Inconvenient Truths On Immigration & Related Plutocratic Plots

A civilization is a system of thought, and a system of mood. In other words, a system of mind. Importing massively individuals who have been forged with a deliberately hostile system of mind they cling to, is counterproductive for the host country. However it is exactly what the plutocrats who truly own and govern the host country want: the imposition of a hostile system of mind procures the .1% owners with cheap, compliant labor eager to please, and, moreover, it divides the country, while castigating a spell against all values previously known, anchors of the minds of the little ones vicious plutocrats lord over!

That should not be too hard to understand. (And for the vicious character of it all, please just look at the sexual harassment allegations, and, even more telling, the reactions of the ilk of Paul Krugman, who, now that is dear, extremely wealthy friends are brandished as sexual harassers, turn around, and proclaim that they are “redeemed” by their good thoughts. Telling!) 

Careful reading of the first, and most basic texts of Islam, in particular, show a deliberate intent to destroy Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian civilization, ans, more generally the spirit of the rule of law of these two empires. First time in 1,000 years that raids inside the Fertile Crescent were possible, said Muhammad.

Law is local, but plutocracy is global. This means that importation, and, in general, movement of capital itself, is outside of the rule of law. In other words plutocracy is free to grow. Worldwide.

Example: a painting was sold for 480 million dollars. We The People don’t know who bought it, and how the capital to buy it, moved. It could be the Mafia for all we know, laundering blood money. Or a pawn of Putin. And art is not taxed, enabling a worldwide tax-free, secret transfer of properties.

GDP can’t feed a family. The rise of GDP is the rise of plutocracy. Obama made the elite richer and more arrogant than ever.

An essay in “Project Syndicate” pounds on the obvious:

Inconvenient Truths About Migration

Nov 22, 2017 Robert Skidelsky

Standard economic theory says that net inward migration, like free trade, benefits the native population after a lag. But recent research has poked large holes in that argument, while the social and political consequences of open national borders similarly suggest the appropriateness of immigration limits.


LONDON – Sociology, anthropology, and history have been making large inroads into the debate on immigration. It seems that Homo economicus, who lives for bread alone, has given way to someone for whom a sense of belonging is at least as important as eating. This makes one doubt that hostility to mass immigration is simply a protest against job losses, depressed wages, and growing inequality. Economics has certainly played a part in the upsurge of identity politics, but the crisis of identity will not be expunged by economic reforms alone. Economic welfare is not the same as social wellbeing.
Let’s start, though, with the economics, using the United Kingdom – now heading out of the EU – as a case in point. Between 1991 and 2013 there was a net inflow of 4.9 million foreign-born migrants into Britain…”

[That, by the way was nearly 13% of the pre-existing English population… The problem was augmented by multiculturalism which argued that the delirium of a hyper violent analphabet in the desert before the Middle Ages was just as good, and as respectable as 6,000 years of Euro-Egypto-Sumero-Indian Greco-Roman civilization]

We have been governed by the greedy agents of the unfathomably corrupt. The sexual harassment behaviors of the top guys (including many so-called “democrats”) is just a small new indication of what is going on. In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s sexual corruption came to light, people who self-described as “on the left”, or “progressives”, or “liberals with a conscience” scoffed. However, if a guy is corrupt in the semi-private domain, so will it be in governance: the argument is 25 centuries old, and it was made heavily by Confucius and his countless supporters. Indeed, under Clinton, finance became supreme. The reforms of President Roosevelt were rolled back, circumvented, or removed.

Of course from Clinton to Obama, “reforms” were made, making it easier for plutocratic corporations to become ever more powerful. Clinton was behind NAFTA, Obama tried to pass a treaty across the Pacific which would have enabled corporations to sue in front of (paid) arbitrators for laws they viewed unfair! Even Hillary Clinton turned against that monstrosity. Obama made discreetly many “reforms” of Intellectual Property which reinforced the tech monopolies which he also used as spy agencies, while destroying the common person (who can now be criminally pursued if Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. judge that they have been stolen by them by thinking engineering the GAFAM claim they own. (GAFAM = Google Apple Facebook Amazon Microsoft, Obama’s lovers…)

Mass migration as observed today is often a symptom of the failure of the post-colonialist order. It turns out, it was just a plutocratic order, and billions are left, excluded, exploited and ignored.

