How quickly the official narrative changes.
Just several months ago, in October, we reported that the now-rattled largest European bank, Deutsche Bank, boosted its forecast for German 2016 GDP to 1.9% from 1.7% saying that “although the external and the financial environment have deteriorated we have lifted our 2016 GDP call… drivers are stronger real consumption growth due to lower oil prices/stronger EUR and the surge in immigration.”
Little did DB know that crashing oil and commodity prices would lead to existential concerns about its own viability manifesting in a record blow out in its subordinated DB CDS, a record plunge in its stock price and ever louder comparisons between Deutsche Bank and Lehman Brothers. As for the boost to German GDP from the influx of refugees, maybe DB had in mind the soaring pepper spray sales following the infamous Cologne New Year’s “celebration” events.
But even prior to that, on September 18, in an editorial piece the NYT wrote that “Europe Should See Refugees as a Boon, Not a Burden” and goalseeked its liberal conclusion as follows:
Many European leaders have described the refugees who are risking their lives to get to the Continent as a burden. But there is good reason to believe that these immigrants will contribute more to Europe economically than they will take from it.
Numerous studies have found that immigrants bolster growth by increasing the labor force and consumer demand. Rather than being a drain, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits. Even a large influx of immigrants does not mean fewer jobs for the existing population, since economies do not have a finite number of jobs. Immigrants often bring skills with them, and some start new businesses, creating jobs for others. The less skilled often take jobs that are hard to fill, like in child care, for example, which allows more parents to work.
The left-wing push for sympathy even prompted US Secretary of State to announce, just two days later that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide migrants it takes in over the next two years.
The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after they discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war.
This followed a prior commitment from the White House to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees over the coming year.
Those plans are likely dead and buried now, following the latest U-turn in U.S. policy, which brings us to evens from this weekend, when the same John Kerry, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel for showing “great courage in helping so many who need so much” and European communities who are taking in those fleeing the violence and “rejecting intolerance and racism” within their societies.
However it was here, that for the first time Kerry uttered a warning which until recently would have been branded as borderline xenophobic by the same abovementioned left-wing media, when Kerry warned that the mass influx of refugees and other migrants into Europe spells a “near existential threat” to the continent.
“We are facing the gravest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II,” he said at the conference. “The United States understands the near existential nature of this threat to the politics and fabric of life in Europe,” he told the meeting as reported by The Local.
The core problem is well-known: Europe has been deeply split by how to handle the mass influx of people fleeing war-torn Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. Germany has taken over 1.1 million refugees last year, while Italy and Greece have been overwhelmed as the main arrival points from the Middle East and Africa. The result is a collapse in Merkel’s until recently unshakable popularity and loud whispers that Merkel political career may not last too long if the refugee problem is not promptly addressed.
Sweden and Austria have also taken in large numbers, but many EU members, especially in the east, have been deeply reluctant to open their doors.
So what does Kerry believe now? Kerry said about the refugee influx: “We are not saying, ‘This is your problem, not ours’. This is our problem.And that is why we are joining now and enforcing a NATO mission to close off a key access route,” he said of an alliance naval surveillance mission off Turkey and Greece.”And we will join you in other ways to stem this tide because of the potential of its damage to the fabric of a united Europe,” he added.
Which is not to say he is incorrect: after all none other than the architect of Europe’s “open society” George Soros, now openly warns about thecollapse of the EU if the refugee influx, something he himself has been advocating, is not fixed. Here is a brief excerpt of an interview between George Soros and Gregor Peter Schmitz of the German magazine WirtschaftsWoche.
Schmitz: You have been so involved in promoting the principles of open society and supporting democratic change in Eastern Europe. Why is there so much opposition and resentment toward refugees there?
Soros: Because the principles of an open society don’t have strong roots in that part of the world. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is promoting the principles of Hungarian and Christian identity. Combining national identity with religion is a powerful mix. And Orbán is not alone. The leader of the newly elected ruling party in Poland, Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, is taking a similar approach. He is not as intelligent as Orbán, but he is a canny politician and he chose migration as the central issue of his campaign. Poland is one of the most ethnically and religiously homogeneous countries in Europe. A Muslim immigrant in Catholic Poland is the embodiment of the Other. Kaczy?ski was successful in painting him as the devil.
Soros’ solution? Money, of course. “My foundations do not engage only in advocacy; they seek to make a positive contribution on the ground. We established a foundation in Greece, Solidarity Now, in 2013. We could clearly foresee that Greece in its impoverished state would have difficulty taking care of the large number of refugees that are stuck there.”
Schmitz: Where would the money for your plan come from?
Soros: It would be impossible for the EU to finance this expenditure out of its current budget. It could, however, raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity. The burden of servicing the bonds could be equitably distributed between member states that accept refugees and those that refuse to do so or impose special restrictions. Needless to say, that is where I remain at odds with Chancellor Merkel.
In other words, Soros advocates adding cultural diversity injury to even more debt in an already insolvent European continent – debt which hedge funds could trade and profit from when the time for yet another bailout comes – to fix a problem that would not have been there had Merkel not listened to the likes of Soros, and the NYT editorial board, whose only advocacy of liberal ideals was merely a placeholder to promote their own selfish agendas.
As for Kerry, we find it ironic that the person now warning about refugees posing “a near existential threat” to an entire continent, was just five months ago so very eager to welcome 100,000 Syrian refugees to the US. We wonder if his policy on accepting those same refugees with open arms has changed as of this moment… and who gets to profit this time?