The Guardian has coverage of a new report by an NGO arguing that, while the bringing in of African and Muslim refugees into Europe will worsen budget deficits, this will be more than offset by rising GDP growth.

The migrants, we are invited to believe, are quite the bargain:

Refugees who arrived in Europe last year could repay spending on them almost twice over within just five years, according to one of the first in-depth investigations into the impact incomers have on host communities. Refugees will create more jobs, increase demand for services and products, and fill gaps in European workforces — while their wages will help fund dwindling pensions pots and public finances, says Philippe Legrain, a former economic adviser to the president of the European commission. Simultaneously refugees are unlikely to decrease wages or raise unemployment for native workers, Legrain says, citing past studies by labour economists. Most significantly, Legrain calculates that while the absorption of so many refugees will increase public debt by almost €69bn (£54bn) between 2015 and 2020, during the same period refugees will help GDP grow by €126.6bn — a ratio of almost two to one. “Investing one euro in welcoming refugees can yield nearly two euros in economic benefits within five years,” concludes Refugees Work: A Humanitarian Investment That Yields Economic Dividends, a report released on Wednesday by the Tent Foundation, a non-government organisation that aims to help displaced people, and Open Political Economy Network, a new thinktank. A fellow at the London School of Economics, Legrain says he hopes the report will dispel the myth [sic] that refugees will cause economic problems for western society. [. . .] While their absorption puts a short-term strain on public finances, Legrain says, it also increases short-term economic demand, which acts as a welcome fiscal stimulus in countries where demand would otherwise be low. In the longer term, refugees will increasingly contribute to tax revenues — and also create jobs.

All this is supposed to dazzle the average person into submission. Most people would suspect that bringing in hordes of low-IQ, illiterate, and inbred immigrants might not just be “bad for the economy” but wreak quasi-permanent damage on one’s society.

But Philippe Legrain has been a senior European Commission such-and-such and teaches at the London School of Economics. There’s “economics” in the title! So this good goy (and he is apparently a goy) — who has just written a very scientific-sounding “report” for a very altruistic “non-government organization” — must know what he is talking about.

But the inanity of Legrain’s sophistry is all too transparent. I will not speculate on the short-term effects of bringing in hundreds of thousands of economic dependents, although it seems obvious that there are more straightforward and constructive ways of engaging in Keynesian spending. What is patently clear however is that the long-term economic effects of non-European immigration are bad, because we have well-established statistics on the non-European ethnic groups who already live among us.

In Great Britain, the think tank Policy Exchange found:

“While most ethnic minority groups live in large households (bigger than the White population), this is not true for Black Caribbeans. Pakistani and Bangladeshi households are the biggest, containing four or more people.”

“40% of Black people live in social housing.”

“[A]ll BME [Black and Ethnic Minority] communities have higher levels of unemployment and low[er] level[s] of full time workers than the White community.”

“Almost all minority groups, except the Indian community, have unemployment rates double the national average. Black Africans (18.3%) have the highest unemployment rate. 39% of Pakistani and 42% of Bangladeshi women have never worked. 24% of Pakistani men are taxi drivers and half of all Bangladeshi men work in restaurants.”

“All BME communities — regardless of age and social class — strongly support the Labour Party.”

The only major minority group in Britain which has shown any economic ability or tendency to vote Conservative has been the Indian community. All others overwhelmingly disproportionately use welfare and pay less into taxes and thus, from the economic point of view, represent a net drag for the White community which has to pay for them. Furthermore, all these groups have political preferences consistently at odds with the White community, which tends to favor center-right parties. Minority groups favor the Labour Party on the correct assumption that it will provide them more welfare and facilitate entry of more of their co-ethnics into the country.

Interestingly, the Policy Exchange report also notes: “All ethnic minority groups have a higher trust in Parliament and politicians in general than the White population, except the Black Caribbean community where only 1 in 5 trust politicians.” The White community seems to sense that the political class is betraying its interests, whereas most minority groups feel theirs are protected.

Contra Legrain’s Panglossian optimism, the data are clear: The overwhelming majority of non-European immigration has been an economic disaster for Britain. There is every indication that the low-IQ and inbred “refugees” will produce the exact same consequences. Despite all this evidence, we are invited to believe that infertile Europeans’ pensions can only be paid for by fast-breeding welfare-using non-Europeans. A ridiculous meme.

Data from other Western European countries show the same trends. In France, as documented by the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), European (and East Asian) immigrants rapidly converge economically and educationally to the national average. In contrast, African and Muslim groups show signs of intergenerational failure in these areas, leading to permanently higher welfare costs and lower average tax receipts.

The German economist and former senior central banker Sarrazin has found the same results concerning Muslim groups in Germany, especially Turks, in his best-seller Germany Abolishes Itself. In his latest book, appropriately entitled Wishful Thinking, Sarrazin writes of the recent migrants:

Their cultural and cognitive profiles are similar to those of the Muslims who already are in Europe. Therefore, it is to be expected that their development in terms of education, integration into the work force, dependency on government assistance, criminality and susceptibility to fundamentalism will follow similar patterns as those who are already here.

Such plain observation of the facts and common sense are apparently beyond the abilities of Philippe Legrain however.

Instead, Legrain’s report obfuscates the issue with stories of exceptional refugees like Sergey Brin and Li Ka-Shing, as though these are representative of the current wave of migrants. Again, the latter are disproportionately illiterate, low-IQ, and inbred!

Legrain parrots the insane argument that the demographic decline of native Europeans is further reason to encourage African and Muslim settlement, as the Guardian notes:

Legrain also highlights how refugees could solve an impending demographic challenge in Europe. “By 2030 the working-age population is projected to shrink by a sixth (8.7 million people), while the old-age population will grow by more than a quarter (4.7 million people),” writes Legrain. He suggests that an influx of younger refugees could help care and pay for the increasing population of pensioners.

In Tibet, such policies of actively replacing the indigenous population against its will with unassimilable outsiders is considered demographic-ethnic warfare — indeed “cultural genocide.”

Who is Legrain, you ask? He has a long history of promoting neoliberal globalization and borderlessness in the service of global plutocracy. He attacked the Left’s economic critique of free trade in Open World: The Truth About Globalization.

Legrain’s main claim to fame however is his 2007 book Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, which requires no comment, and which was shortlisted for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Book of the Year Award. He has worked in various positions for the European Union and the World Trade Organization, and been economics reporter for The Economist, which is owned by various multinational corporate families, most notably the Rothschilds.

In short, Legrain is a well-rewarded pillar of orthodoxy using his quill in service of the powers that be. Like so much of establishment “economics,” his abstract theorizing appears chiefly as unfalsifiable rationalization of elite wealth and power. The war to dispossess Europeans of their lands is nothing if not incentivized.

Legrain wrote the report for TENT, an organization entirely dedicated to reducing the 60 million displaced people in the world “to zero.” Apparently, TENT believes this is to be achieved by settling these people in our lands rather than by tackling the source of the problem: restoring peace in the Middle East. Of course, the latter would mean taking on the imperialists, Zionists, neocons, and other war criminals who are so influential in the Western foreign policy establishment. Far easier to inflict millions of crime- and terrorism-prone settlers upon the unsuspecting and innocent European peoples.

TENT was founded by the Kurdish-Turkish businessman Hamdi Ulukaya. The organization’s funding is unclear, but appears to be supported by a vast array of multinational corporations.

Ulukaya seems to have spent money on TENT as part of something called “the Giving Pledge,” which presents itself as “a commitment by the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.”

The Giving Pledge’s members is made up of a rather astonishing proportion of Jews (Bill Ackman, Sylvan Adams, Michael Bloomberg, two Bronfmans, Carl Icahn, Dustin Moskovitz, Paul Singer, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., etc.) and hopelessly cucked non-Jews (Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Paul Allen).

The White gentiles will no doubt spend the money on reinforcing political correctness to the detriment of their own nations. The others will, like Ulukaya, evidently use the funds to promote their various ethnic causes, such as settling foreigners in our lands and organizing our dispossession. And they will call it “philanthropy.” If nothing else, the oligarchs who rule us are good at marketing (i.e., propaganda). You have to give them that.

But every day our own people see a little more clearly. Political changes are occurring which were once unthinkable: Donald Trump is the Republican presumptive nominee for the presidency of the United States. Nationalists make up the single most popular parties in several European countries, including France, the Netherlands, and Austria (where a nationalist seems set to win the, admittedly mostly-ceremonial, presidency). In Central Europe, populist governments are consolidating a Visegrád bloc of nations opposed to Afro-Islamization and eager to raise the European birth rate. Even in Germany, epicenter of self-hatred and civilizational suicide, a the Alternative for Germany nationalist party is both radicalizing and becoming more popular, and is even within striking distance of the flailing Social Democrats.

Things could change very quickly.