Why slave away for German industry when they'll pay you to do this?

by Colin Liddell

News recently came out that around half of Germany's population of Turks don't work. This is quite a drag on the economy, as there are thought to be over 4 million of them in the country, or 5% of the total population. Also, it is worth pointing out that this is not some EU backwater with high unemployment, but the economic powerhouse of Europe where well-paid jobs are not hard to get. So, what exactly is going on here?

Short answer: The bad end of a Faustian bargain.

Immigration may sometimes seem like a stop-gap solution if you are a major employer looking to cover a labour shortage and keep down wages or a leftist politician looking for easy votes. But it is something that tends to move in only one direction, and can easily get out of hand, especially if you are a weak-minded liberal Western state, as Germany has been since the foundation of the Federal Republic.

This is not really news. In 2013 Der Spiegel reported on the concerns of Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1982, as revealed by the minutes of his meeting with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Kohl was worried that the number of Turks in West Germany (at that time about 1.5 million) was so large that there would be very little pressure on them to assimilate. As a solution, he envisioned reducing the number of Turks by half.
"Germany had no problems with the Portuguese, the Italians, even the Southeast Asians, because these communities integrated well," the minutes read. "But the Turks came from a very distinctive culture and did not integrate well."
Sadly, Kohl then did what politicians in Western democracies typically do when faced by thorny problems: he kicked the can of worms down the road for someone else to deal with, meaning that the problem is now nearly three times as big.

The problem in its essence is this: Germany shouldn't have been relying on immigrants in the first place. If there was a labour shortage, German industry should have automated more or increased its own population. Naturally that second option would have meant sending women back to the home and would have pushed up Labour costs even more (at least in the short to middle term), but really that was exactly what Germany needed—a check on what we can now see was the necrosis of economic over-expansion.

When a nation's elites decide to "supplement" the existing labour force for their own selfish benefit, the existence of a national identity places strong obstacles and restraints. In the wake of WWII and the defeat of Naziism and the demonization of all German nationalism as Naziism, this healthy checking mechanism was somewhat impaired, but still existed with enough strength to prevent the importation of millions of foreigners.

What was required was a swing to the Left, a propaganda blitz, and a cultural revolution that further demonized healthy group instincts, which is exactly what happened. This was the process that overrode the nation's immune system and allowed the Turks and others to arrive in their multitudes.

But the flaw with this "brilliant plan" is that the morality that was employed by the elites to get the migrants into the country was also the morality that allowed them to loaf around on welfare or on easy-going training schemes. If it is "racist," "xenophobic," and "Nazi" to oppose migrants who are coming to Germany to "help pay for our pensions" etc., then it is also "Nazi," "xenophobic," and "racist" to insist that they pull their weight once they get their feet in the door.

Same lube, different arsehole, to use a vulgar but apposite idiom.

In any country where the elites have managed to dupe the population into drinking from the poisoned chalice of mass immigration (everywhere in the West, basically), you will see the same paradox in play. The bacillus that is employed in breaking down the strength of the nation to facilitate an influx of cheap labour, also becomes the pathogen that allows the incomers to become fully-fledged parasites, as the Turks in Germany have become.

And what is the solution? The Alt-Right knows, of course. But those who are less enlightened favour rinse and repeat: "If the Turks won't work, maybe the Syrians and Sub-Saharan Africans will, if only we can do enough to combat racism..."


  1. Replies
    1. To make Turkey much more attractive to Turks than Germany.

  2. Mass deportations.

  3. You can't be a good source of labor when you sit on your brains and collect welfare.

  4. Turks bring vibrancy and cultural enrichment.

  5. It's not just labor the leftists are interested in, it's also importing consumers. In the old days of colonialism western powers invaded other countries to secure export markets.

    Since western nations don't produce jack anymore, and since you can't export a service, the only option is to import consumers.

    Our elites get the best of both worlds where they get cheap labor plus an expanding consume base.

    1. Certainly true. You could also throw in keeping property crowded and rents high. The economic drivers are enough to preclude fanciful conspiracy theories, although there is clearly some truth in many of these too.

  6. Dumb Conservatives worry about Sharia and Muslims(a problem in EU, not here), but it is Gayria that has real quasi-religious hold over America.

    Get a load of this:


    A homo fecal penetrator into ‘gay’ poo-ride talks about punishing the ‘wicked’. He uses religious lingo. So, what is ‘wicked’? Defense of true marriage rooted in biology and morality.
    What is holy? Celebration of homo men who do fecal penetration and trannies who hire doctors to carry out frankenstein medicine of genital mutilation far uglier than female clitoris removal in African nations. American religiosity has gone from Sermon on the Mount to Sodom on the Mount. Sexual deviants and perverts are preaching to normal decent people not only about morality(which would be funny enough) but about spirituality. Oh yes, the ‘wicked’.

    It goes to show how useless secular culture has become in the West. It is neo-religious with new angels and new devils, new sacraments and new taboos. If you don’t support ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’, you are ‘wicked’ and must be hunted down. Now, Conservatives have been supporting Big Business and Big Money all these yrs, but it is Big Bucks that are behind the Buttfu**s.

    Homomania or Queertianity is the new religion of the West. It is what most ‘secular’ people go gaga over. Dawkins and Maher mock religious people(and yes, some religious people are truly wacky), but the secularist worship of the golden calf of sodom and mammon is even more ridiculous since it is worship of decadent vanity of homos and trannies. People get so passionate, weepy-eyed, and worked up over the Cult of the Holy Homo.

