Europe's Eclipse of Intelligence - Immigration
Mass-immigration is the result of top-down decisions from the Western oligarchy, and needs to be seen as violations of private property.
A description of Europe’s woes during its current downward spiral, this Eclipse of Intelligence, must also address its immigration crises. These have existed for several decades in France and UK, as obvious consequences of past colonialism, but this is now a continent-wide problem, save for a few countries, since the disastrous European policies related to Libya and Syria.
The problem is not immigration as such, but mass-immigration, which has had significant social, economic, political and cultural impacts in European societies, though these are constantly downplayed. “Mass-immigration” is the influx into a society of a quantity of immigrants so large, typically in the hundreds of thousands or millions of people, that is becomes a strain on local public services (housing, schools, hospitals) and overwhelms society politically and culturally over the long term.
The purpose here is not to go through in detail the specific toll on the populations of Europe of mass-immigration, and specifically Muslim migrants, such as insecurity, criminality, bombings, rape, exclusion, cost. There are plenty of daily reports and in-depth descriptions of the dramatic long-term consequences, for those with open minds. The objective here is to look at causes and solutions.
Modern Mass-immigration is not Natural
It is important to understand that modern mass-immigration is not natural. In other words, it is the consequence of deliberate political decisions in different countries and at supranational level. It is not an organic evolution of society but imposed from the outside, not only in the direct sense of foreigners literally allowed to enter another society, but also in the sense of being imposed by an ever-more alienated ruling minority with its own agenda (more below about the globalist angle).
The acceptance among the electorates of mass-immigration may seem a little surprising, but can be explained with smart propaganda promoting diversity, combined with a lack of relevant sensitive reporting by mainstream media.
The latest stats show:
The share of foreign-born individuals in EU countries has increased from 13.6% in 2023 to 14.1% in 2024.
After peaking at 6.2 million in 2022, migrant inflows dropped to 4 million in 2023, with 77% coming from non-EU countries.
Germany’s immigrant population rose from 16.9 million in 2023 to 17.4 million in 2024 (or from 20.3% to 20.9% of the population), confirming its role as the major destination in EU.
Asylum applications in the EU surpassed 1 million in 2023 and decreased to 0.9 million in 2024
Mass-immigration has come at a particularly bad time for Europe, because it has coincided not with a period of massive economic expansion and optimism (which can naturally drives migration from one area to another), but during a period of economic decline and self-doubt, due to the undue influence and new political power of unaccounted bureaucrats in Bruxelles, combined with poor and even treasonous policies among the political classes of the three big countries of Europe; Britain, France, and Germany.
A large amount of low-skilled, poorly educated, often unemployable refugees and other immigrants have entered Europe over many years now - and are still entering - just at the moment, when Europe is feeling the brunt of structurally low growth from statist policies such as: oppressive taxation stifling economic activity and mass regulations creating structurally high unemployment in many European countries.
Mass-Immigration is State Coercion
To understand the problem of mass-immigration, it is necessary to look at immigration from the point of view trade and freedom. As usual, it comes back to violations of private property rights by the state, which is not a particularly popular point of view in Europe.
Immigration becomes a problem when it is coercive, in the sense that the state makes decisions about which people, and how many, shall be allowed onto its territory permanently. The problem of mass-immigration is therefore a problem of lack of freedom, as is the case for most other social problems. As Prof. Hoppe explained in a seminal essay, “The Case of Free Trade and Restricted Migration”, immigration should be seen in the same light as free trade; namely, it should be “contractual” (in the same way goods do not cross borders gratis). As paradoxical as it may sound, in a free society immigration must therefore necessarily be restricted, not free. In Hoppe’s words:
“Free trade is inconsistent with (unconditionally or conditionally) free immigration, and… free trade requires instead that migration be subject to the condition of being invited and contractual.”
In other words, if private property owners want to engage in free trade in goods and services with customers and suppliers inside or outside their nation, it should be their unrestricted right to contract in these goods and services. Similarly, if they want to invite people to come and stay on their properties, for work or leisure, this is also their right in a free society. An immigrant, therefore, can be allowed to come onto private property only if he is invited or contracted by the property owner (directly by an individual, or the owners or executives of a company).
Therefore, “free immigration”, i.e. not subject to prior invitation or contract, is not consistent with freedom. When the state opens its borders and lets foreign individuals come and live on public land and use public goods, this has a cost for the taxpayers. This is logically obvious, though it is not obvious to quantify. This difficulty to see that which is not seen (to paraphrase Frédéric Bastiat) helps to explain, together with extensive propaganda campaigns, the lack of opposition to mass-immigration by most majorities in Europe. But the violation also extends to private property directly of course, in the form of crimes to person or property.
The solution to mass-immigration naturally follows from the above: it is based on the state respecting the right to property. Mass-immigration would be drastically reduced if states took a more neutral and less ideological position with respect to immigration; if states concentrated more time and resources on its primal functions of border defense. To go further, the move towards freedom in this area means, in Hoppe’s words, that the “government must reduce the quantity of public property as much as possible”, and that it “must uphold—rather than criminalize—any private property owner’s right to admit and exclude others from his property.”
Evidently, the statist bureaucracies and prevailing socialist thought in Europe are far from such sane libertarian perspectives. This solution may seem extremist today for many people who are wedded to Europe’s current globalist pro-immigration policy. But it is worth remembering that Europe (or rather, the EEC) had a policy that was closer to this position: the four freedoms, of which the freedom to work was one. In other words, immigration both from within and from outside Europe was restricted; conditions of employment and study existed in order to have a right to settle down in another member state. These conditions still apply for movement inside the EU.
The problem of mass-immigration, therefore, is to a large extent particular to the lax acceptance of “refugees”, both for declared economic and political reasons, from specific countries outside Europe, often with little consideration for the actual personal situation of each refugee. Often, the refugee status is given much too easily based solely on nationality (i.e. Syrian). The European political class itself is responsible for creating such refugee conditions in the first place, first and foremost by enabling, and then not stopping, the Libyan and Syrian conflicts. It is again an example of European leaders following an agenda that diverges completely from the interest of their constituencies. The consequence can only be social and economic tensions.
Globalists Do Not Support Freedom
The above highlights again the fact that the WEF-infused globalists, trying to keep their grip on political power in Europe, do not really support freedom and never have. It is essential in this context to make the fundamental distinction between economic and political globalism. These globalists do claim to support free trade, but not principally; mainly in order to loosen investment rules for countries that are considered targets for large Western transnational companies.
To be precise, globalists are really “political globalists”, pushing for an eventual world government of control by weakening nation-states through immigration and other means. For them, the EU and NATO bureaucracies in Bruxelles are only a step in the Hegelian direction of reaching the mythical “universal homogenous state”. Indeed, they have long supported free migration, i.e. proactive and organized mass-immigration, for ideological reasons. In other words, globalists are fine to use the power of the state to allow the entry of immigrants in society, forcibly violating private property, as long as it aligns with their political and ideological goals.
“The current ruling minority has a technocratic desire to shape societies, to control and direct their evolution… This means weakening the nation-states by accelerating the transfer of national sovereignty to supranational authorities. In order to convince the majority that political globalism is the only hope for mankind, crises have been fabricated, and presented as insoluble at the level of the sovereign state. The three main crises created for this purpose are the climate “crisis,” the pandemic “crisis,” and the immigration “crisis.” The latter also serves to dilute ethnically homogeneous nations, and thus to diminish natural social and cultural resistance to political globalism.”
Instead of addressing the mass-immigration problem upfront by seriously supporting frontier nations, e.g. Greece, Italy and Spain, to control the influx, the Dublin Regulation will now be replaced by the EU’s “New Pact on Migration and Asylum”, which will come into force in the EU in 2026:
“This legislative package aims to reform EU migration policy, which has been marked by shortcomings, particularly during the 2015-2016 migration crisis. Europe was caught off guard by the scale of arrivals (over one million people in 2015), revealing a lack of foresight, coordination, and operational tools to manage such population movements.
The lack of consensus also led to the reintroduction of internal border controls, weakening the Schengen Area and one of the EU ‘s founding principles: the free movement of people. The Dublin system, which assigns responsibility for processing asylum applications to the first country of entry, was overwhelmed, particularly in Greece and Italy.”
But the main problem is not that Europe was “caught off guard” but that there has not even been enough political will to restrict immigration, and even that mass-immigration has been welcome and part of Western globalist strategy. As the World Economic Forum likes to tout:
Anti-immigration parties in Europe have been stopped by undemocratic means and Hungary has been pressured, in ways not worthy of would-be “democracies”. The consequence of a deliberate policy of support for mass-immigration to Europe is the creation of an “underclass” of people, that may be useful to some as low paid labor, but who will take generations to integrate into European societies.
Mass-immigration should be better understood by Europeans since they keep voting for the standard main-stream parties that do not consider the dramatic long-term consequences of mass-immigration to European societies. Sooner or later, it will be impossible to stop the rise to power of parties that are more skeptical to mass-immigration. The signs are already there in the big European nations.
Excellent post! Europe is simultaneously pushing mass migration, climate hysteria, and war with Russia--three policies that actively contradict one another. If one accepts the premise of a climate crisis, a crisis manifestly driven by first-world prosperity, then deliberately increasing the population of the West by transferring low-consuming migrants from the third world and turning them into high-consuming residents can only accelerate the disaster. It is a formula for compounding, not alleviating, ecological pressure.
Meanwhile, as refugees pour in, the same European institutions wage a parallel war on national mythology, social cohesion, and patriotism. The result is deracination--a people stripped of shared memory, purpose, or a will to defend their homeland. And just as this cultural dissolution accelerates, the same elites are provoking a military confrontation with Russia. Yet at the very moment they need soldiers, they have spent years labelling masculine strength as toxic, alienating the very men whose disciplined aggression fills armies. Why would a generation of young men, ostracized by their own society, fight for a nation that no longer believes in itself?
Globalization has become a suicide sect for the West!
This mass migration is insane and should be illegal. We had to suffer through a decade of "diversity is our strength" BS. Now they want to build up their militaries and start a war with Russia. We'll see how many immigrants hop on board to die in a war against Russia. Likely few and the "replacement" theory will show that thousands and thousands of citizens of the EU will die while the immigrants stay at home and eventually take their civilian jobs.
Now this might be an extreme view; but it could also prove true.