study also ascertains a significant redistribution effect in favour of the foreign population and to the disadvantage of the indigenous population. The redistribution effect in favour of foreigners amounts to an average of 43,000 euros in the case of an immigrant at the age of 25 for the entire remaining life span. The authors of the study conclude that mass migration is not an effective means of compensating for the financial consequences of aging society and warn of the social and cultural consequences of massive immigration (Spits 2003; Vlasblom 2010).

In 2009, 40 percent of immigrants in the Netherlands lived mainly on social transfers (Vlasblom 2010). A 2010 study by the Nyenrode Forum for Economic Research entitled “Budgetaire effecten van immigratie van niet-westeren allochthonen” (English: Budget effects of immigration of non-western allochthones) concludes that an average 25 to 35 year old non-Western migrant costs the state between 40,000 and 50,000 euros. The study’s finding is based on examining the economic viability of 25,000 non-Western immigrants, most of whom were Turks and Moroccans. According to the study, the annual costs for the public sector in the event of a net immigration of 25,000 non-Western migrants and an additional 25,000 family migrants per year amount to around 7.2 billion euros (Bauch 2010: 17; IfS 2015: 19; Ulfkotte 2010: 21, 44).

This IMIEP article happens to have an interesting and pertinent introductory quotation:

“It is a politician’s foremost question what he can do with his people’s money, and what he can do for these people. This money is our tax money. And with this money you are giving your country the most valuable thing you have. You are giving away a part of your lifetime with your tax money. Because money is nothing other than clotted lifetime.”

– Björn Höcke, November 2015.

In the concluding “what should we do” part of my above linked “ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.: MYTH vs. REALITY,” I write the following about massive illegal immigration into the United States, which applies analogously to the situation in Germany where the issue is massive legal immigration:

Not Letting Somebody Enter One's Home is Not the Same as Forcing Them to Enter and Then Slamming the Door in Their Face

There's a huge difference between a) some individuals deciding they'd rather live in the United States than their native country, for reasons of personal preference or advancing their career or other such non-emergency concerns, versus b) millions of people fleeing across our southern border in order just to survive life-threatening conditions in their country that Big Money deliberately created in order to make big profits at the expense of these ordinary people and also to force them to illegally immigrate just to save their lives.

In the former case, yes, it is appropriate to limit immigration for various sensible reasons and deport illegal immigrants. But in the latter case, the question is not whether or not to limit immigration and deport illegal immigrants but rather whether or not to stop Big Money from forcing millions of people to illegally immigrate to save their lives.

The fact that Big Money has, for decades, been deliberately creating the life-threatening (but profitable for Big Money) conditions that are forcing millions of people from Mexico and Central America to illegally immigrate across our border (at huge risks to themselves, by the way) is kept out of the debate about illegal immigration that Big Money controls. But it is a fact. It is the KEY fact! It is the elephant in the living room! 

Once one understands what is actually going on, then it is possible to gain some clarity about the relationship between the right to limit immigration and the duty not to abet oppression of innocent people. Here's how the two relate.

Yes, Americans have a right to limit immigration.

No, Americans do not have the right to use “limiting immigration” as an excuse for—as a means of—oppressing people, people from Mexico and Central America whom our billionaire rulers are FORCING to cross our border illegally to survive the life-threatening conditions our rulers have been imposing on them for decades.

When the American have-nots remove the rich from power—with the help of the illegal immigrants who are friends of American have-nots in this effort and whom American have-nots should therefore NOT treat like dirt by deporting them!—then something wonderful can happen. Then all the have-nots can together abolish the life-threatening conditions that presently force people to illegally cross the border, like slaves in the past who illegally ran away. Then the American have-nots can exercise the right to limit immigration without it being merely an excuse for aiding in the oppression of people.

The ruling class works hard to keep regular Americans confused about this. They must not succeed. Good Americans must be like the Abolitionists during the days of slavery. They knew that illegal runaway slaves were in the right, not wrong. The solution to the problem of runaway slaves was to solve it at the root, not to side with those who made a fetish of obeying the law and who thus treated the illegal runaway slaves like dirt by “deporting” them back to their master.​

The people in the Mexican town Cherán with 20,000 residents got this right. They made an essentially egalitarian (in many ways at least) revolution that is shown in this video. These egalitarians (quite rightly!) exercised their right to freedom of association by denying to drug gang members and politicians and people with campaign literature for the major political parties the right to enter their town. This illustrates how sometimes denying people permission to immigrate is a very good thing. These Mexicans acted on the right principle: let pro-egalitarian people immigrate and prevent anti-egalitarian people from immigrating.​​

As evidence that allowing or disallowing some people to immigrate is not simply a liberal versus conservative question, note that an ultra-liberal columnist for the ultra-liberal Boston Globe wrote in this article in defense of people killing an intruder to their community because they wanted to be left alone.

Remember, the reason we don’t have a runaway slave problem today is not because we enforce the Fugitive Slave Act but because we abolished slavery.

Likewise, we’ll solve the problem of illegal immigration when we remove the rich from power. Then the people who presently are forced to illegally immigrate will want to either remain at home or go through legal channels to immigrate.

How can we remove the rich from power? Please read about this here.