    The West went from Gay Rights to Gay Rites. The new homily is the homoly. To be ‘saved’(and maybe shaved), you need Gay on your side. Even the word ‘pride’ has been made synonymous with homosexuality. It used to be ‘gay pride’, a ridiculous enough idea as who wants to associate pride with fecal penetration and genital mutilation? But now, just say ‘pride’, and it’s the domain of homos.

    Many people wanted to be nice to homos and offer them tolerance. But they failed to realize the homo nature. Homos are vain, narcissistic, hissy, and bitchy. They are very jealous and demanding. They prefer fantasy over reality, artifice over nature. So, if a some tranny says he is a ‘woman’, not only does he fool himself that he is a diva but he demands that we better agree too. And homos feel as members of some elite society of natural aristocrats with style and flair deserving of praise and admiration from straight serfs and peons.
    It is no wonder that Jews have forged the closest alliance with homos since Jews have similar personality traits: chutzpah, cult of specialness, self-righteousness, supremacism, and holy victim mentality. And what better way to destroy deep-rooted gentile spiritual systems like Christianity and Islam with the neo-religion of Queertianity and Homoslam?
    Also, Jews and homos are both for the normalization of minority-elite-supremacism. And Jewish Power and Homo Power are both diaspora power. Jews have settled all over the world, and homos sprout in all parts of the world. Except for Israel, there is no Jewish nation. And there is no homo nation. So, Jewish power and Homo power is about gaining minority supremacist privileges over what are mostly gentile/straight nations.


    1. So, in social politics, always know the nature of the people you’re dealing with. If homos had a saner personality, they would have stopped at Tolerance, the acceptance by straight society that homos are born that way and should be allowed to be free in their deviancy.
      But homos have a vain, narcissistic, queenie-meanie, and neo-aristocratic personality, and once they got some power, they began to demand more and more and more. And homos were bound to become fabulously rich since they are so predominant in vanity and vice industries of pop culture and fashion. They are rolling in ill-gotten profits from peddling opium to the masses. And they got the backing of Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Silicon Valley that are dominated by Jewish oligarchs.

      But in the end, Homomania will fail for the same reason the Golden Calf did. If we look past the fanfare, festivity, fake colors, and fandom, there is nothing there there. There is nothing holy about narcissistic homos and vain trannies. There is nothing moral about ‘gay marriage’ that equates a homo man’s anus with a woman’s vagina. There is nothing sane about pretending that a man’s penis and balls have been magically transformed into a ‘vagina’. And preferring escapist fantasy over sober reality cannot be the basis of real culture and values.

      Stupid Conservatives talk about the need to protect homos from Sharia, but what we really need is to protect sane decent people from Homomaniacs and Poo-Ride supremacists. From Gayria.

  7. This DIVERSITY argument got it upside down.

    It wasn’t Diversity that made the West great. It was unity and solidarity, which become frayed with diversity.

    After all, the US became a superpower BEFORE the mass immigration beginning in 1965.
    And UK was a great power before any non-white immigration.
    And Japan and Germany became giant economies without or before immigration.

    Instead of diversity making those nations rich, it was their richness that attracted diversity.

    After all, if whites had utterly failed to build an economy and stable order in the US, would diverse peoples from all over the world want to go there?

    No one comes to the US or any Western nation for diversity. They go there for the wealth and success and rule of law. After all, if diversity is the main attraction, why shouldn’t immigrants choose Brazil or Venezuela over Canada or Australia? Surely, Latin American nations are more diverse. And why are people running from diverse North Africa to white Sweden? Sweden is cold and has long winters and is still less diverse than North Africa. So, why do people go there if diversity is utopia? Because Sweden is rich and better-run than most societies(until diversity ruins everything).

    Diversity didn’t make America. America attracts diversity because it’s rich. That’s it.

    It’s like a tree. If a tree grows big, it produces lots of fruits. Fruits attract monkeys. Monkeys didn’t make the fruits. The tree did. The monkeys just came to feed on the fruits. It would be fallacious to say ‘Monkeys lead to Big Tree with Fruits’. The tree is tall and hanging with fruits not because of the monkeys. No, the monkey climbed the tree because the fruits were already there. Tree made the fruits, and monkeys came to feed on the fruits. Likewise, diversity didn’t make America. Diversity came to feed on America.

    The real formula for the success of the US was already developed in Northern Europe. America was essentially the extension of the Northern European people, values, culture, and formula. (Later, other Europeans remolded themselves to conform to the Northern Model.) It was unity and solidarity of these peoples and principles that made America. Diversity had nothing to do with it.

    Imagine an alternative founding of the US. Suppose America was settled by every ethnic group in the world in equal representation. So, if the world has, say, 200 ethnic groups, each people compromise only 0.5% of first Americans. So, the first Americans are a crazy quilt of all 200 ethnic groups from Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, etc. It’s truly diverse. Would this kind of nation have amounted to anything? Of course not. But PC diversity freaks would us believe that diversity is the reason for America’s riches and power. It’s just a BS excuse to feed on whitey. By invoking diversity, even peoples who had NOTHING to with American success lay claim on America because they are part of ‘diversity’.

    Because America is now diverse, PC pushes the fallacy that the US is rich and powerful because of diversity. So, we are to believe diversity is the reason for success of America. In fact, Diversity came to feed on the success created by white unity and solidarity. Diversity is Our Parasite.

    Now, one can make a case for blacks and their contribution of labor to the economy. But blacks were only useful when they listened to whitey who knew better. Once blacks got ‘uppity’ and insisted on doing it their way, they messed city after city. And in the end, blacks took far more than gave to the US with their uppity parasitism.

  8. Think of the tower of Babel from Genesis. A major collaborative project which God was easily able to thwart by adding some diversity. A diversity of languages brought the entire project down.