What if the most decisive issue of our time is also the most divisive? The one you’re not allowed to talk about. The one that’ll get you into trouble, just for mentioning it.
Plenty of organisations manage to avoid uncomfortable truths, for a while. They fail to deal with obviously impending trouble. Until the discomfort becomes too real.
But by then, fixing the problem you’ve largely created by ignoring it becomes very painful – far worse than if you’d been honest about it earlier.
America’s war in Vietnam, the rise of Donald Trump, Enron and Lehman Brothers, the war on drugs and alcohol, anti-semitism, communism, money printing and plenty more examples show how avoiding the obvious truth and doubling down just makes the eventual fix more painful.
People get blown up, starve, are elected, go broke, become criminals, get gassed and destroy economies, all because those around them were willing to pretend there isn’t a problem, or mentioning that problem is a faux pas.
This happens even when the problem is obvious or undeniable, which is when the phenomenon of denial is particularly interesting.
Today, I’m talking about migration in Europe. A topic that could prove decisive for the future of politics and financial stability there and here in the UK.
But you’re not allowed to mention it.
In denial of causes and consequences
You’d think immigration is fairly predictable and measurable. But it isn’t. At least not the bits that matter.
How do you measure the key distinctions, such as assimilation and tolerance?
A third generation Brit with roots from one foreign country could be less assimilated and more radicalised than a recent arrival from a war-torn nation in the Middle East. At least based on my personal experience. The Syrians sitting at the train station in Austria on their way to Germany spoke fluent English while many Londoners never bother to learn it.
Still, if I’m going to declare immigration as a problem, then there has to be some proof that it is.
There are some poor proxies and plenty of flimsy evidence. As well as shocking estimates of what’s to come.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition partner Horst Seehofer pointed out that Germany can expect the number of refugees from the recent influx to hit more than three million once they bring their families over:
“What that means for security, integration, the ability to finance our government, for the function of our government including the judicial branch – that is a different country. And the population doesn’t want Germany or Bavaria to become a different country. And I’m understating things.”
The Heritage Foundation summarised some figures on migration-related terror incidents:
Almost 1,000 people have been injured or killed in terrorist attacks featuring asylum seekers or refugees since 2014.
Over the past four years, 16 percent of Islamist plots in Europe featured asylum seekers or refugees.
ISIS has direct connections to the majority of plots, with Germany targeted most often, and Syrians more frequently involved than any other nationality.
Nearly three-quarters of plotters carry out, or have their plans thwarted, within two years of arrival in Europe.
Radicalization of plotters generally occurred abroad although in the most recent plots, more commonly within Europe itself.
The frequency with which nations were attacked seems to be correlated with the amount of refugee immigration, not other political topics, such as military intervention in the Middle East. It was Germany, the main destination for refugees, which saw more attacks than France and the UK combined in the last few years.
That’s the opposite to previous episodes of terrorism. In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the countries supporting the invasion saw their capital city public transport systems bombed. Except Australia, because the terrorists couldn’t find Canberra, assumed it doesn’t have public transport, or refused to go there.
Back to migration.
Statistics about immigration probably aren’t the real driver of the point I’m going to make below. We read them, but few experience them on any given day. It’s the anecdotal evidence that is far stronger. What people actually see each day influences them a lot.
In parts of Germany, the street signs banning skateboarding and football in urban areas aren’t in German. They’re not even translated into German…
When my Australian friends visited my former hometown in Germany, we tried to buy a football jersey at Karstadt. Instead, we got caught up between rival sides in a protest about Israel and Palestine. My friend’s bright orange hair got us out unscathed when horse mounted riot police charged.
My cousin doesn’t cycle home any more because of the refugee camp in the park.
After the violence ends, the trouble begins
The future suggests things will get worse, not better.
The PEW research centre estimates that the amount of Muslims in Europe will triple to 14% by 2050 if current migration rates continue. They’re obviously far more concentrated in specific countries and cities, leading to far more local animosity.
In France, they’re worried about “Eurafrique” thanks to a population explosion in Africa while the West begins its demographic decline. The same migration rates as a percentage of the African population mean far higher numbers of Africans in Europe, and representing far higher percentages of the population there. Especially in the workforce.
One of the biggest problems with migration is its effect on democracy over time. If people of a migratory background begin to exert serious political power, where does that leave those who welcomed them?
The same applies to culture. Pro-migration activists in the US have proven masterful at destroying culture under the guise it promotes racism or similar views. If immigrants in Europe watch and learn, what will happen to European culture?
The Charlie Hebdo shooting raised another fascinating question. Should a society that is pro-free speech give airtime to those who speak out against it? Or shoot those who express it?
Should a society that does not use violent repression of ideas tolerate violent repression of ideas within it? And how else can you counter such ideas?
Does a society which is tolerant of minorities welcome minorities that are intolerant of other minorities? In Paris there is concern about Jewish communities having to move to avoid conflict with other groups.
My favourite question is for the feminists. Should feminists be tolerant of those who would subject them to patriarchy?
How you and I answer those questions isn’t what this Capital & Conflict is about. The point is that we are pretending we don’t have to answer those questions. We’re in denial.
And tomorrow, we’ll look into where this denial will lead us.
Until next time,
Nick Hubble
Capital & Conflict
Category: The End of Europe