The Insane Immigration Economy; Not a Real Nation By James Reed
Nothing has changed much; the economic elites are still pinning their hopes, indeed their lives on the immigration economy created in the post-world War II period. This is not a real nation, for it explicitly aims to dissolve the identity created by Anglo-Australia prior to the war, and given a few more ecological/biological shocks, it should all fall apart, beautifully:
“Australia's dependence on immigration to grow the economy is about to be sorely tested. One of the secret ingredients to Australia's unparalleled run of economic growth since the country's last recession has been strong population growth. While local mums have played their part in swelling the number of locals, the heavy lifting has been done by people from nations such as China, India, Britain, New Zealand and the Philippines who have decided to call Australia home. Over the past decade, the nation's permanent population has grown by 3.7 million to more than 25 million. Of that increase, 60 per cent was due to net migration. That extra 2.2 million people have been an economic powerhouse, requiring homes, cars, food and every day goods and services while also contributing fresh skills to the jobs market. But it has come at a price, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. Be it via higher house prices or over-crowded schools, all levels of government have struggled to keep up with the demands of a growing population while reaping the economic benefits of that population.”
It is a price too great, and Australia should have taken a different road, one of self-reliance, but unfortunately the country was dominated by the globalists early in the piece, and the good men slept and never managed to survive their onslaught. Thus, it will dissolve into China, the bigger fish to eat it, unless, some black swan event occurs. This could be it:
“Coronavirus will leave the world a very different place. Some of our institutions may never recover. Among the most vulnerable? The world’s biggest cities. Coronavirus, unlike a terrorist attack, doesn’t destroy the physical fabric of cities. There’s no fire, no smoke. Instead, what’s torn to pieces is our willingness to be around other people. Other people are now seen as suspicious — a potential source of viral infection. We all know the awkward dance one does to put more space between ourselves and an oncoming pedestrian. Crowds, meanwhile, are now utterly terrifying. And you can’t exactly have a city without crowds. A city is a place of encounters, that’s why they exist. If encounters are uncomfortable, cities are at risk. In Australia, where the virus has hit us relatively gently, we can expect cities to change at least a little. Office towers will suffer as we learn to work from home. Malls will empty out as retailers go under and online shopping grows more prevalent still. Crowds will be thinned out for a time. In Europe and the United States, cities will be affected far more gravely. In London, an estimated 7% of the population has been infected already, and in New York, 21%. Everyone knows of someone who has died. That makes the fear terribly real — fear which will not abate, even when the virus itself does.
Just as the generation that lived through the Great Depression has their behavioural quirks, so the generation that lived though COVID-19 will carry the scars of this period forever. No New Yorker is going to head back into a crowd without surfacing their memories of this period. Avoidance behaviour will be the new normal. Experts are calling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) “the second tsunami of the SARS-Cov2 pandemic.” It is most likely to hit health care workers and the infected. In cities with high infection rates, that’s millions of people. Even those who don’t have PTSD will have a nagging feeling about crowds. They’ll suppress it with conscious thought — “remember, this is no more dangerous than it ever was before”. But such thought takes effort, and that effort will subtly turn people off crowds, and city life will be eroded. Fear of crowds will hit shopping centres, bars, nightclubs. But it will hit cities hardest where daily life is synonymous with public transport. The Tube is emblematic of London, and the subway is an icon in New York. Those cities, with their high infection rates, high death rates, and terrible surface traffic, face a particularly challenging future. In April, the US National Bureau of Economic Research circulated a working paper from an MIT economist entitled “The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City“. The MIT economist, Jeffrey Harris, found that “maps of subway station turnstile entries, superimposed upon zip-code-level maps of reported coronavirus incidence, are strongly consistent with subway-facilitated disease propagation”. Even if he’s wrong — and he might well be — the link is plausible in people’s minds. How many people will feel at ease taking a crowded tube once this is over? In future they are likely to be avoided by those who are able, becoming the domain of those with no alternative.”
The same applies to Melbourne and Sydney, so it is game over. Whatever you believe about the Covid-19 pandemic, there is now good reason to suppose that Mother Nature will throw up other more interesting pandemics; it is a question of when, not if, perhaps more severe than the 1918 flu. These will finally finish off the immigration economy, which was an ecological absurdity, like globalism and its pathological economics, from the beginning. Maybe Australia can learn to live within limits before it is finally finished, or it can die in accordance with natural selection.