Even when slavery and colonialism were at their worst, Africans didn’t jump in the sea with their children, to join the European civilization, nearly sure to drown. Think about it. Think about what it means in the world we have. It’s one world, but it’s not for us. Nor for hope.

Time for populism, people!

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , ,

15 Responses to “Inconvenient Truths On Immigration & Related Plutocratic Plots”

  1. Gmax Says:

    It is ever more transparent that the pseudo left took us for a ride down the abyss of plutocracy. Laughable to see icons of the pseudo left and PC evangelism revealed to be rapists, raping for decades, violating the most basic decency. As you point out, they violated us all in even worst ways. And also the entire planet.

    What they hate in Trump is that he makes it all too obvious


  2. SDM Says:

    Plutocracy is a blight on civilization. It knows no bounds and will sink to any depth. Whatever gains were made in the past are being undone at every turn. Trump is an repugnant creature who is bringing the ugliness into the spotlight. Many still cannot see it because they are captivated by the glare of his outrageous behavior.
    US politics has become so polarized that common sense has left the stage.


    • Gmax Says:

      Repugnant Trump is more fun than gold obsessed Obama. Watch Dems scream because mortgage interest deduction for millionaires could go way of the dodo


      • SDM Says:

        No doubt, as Obama was not nearly as flamboyant or combative. Obama was able to charm many while clearly working against their interests while Trump is more a blunt object.


        • Gmax Says:

          Yeap. Obama fucked us over. Trump is a gift, a strongly caffeinated brew, to wake up who Obama slept with


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Obama turned out to be a Trojan Horse. I befriended a TH! Actually, I believe he wanted to do good, but, confronted to a general wall of corruption, he didn’t try to overcome it very long. And that was only for health care. For the rest, Obama followed the program of Bush-Paulson… Then he got in this crazy befriending of all Plutos in sight, one fundraiser a week for 8 years…


  3. EugenR Says:

    I just spent few weeks in Eastern Africa, touring villages, as well as the bush. The villagers live according to their ancient customs selling girls at their fourteens even if educated in schools managed by missionaries for 6-10 cows, to give birth to children. They live out of nature, or what it produces, while destroying it. The village headmasters have dictatorial authority. For example they decide who will get land to build house in the village and who not. The alternative is to leave to the cities, directly to the slums, where the unemployment is close to 100%. The only positive development is, that the villagers understand how important for them is conservation of wildlife, that brings tourists, who are the only source of cash money for them, even if most of the income from tourists collect the white or Indian lounge owners. In 1970’s when Mugabe took over the power, Zimbabwes population was about 6 million, now it is close to 17. The economy grew zero so the problems grew three times. This is an example of decolonisation in one African country. But the others, with less violent government are not doing much better. This is what i call cultural trap. On one hand it is romantic, fashionable and valuable to try to preserve the unique cultures, on the other hand it is not sustainable, and Europe will pay for the necessary expected collapse, either by mass immigration or buy extreme nationalistic regimes. I don’t know what is worse.


    • Gmax Says:

      Cultural trap? Nice expression! I think it’s just another facet of PC for Africa. I trust Patrice will find a more sinister angle involving plutocrats


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very interesting, Eugen, thanks for sharing.As I read it, I thought I should answer with an essay, because it’s so universal. But I have so much to do… OK, let me try that…


  4. Benign Says:

    See Peter Turchin “Age of Discord,” for a fascinating historical Dynamics including equations that predicts the 2020s will be and age of discord.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm, thanks Benign, I didn’t know of this author.
      The way I look at it is that plutocracy leads to crushing stupidity.

      Envision Aztecs killing the people they wanted to submit by the thousands every year; as a result some city-states very close to Mexico, Tenochtitlan, were extremely hostile to the Aztecs. When Cortex showed up, after trying to kill him, they became allies.

      Crushing stupidity then leads to catastrophe: consider Rome or the Maya.
      So speaking of “discord” is vague. I speak of the cause of “discord”. And the cause of the cause.

