Commentary by Dr. Patrick Slattery — Below is an article from the New York Times written by a Zionized immigration enthusiast named Amanda Taub. Her basic premise is that stupid racist white people in England are shooting themselves in their economic foot by leaving the EU.
Her problem is that Brexit is not primarily motivated by economics. Economic arguments can be made either way, and for the most part will not change people’s minds.
The argument for leaving the EU is a social argument. Immigration is transforming England’s society fundamentally. It has increased crime. It is turning natives into a besieged and despised minority. Islamization is not just a conspiracy theory.
Amanda Taub would never support whites displacing some non-white population in their homeland. She probably rails against Chinese potentially displacing Tibetians.
Her economic arguments revolve around GDP growth. GDP is GROSS domestic product. Having more people in a country is bound to increase economic activity because more mouths are consuming food, more bodies are wearing clothes and being sheltered, and more people are bound to be working even if the increase is partly in the staffing of welfare agencies. But that doesn’t make people richer or better off. Nigeria has a bigger GDP than Belgium, but Belgium is much richer. Nigerians are migrating to Belgium and not the other way around.
The basic question is “even if I would be 10% richer on paper in the EU, is it worth having my daughter gang raped by Pakistanis?” This is exactly what Taub would consider a “racist” argument, but it is close enough to reality for enough people that Brexit won. End of story.
A Lesson From ‘Brexit’: On Immigration, Feelings Trump Facts
June 26, 2016
WASHINGTON — The economic fallout from Britain’s vote to leave the European Union was swift and stark. The pound cratered to its lowest level in three decades. When the London Stock Exchange opened the next morning, its leading share index immediately fell by more than 8 percent, the largest single-day drop since the 2008 financial crisis.
This was pretty much what financial analysts had predicted. And it is clear from polling data and interviews with voters that those who voted for “Brexit” had been well warned about the economic risks. They just cared more about something else: immigration.
Most research has found that immigration has bolstered the British economy. But voters supporting the Leave campaign either were unpersuaded by the evidence, did not think it had benefited them or felt the downsides outweighed the upsides.
Brexit is not just a blow to the British economy, but also strikes at a core assumption behind the modern liberal order: that voters will act in their self-interest.
The progress of the last 50 years, particularly in Europe, has made it easy to buy into the idea that the forces of nationalism, xenophobia and prejudice are mere irrationalities, market distortions that will naturally fade away in the long arc of history.
Read the rest of this nonsense here.
