The Great Replacement: “Foreigners” Will Soon be More Than 1/3rd of Germany

The Great Replacement: “Foreigners” Will Soon be More Than 1/3rd of Germany

Written by  

Existing before even Roman times, Germanic peoples long predate “Germany,” which wasn’t created till 1871. But now some may wonder if Germany will outlive the Germanic people, with demographic projections showing that more than one-third of the nation’s population — and 70 percent of large cities’ inhabitants — will have a migrant background in just 20 years.

As Voice of Europe reports:

Professor Herbert Brücker, the lead migration researcher at the Federal Institute for Employment Research (IAB), declared earlier this week that Germany ‘will become more diverse’.

“Currently, about a quarter of the people in German have a migrant background,” Brücker said. “In 20 years, it will be at least 35%, but could also be more than 40%.”

Brücker, an economics professor at the University of Bamberg, also notes that the proportion of migrants inhabiting German cities is likely to be higher.

“What we see in the big cities today will be normal for the country as a whole in the future. In a city like Frankfurt, we’ll have between 65% to 70%.”

This transformation is occurring in all or most all of Western Europe to some degree. It has been spurred partially by immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good, always necessary, must never be questioned, and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy.

This, in turn, has allowed for massive Third World migration into the continent; combine this with some (mainly Muslims) of the newcomers’ higher birth rates, and the result is the Great Replacement.

This immigrationism is justified and intensified with bad arguments. For example, Professor Brücker claimed “that an increasingly diverse population will be crucial to the security of Germany’s economy in the future,” DW reports. Unsurprisingly, the article does nothing to support this assertion. It doesn’t have to, apparently. It’s dogma.

As pundit Ann Coulter once noted, however, diversity is not a strength, but an obstacle to be overcome. Even sociological studies show the obvious: Diversity equals disunity. As nations become more diverse (i.e., balkanized), a sense of community is lost as people hunker down and increasingly keep to themselves.

DW also writes, “IAB figures suggest that Germany requires about 400,000 migrants per year until 2060 to avoid the economy shrinking.”

Yet these projections always seem to ignore (conveniently?) a simple fact: Experts continually warn us that automation/artificial intelligence will supplant a high percentage of workers in the near future. So the main coming employment problem may not be unfilled jobs, but the Terminator terminating your career.

While Brücker’s pitch may just be a thinly veiled immigrationist justification, it may also reflect — and certainly plays upon — something rank-and-file immigrationists would never suspect drives them: a Marxist idea.

To wit: Pope Benedict XVI once pointed out that Karl Marx’s great error was to view man as merely an “economic being.”

Thus did Marx fancifully believe (he was what we’d today call “mentally ill”) that if only true economic equality could be achieved, man could live in peace and eternal bliss without government. For what could possibly cause discord among those cogs in the machinery, those organic robots, if they’re all economically “equal”?

(I suspect Marx ignored apple-cart-upsetting factors such as lust, sloth, pride, wrath, gluttony, and greed — and envy of things not monetary, for that matter — because he was projecting onto others his own hang-up: the jealousy of others’ wealth that likely plagued him.)

Likewise, moderns today have a habit of defining everything in economic terms, often judging a policy’s worth by how it influences spreadsheets; in fact, they often don’t think it’s even necessary to mount anything but an economic argument.

Regarding immigration, however, what of the “national family”? What of culture? What of Western ideals and civilization? And even if immigration does bring short-term economic benefit, which is questionable, what does it profit a nation to gain the world but to lose its soul?

This attitude isn’t dead, mind you. As Breitbart wrote in June, relating the anti-migration Hungarian government’s philosophy, “Healthy families are more important than economic growth judged purely on figures on a spreadsheet.”

“What we need is not numbers, but Hungarian children: we’re not seeking to sustain an economic system, but Hungary, the Hungarian nation and Hungarian history; we want to encourage the continuation of our families for several generations,” a Hungarian spokesman elaborated.

In contrast, Westerners were long told, “The population is exploding! Don’t have too many kids! Immerse your women in careerism, indulge materialism, view reality through the modernist prism!”

Now they’re told, “Hey, you barren new Bolsheviks, your kids are too few; we need to replace you” — a fine “How do you do?”

On another dark note, late Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi noted the Great Replacement himself, saying in 2006, “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

As for the Germans, they’ve survived the swords-and-guns foreign incursions for millennia, having been invaded by the Romans, the Huns, and Napoleon, among others. How ironic it is that the foe finally extinguishing them maybe their own self-authored demographic genocide.

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDukehas written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, ObserverThe American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other prints and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.

Courtesy of The New American