      Now I am not that optimistic. I saw what happened in 2016. First Clinton cheated, depriving Sanders (who would have beaten Trump). Second, plenty of people self-describing as PC became completely insane, and venomously attacked pro-Sanders types as yours truly, making Internet campaigns which were sheer insanity. Some alleged in write-up campaigns to some university professors they didn’t know, who had an internet presence, that they should ban me, because they alleged I wanted to kill all Muslims… I had never said such a thing and that would have a detrimental effect on baby sitting my daughter, as she uses Muslims, and actually practicing Muslims, 97% of the time… Now some of these maniacs have known me for 20 years + (although not very well, they were pleasant acquaintances; others were sort of lefty intellectual types, say car deprived, whom I helped inviting them to places they couldn’t afford or visit… Ever since, I have come to realize that the brain washing going on in the USA 9and also Europe) is really way worse than I thought. Some top “intellectuals” in France actually defend… Islamism (the violent version of Islam), including the ex director of Le Monde, now head of “Mediapart”, Edwy Plenel (who should be arrested for support for terrorism).

      Peter Turchin speaks of the French Revolution. What he doesn’t know is that the Revolution nearly happened at the time of The Fronde, 140 years prior. Also in England, at the same time, revolution was actually inverted… Anne d’Autriche, regent of France, reigning queen, famously told the head of the Paris Parliament:”Monsieur, ceci n’est pas une république!” Another thing he doesn’t know is that Louis XVI started both the US and French revolutions. Had the king been Louis XIV, neither of these revolutions would have happened (asked for help by the king of England, Louis XIV only offered hospitality, not the world’s most powerful army, which he commanded and that the king of England had asked explicitly to come to his rescue…)


    • EugenR Says:

      Thanks for the title. It seems the books writes about subject I’m now trying to understand and write about, how political systems based on “wisdom of masses” fail on the long run. Take for example the argument commonly accepted by the whole spectrum of politicians and economists ( except of the marxists, who live in different and even more devastating misconception) that reduction of taxes is good for economic growth. It is not. I emphasise IT IS NOT. It depends on the circumstances. Taxation is about allocation of resources from the private sector to the poblic governmental sector. Now it is will know that utility from the marginal investments have the same propensity to decline as any item in the economy. So if private sector will have more resources relatively to the public governmental sector, the utility from it’s investment will be lower compered to alternative investment in the public sector. You can see this phenomena in the practical terms ; in the US you have relative under investments in all the infrastructure and services provided usually by governments, federal or local. This is why you have no fast trains, but over invested toll roads, no good public education but excellent universities, so on, so on. The conclusion. Low taxation is bad for economic growth in the US, exactly as in countries with high taxation and high public spending it is bad for economic growth to increase public spending.


  5. SDM Says:

    Immigration in US has been consistently favorable to capital at the expense of labor. Cheap immigrant labor has long been a capitalist favorite to the detriment of most of the US working population. Immigrant farm workers have been exploited by agricultural interests as well. The wealthy who have aspired to public office (usually some appointed office) often have been caught having immigrant domestic servants in violation of the law etc. Nothing new here – immigrants are a source of cheaper labor which enriches the owner class.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I agree. The surprising thing is that the Democratic Party is not aware of what you say. In particular, the most noisy “liberals” with, or without conscience… Even Noam Chomsky is not making noise that way: whereas he decries the US empire, he does not concentrate in whom (plutocrats) or what (legal system as the one fostering immigration) is behind it.


      • SDM Says:

        The Democrats – especially the establishment i.e. less progressive members of the party- have been caught up in emphasizing the hardships and exploitation faced by immigrants which – although real – tends (by the designs of some ) to divide and divert the working class much to their own economic detriment.
        Meanwhile the donor class gets enriched through buying politicians – both Dem and GOP.
        Although I believe Chomsky has addressed this at times, it does not appear to be a mainstay in his observations on the plutocratic demise of our society.
        Immigration has become too stained by “PC” concerns to be dealt with realistically in the context of plutocracy-inequality.
        As you have stated, sexual harassment is fast becoming the issue of the day as one man after another is being accused- usually most credibly- of abusing position and power against women or even young girls. This has yet to run its course as the numbers continue to grow. The threads of corruption are exposed here as well – the money and power in the nexus where entertainment and politics meet. Trump, despite his luck so far, may yet be unable to get past this one unscathed.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: