EU Unveils Plan To Resettle More North African Refugees, Support Project With 500 Million Euros

Just days after The Economist primed the world with its narrative that sending 1.2 bilion unskilled Africans to Europe would increase global GDP, The EU's executive has unveiled plans to resettle at least 50,000 refugees, focusing on people from northern Africa, to bypass smugglers.

As we noted previously, The Economist's argument is plain idiotic.  


The Economist confuses countries with companies that are profit-oriented, and where people are disposable resources. Yet, countries are communities, and citizens do not usually expect their governments to merely maximize GDP. History teaches us that migration causes social unrest, disrupts social cohesion and ultimately the stability of the recipient nation. And even if we set aside these social or national considerations, the Economist’s reasoning is still false.


The whole argument breaks down on social security and the massive world oversupply of unskilled labour.


Social security determines the minimum price of labour.


If there is abundance of unskilled workers, governments step in and buy or take out of the market the oversupply of labourers for a minimum price called social welfare.

And so, as reports, the EU central planners think more immigrants, more social welfare, more forced dependency on the uber-alles-arching Brussels corporotocracy...

The plan announced by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, on Wednesday involved setting aside 500 million euros ($587 million) for the resettlement effort.


It would involve bringing at least 50,000 people considered the most vulnerable and in need of protection directly to Europe over the next two years. The focus should be on people in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, the commission said, mentioning Libya, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, Chad and Ethiopia. Libya is the main departure point for people making dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean in smugglers' boats to reach Europe.


"Europe has to show that it is ready to share responsibility with third countries, notably in Africa. People who are in genuine need of protection should not risk their lives or depend on smugglers," EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told media in Brussels.


The EU has already resettled 23,000 people, mainly from refugee camps in Turkey and the Middle East, under previous resettlement schemes.


The move is part of the EU's effort to cope with an ongoing migration crisis which has seen more than a million refugees and unauthorized migrants enter the bloc over the past two years and threatened European solidarity. The recommendations from Brussels are not legally binding on member states, which are individually responsible for deciding on resettlement numbers.

Of course, as is well known, European countries have struggled to agree on and implement migration policies as well as deals to distribute asylum seekers who arrive at EU border countries across the bloc. Separately, Brussels on Wednesday also released plans to allow countries in the Schengen free movement area to reintroduce border controls for security reasons for up to three years during a crisis.

Of course, it is not lost on us that Europe is already struggling to distribute thousands of migrants in the bloc, so how does this help? As we concluded previously,

Africa has 1.2 billion people that will double in the next 25 years, of which huge numbers are about to join European labour force in the coming decades. At the same time the highly educated and skilled western populations will decline, reducing the demand for unskilled labour even further. There is no chance that Europe can afford to keep its social welfare without enforcing a quota on migrants. And even if social security is dropped altogether, the European labour market will reach a situation where there are so many labourers that they become as worthless as they are in Nigeria. For the unskilled European working class it is tantamount to suicide to vote open borders advocates into office.

Interestingly enough, The Economist implicitly stated that Africans are not able to utilise their labour force themselves. Bringing the African population under European supervision failed during the very brief period of colonisation of Africa, and now the Economist wants to bring the Africans under European supervision by using open borders policy and moving the African population to Europe.

Does the Economist really suggest that white Europeans are the only ones who can solve Africa’s problems?


Haus-Targaryen Mementoil Thu, 09/28/2017 - 04:06 Permalink

I'm telling you guys -- and mark my words -- this ends with Leichenberge; either through natural selection when the base of Maslow's heirarchy of needs gets cut off due to a credit collapse; or the domestic population revolts. This will not continue as is.  There will be no rainbow nation in "Europe".The only things left to be decided are (i) whose bodies will they be; and (ii) when. 

In reply to by Mementoil

Red-Pill Girl Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 04:30 Permalink

Hopefully will be (((theirs))).(((The Left))) is pushing hard for diversity and now with the advent of the Internet (((they))) are really desperate to move things FAST...before the goyim get red pilled.Dear White People…Why Shouldn’t Whites be Supreme in the Nations of Their Forefathers?…

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen 07564111 Thu, 09/28/2017 - 04:11 Permalink

Why the Russian Federation doesn't try to attract German diaspora to Königsberg is beyond me.  They'd have 1+ million wealthy and independently educated people as a tax base plus the more or less free renovation of Königsberg as a Hansastadt once more. I'd be on the first boat over there. Set it up as a Russian protectorate with German and Russian as official languages, allow unlimited Visa without voting ability for Germans + family members if they purchase and restore, or rebuild historical structures in the province.  Name is Prussia and sign a 500 year Russian military presence guarantee. Ban all forms of degeneracy; Islam and allow private ownership of weapons.  Guarantee strict banking anonyomity and charge tax on property acquisition, with a negotiated contract with the government for no annual property tax.  Turn it into Switzerland 2.0.Would in ten years become one of the wealthiest regions in Europe. 

