The big-name proponents of open-borders and multiculturalism often pat their own backs for bringing peace between the people of Europe. And, it is true that the countries in Europe have not drawn arms against one another in nearly a century. But had those who now lead the forward-march of open borders and multiculturalism not pushed for war and intolerant patriotism earlier, to fuel support for conflicts to expand their control over valued resources and achieve total market domination, maybe the hatred between neighboring countrymen would never have become an issue in the first place. There is a common myth that corporations simply "went along" with the patriotism-fueled expansionist wars of the last century, while the truth is that corporate bodies were the ones pushing for war, even outside of Europe. For an idea of what the corporate leaders were expecting to gain from such agitation, check the profit margin of American companies after the First World War. America only fought in that war for one year, from 1917 to 1918:
In the span of that time, the American company Du Pont pocketed today's equivalent of $98.6 million dollars, all material and production costs accounted for. U.S. Steel made 1.7 billion in the same, one-year timeframe.
Remember how we were told that "all the powers" last century expected that same war to be "over in months"? Well, whose quoted "expectations" do you think these were? The "over in months" theory was a business model of minimum investment and maximum return, and businesses expected to turn quite a profit from following it. This is the history of warfare - not some bizarre theory where people just automatically hate one another and want to destroy each other unless told to be more diverse and multicultural.
Profit was not the only thing that these corporations wanted. After the First World War, IG Farben was formed. A European version of America's Du Pont, IG Farben wanted to conquer and consolidate markets. The corporate giant was not only a voice to Nazi Germany's leadership, but directly front-and-center, planning the regime's maneuvers. As this video shows, IG Farben planned the takeovers in present-day Czech Republic and Slovakia, built industries in Poland that enslaved millions to advance production and organized similar takeovers across what is now Belarus and Russia. In wake of Nazi Germany's foreseen military defeat, IG Farben and many others came together to plan a regime that, from the ashes, would re-implement the cross-continental network of power they had achieved on the backs of many fallen men. And so, today we have what the people of IG Farben had planned for all along: a single market with consistent regulations, as well as the eradication of border tariffs and rules that prevent local producers from receiving national protection against multinational industries of their own.
 |
| The new collaborate shown in blue did the unthinkable leading the old collaborate shown in red. Yet we are supposed to trust the new collaborate. |
Having set up the European Union, these very same conglomerates like those which had been in the IG Farben cartel - Bayer, AGFG, BASF - secured the power to implement legislation affecting all of Europe using a body they themselves staff, called the European Commission. As a result, they can manipulate and control that which opens the flood gates of immigration, bringing in cheap foreign labor on a dime.
As part of the above model, immigrants come to Europe or America to work and send their paychecks back home to their families abroad, taking advantage of favorable exchange rates and the lower cost of living abroad. But the migrant's working presence and high threshold of tolerance for what - for natives, at least - would be entirely unlivable to support a family throws the natural economic supply, demand and corresponding wage adjustment out of sync and simply reduces labor to a cheap commodity determined by whatever minimum wage is, or whatever the migrant is willing to accept. This, of course, stagnates wages in the host country, and makes correction for inflation inconceivable.
Increasingly more common, however, the migrant's family is part of the relocation and is taking advantage of state aid. Accordingly, the migrant is able to accept a rate of pay that is not even on par with what is required to live, which stagnates wages all the same, all to the disadvantage of the host population not receiving state aid.
The irony is the same liberals who propose simply raising the minimum wage (which just recalibrates earnings for everyone across the board and sparks inflation) tend to advocate open borders, fueling a vicious cycle.
Of course, the consequences of the corporate elite's labor-import model stretch beyond the economy. As the last years have shown, labor importation has also opened the door to those who wish to abuse the welcome mat to obtain the handsome welfare packages being offered. Others have used the fluid border situation as favorable conditions to expand drug or human trafficking; still others have brought their socio-political goals of reaching out to the immigrants here and urging them to support - and spread terror - to help create a new Caliphate. When it comes to each of these dangers, the elite responsible are generally immune to the consequences - they simply retire to their wealthy, gated communities and retreat to their ivory towers while the rest of us have to live with the aforementioned.
In sum, the elites, having achieved a united Europe that would make Napoleon and Hitler blush, have also set the stage for that same 'imperium' to implode. Worse, because they might be insulated from what is happening to the civilization below them, there really is no fail-safe to initiate a change of coarse. There is not even a financial incentive to do so; why consider alternatives to the open-border labor import, and build towards a future with automation and robotics, when that is much larger of an investment and much more complicated than the sort of damn-the-consequences pumping of replaceable workers into the system? A parallel can be drawn to the decision, in the mid 1800s, to defend the slave economy as the discovery of mechanical cotton picking became known.
One fail-safe could be the growing weight of public criticism. But, within the European Union, the people been so effectively cut out of the system - or put under its spell - that it really is hard to see a full-scale mutiny on the horizon. First, you have the muzzling of free speech specifically to prevent vocal opposition to the open borders model; you also have the corporate media's persecution and polarization of all who dared speak out, and the education's system vetting of individuals along those lines as well. In entertainment, you had the same affirmations that supported open-borders conclusions popularized. When you raise a population to get a warm, fuzzy feeling from seeing that its dates, workplace setting and surrounding community look like a multi-cultural box of crayons, that is not a population that is going to drop anchor on the labor-import model. The labor-import model is now their breath of life, giving them the foreigners they crave. What do the elite expect after working so hard to achieve zero opposition?
Only in hindsight can one truly appreciate the irony, and how quickly everyone went along with the same 1% who, unlike the rest of us, owned slaves, built and staffed Auschwitz or financed the wars that sent so many to their graves. But that is where we stand at the moment. Hopefully, as the problem and the source become clearer to the mainstream, there will be a reaction. One can always hope.