In reply to by 07564111

Haus-Targaryen Azannoth Thu, 09/28/2017 - 05:11 Permalink

It just seems, IDK, extremely shortsighted on the part of the Russian government. i) US and Anglo foreign policy in general since 1871 has had only one objective in Europe in mind: prevent Germany and Russia from ever finding themselves on the same side. ii) The US' financial system is unsustainble and will expire, casting most of Western Europe adrift much like the USSR's collapse cast most of Eastern Europe adrift. iii) A pre-existing Russian-backed German government that functions and works BEFORE this occurs would allow this institution to step into the vacuum created when the BND inevitably collapses due to the collapse of the "Mothership" in DC. iv) Would give Russia an "in" to much of Western Europe's wealth and prosperity and hopefully build confidence in institutions allowing for a quick "rebirth" of a very Russian friendly Germany after this all comes unraveled. My experience with Russians is materially different than my experience with Poles.  Russians I have encountered are like "Holy shit, you guys almost won.  Horrible shit occurred, but respect." The Poles, often still act like butthurt children about the whole ordeal, something I think any Russian reading this can also attest to. Besides, the Kremlin offered Königsberg back to West Germany in 89 in exchange for forgiving some 4 billion DMark in sovereign debt. West Germany, run by morons declined the offer. You'll further find EU Maps going back amost two decades lumping Königsberg into Lithuania. The map that someone created which did this has never existed, meaning its creation was intentional and not an accident. See: 

In reply to by Azannoth

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 05:50 Permalink

shortsighted? what is shortsighted about Russian media bashing Germany?it's traditional and it is patriotic. to paraphrase you from our last exchange, "nobody is a rascal if he is wrapped in the national flag", eh?meanwhile, Germany and Russia cooperate on a lot of things. Berlin and Moscow have a better understanding of each other then what any Patriotic Press suggestsin fact, you should, if you really want the two capitals to work even better together... refrain from even suggesting that they should do that in public, openly (note the double standards)Russia... trusts Germany. specifically, the Russian elites and government trusts the German elites and governmentevidence for that... abounds. 6'000 joint companies. a pipeline being built connecting the two against the Polish screams and US counter-lobbying. they sit together with France and Ukraine trying to put a "Minsk Accords" band-aid to the bleeding wounds therethose are deeds. meanwhile, Russia is engaged in a war of words against key German interests, and the EU, and NATO, etc. etc.why? ah, well, because those words... "sell" and of course... distract

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Thu, 09/28/2017 - 05:57 Permalink

I agree with this comment, save the top two lines.>>>shortsighted? what is shortsighted about Russian media bashing Germany?>>>If your read what I wrote and was responding to -- I never said it was shortsighted to bash Germany; I said it was shortsighted not to capitalize on the social suicide of a neighbor. >>>it's traditional and it is patriotic. to paraphrase you from our last exchange, "nobody is a rascal if he is wrapped in the national flag", eh>>>While its a great "European" pasttime to make fun of one another -- I've never suggested nor implied what you quoted me as saying. Quit putting words in my mouth. 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:10 Permalink

I wrote paraphrasedbut ok, the exact quotes are:me: "do you think that if we had no EU, that France, Germany, Italy would not sport a similar amount of those people, then each in the own country?" (meaning the scoundrels we were talking about, i.e. "a small group of people who want immense wealth and power...")your answer: "Yes, probably. But it would be each in his own country. An important distinction."the quip is old: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrelnope, I do not see the logic of that distinction. a scoundrel is a scoundrel. making him a National Scoundrel does not change the stench

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:16 Permalink

So pick the "meanest"/"worst" "European" leader in recent memory.  I'd say Stalin; you'd likely say Hitler.  Let's combine the two, for arguments sake -- into a single person: Hitlin. Let's say the EU continues along this path, and Mr. Hitlin doesn't take control of a single member state -- but rather then entire thing. What now? National borders are GOOD things, as they not only protect the people within the borders, but also act as a firewall for their neighbors. I would much rather have 28 different scoundrels with limited power than one scoundrel with much greater power. For some reason, you either cannot or choose to not understand this. Fascinating. 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:29 Permalink

no, no, let's agree on Stalin, our Dear Uncle Joeare you aware that there is a massive movement in Russia to declare Stalin a Hero, Period... again?and how many nations did the Soviet Union contain? Uncle Joe was not a Russian, remember? there is still a huge debate about his "Georgian accent" raging on"I would much rather have 28 different scoundrels with limited power than one scoundrel with much greater power"and how can you describe the EU Council as anything else then a system to limit the power of 28 government heads? they... limit each other, remember?remember... Brexit? the UK will leave, and this will make the Prime Minister of the UK more powerfulnow read again your sentence. if you were a Brit, it would be understood as you being against Brexit

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:36 Permalink

Your ability to conflate issues and obsecure what is being discussed is indeed impressive. The EU centralizes power of 28 member states into a single body, with at its head the President of the Commission. It is currently a fairly limp-wristed position and its holders do lots of nothing. However; if you read Mssr. Macron's speech, or the German reaction thereto; it becomes apparent this institution is to become ever more powerful, and only made possible by the surrendering of more power from the 28 member states into a central authority. I say centralizing power like this is a bad way of preventing a Stalin-like figure from taking hold of all of Europe in one go.  You assert thats bollocks, which is obviously disconnected from reality.Dance around that.  

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:45 Permalink

the EU countries centralize some sovereign power into... the EU Council. which is the heads of the national governments. from Orban to Merkel to Gentiloni to the exiting May, etc.the Commission, is (as you just wrote, "limp-wristed") the "civil servant body" below the Council, appointed by the Councilwho is Macron? the elected President of France. and his Prime Minister sits in the EU Council, representing France therenow how this is supposed to create a "Stalin-like figure"... is beyond me. in reality, now. in federalist fantasies... oh, well

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:47 Permalink

Said federalist fantasies are where this institution and its fanatic supporters want to take this.  I include you in this group. Although you aren't an EU federalist; if the choice was take it (the EU) out back and shoot it or make it a true federation -- you'd make it a federation.  You are to blame for what is to come. 

In reply to by Ghordius

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:59 Permalink

So now your agument is "Well all the other guys have one guy with a red button; so now we need one as well.  But this will definitely prevent a Stalin from ever coming to power." Realize you've been backed into a corner here and now just look foolish to everyone save the "I love the EU" nut that reads ZH from the ECB. 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 07:12 Permalink

no. my argument is that there is reality. which is different from fantasiesyou... rail against fantasies. you rail against a possible future... which I don't even believe as possible, btwbesides, the above mentioned President of France has one of those red buttons, so how can I put such things as "scary, scary future possibilities"? it's reality, tooin short: I sometimes suspect you engage in those endless rephrasings... as a device. for distraction. to blur the discussion, to blur the points being made, to drown the whole in endless babble. and... I suspect it works very well

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

stilletto2 Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 09:31 Permalink

Hi H-T. Interesting that you support the balancing ideal of separate nation states which prevent any one grouping becoming over-mighty and thus dictatorial.  Do you realise that this is and has been the UK foreign policy position for over 400yrs?  You railed against the Anglo meddling in Europe in the 1800s leading to WW1 in a past exchange. However the UK has always sought to prevent any one EU state dominating the continent. So they allied with dutch against Spain in 1500s to then fight dutch in 1600s, then allied with Austrians and Prussians against France in 1600s & 1700s, then joined with a weakened France against Russia in 1840s, to then switch to allying with austrians against prussians in 1870s as prussia expanded. Then allied with france and russia against prussia and austria as they became overly dominant of EU countries. The policy of maintaining many smaller balancing soveriegn states as a defence against a resurgent Holy roman Empire (EU, USSR, etc, etc) is and always has been UK policy. Of course this has always been in the best interests of the UK but, it has also always been indirectly in the best interests of individual liberty. For selfish National reasons the UK has actually pursued a policy that has been to the benefit of humanity. Nice to see you supporting the UK position!  

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen kochevnik Thu, 09/28/2017 - 04:59 Permalink

You will find in Germany -- the Germans that want nothing to do with this third-world invasion don't resent the Russians in the least. The ones who resent the Russians are also those who consume American-funded media; are pro-EU and pro-open borders. These people are cancer and the thought of moving to a Russian protectorate would repulse them.  You wouldn't need to worry about these people making the trip.  They'd rather have their wifes and daughters "culturally enriched" than turn their back on their "best friend, the US" or be called mean names. They are cowards and are destroying the continent. 

In reply to by kochevnik

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Thu, 09/28/2017 - 07:59 Permalink

Colonization was/is bad because the US used to be thirtheen colonies, and fought, helped by France, to gain their Independence from the British Empire.that simple, actually. it's logic by association: colonists = freedom fighters, colonizers = evil imperialistsit's the same logic used by so many in: plucky underdog = good; freedom fighter = good; independence = goodexcept when they are terrorists. then it's bad. so you have to call them terrorists, first, and everything is hanky dory

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Haus-Targaryen DivisionBell Thu, 09/28/2017 - 06:00 Permalink

True, then again the Bolschevik Revolution, the Russian Civil War and the Soviet Union that followed screwed many groups -- not just German minorities in various eastern-European nations. Please forgive me for being a bit too optimistic about this to the point of naivete -- but finding a white nation with the potential of being very wealthy that hasn't embraced this neo-Marxist post-sexual revolution degeneracy is basically an impossibility at this point.The only option I can reasonably see is basically creating something new.  

In reply to by DivisionBell