
J.D. Vance is right about Germany's civilisational suicide
'If you have a country like Germany, where you have another few million immigrants come in from countries that are totally culturally incompatible with Germany, then it doesn't matter what I think about Europe… Germany will have killed itself, and I hope they don't do that, because I love Germany and I want Germany to thrive.'
While some dismissed his remarks as yet another post-Munich Security Conference jab, Vance insisted his concerns for Germany were sincere. And he seems to have a point.
While the US watches these developments from afar, the German mainstream media continues to push the narrative that the country needs 400,000 'skilled workers' annually. This is despite the fact that nearly four million able-bodied people of working age already receive benefits, almost half of whom are non-German citizens. When you include those with German passports who were born overseas, the number rises to around 64 per cent. So, where did it all go wrong for Germany on migration and refugee policy?
It began with the Gastarbeiter ('guest workers') invited during the post-war economic boom under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his minister for economic affairs (and future Chancellor) Ludwig Erhard. Starting in 1955, Germany recruited labour from Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. What began with 300,000 workers in the 1960s ballooned to 2.6 million by 1973. The introduction of family reunification turned these guests into permanent residents. Although there were efforts to curb immigration and encourage return migration as late as the 1990s, they met with little success. Germany is simply a nicer place to live than Turkey, even if Germans of Turkish origin set off fireworks to celebrate Erdogan's election victories.
The floodgates were fully thrown open in 2015 by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, when she allowed Syrian migrants to enter Europe. Millions of asylum seekers and economic migrants made their way across Europe with little to no vetting. Even though the Syrian civil war has come to an end, almost none want to return home, and a combination of family reunion and lax borders means that asylum seekers keep coming in large numbers.
In contrast to the Netherlands and Denmark, Germany has not produced a comprehensive recent cost-benefit analysis of migration. No official lifetime cost estimates exist. Yet the consequences are increasingly visible: rising violent crime, public schools where students of migrant backgrounds make up 42 per cent of the pupils (with some schools reaching 90 per cent), cultural fragmentation, and an overburdened welfare and healthcare system. Even Germany's once-abundant tax revenues are no longer enough. A €172 billion budget shortfall looms, worsened by promises such as a special pension for mothers. Meanwhile, the government is floating the idea of a 'Boomer-Soli', a new tax on 'big pensions' above €1,000 per month.
The warning lights are flashing, but the government continues to kick the can down the road. Painful, necessary reforms to the welfare state, pensions, and immigration policy are endlessly postponed or even ignored.
Instead, policymakers debate introducing migrant quotas in public schools, some of which already serve only halal food and have reportedly abandoned Christmas celebrations in favour of mandatory Ramadan events.
Meanwhile, thousands of individuals in Germany have faced lawsuits for sharing memes, voicing criticism, or insulting politicians. Most of these cases were brought by politicians from the left: the Green party, the Free democrats (FDP) and the Social Democratic party (SPD). In one case, a pensioner was subjected to a police search and later sentenced simply for sharing a meme. A journalist from a right-wing populist publication received a suspended prison sentence and a fine for posting an image of former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser edited so that she was holding a sign that read: 'I hate freedom of speech'.
Economically, things look equally bleak. After a disastrous trade deal between the EU and the Trump administration, Germany's once-mighty automotive industry faces another blow amid already collapsing revenues. Even the unions seem more focused on climate activism and class struggle than job security. Well-paid industrial jobs, they hope, will be preserved by the 'green economy'. Some hope.
After five years without significant economic growth, any rational politician should be deeply alarmed. Instead, Chancellor Friedrich Merz touts vague promises that 61 companies are ready to invest €631 billion in Germany. He seems to hold the misguided view that subsidies alone can salvage what remains of Germany's crumbling economic model.
It is a sobering reality when the Vice President of a foreign country appears more concerned with Germany's future and problems than its own political class.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

South Wales Argus
3 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
'Trump will never get his Nobel Prize'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended allowing the transfer of millions of dollars to Hamas-run Gaza despite criticism from within his own government, including the education minister Naftali Bennet. For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. Donald Trump has said his administration is now exploring the possibility of normalising relations with Syria - his comments coming shortly after he met Syria's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The extraordinary encounter, unthinkable just months ago, was short but significant. "I think he has got the potential," Trump remarked after his meeting in Riyadh, 37 minutes long, with the former Syrian fighter, formerly linked to al-Qaeda, the same group that attacked the twin towers. The $10m US bounty on his head was only lifted in December. Or is it just another outlet to moan about Starmer? If Palestine becomes a safe place to live and work, many millions will return. Trump will never get his Nobel Prize, and both he and Israel will be on the wrong end of history. Andrew Nutt Bargoed


Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Welcome to the Age of Jerks
How screwed is Britain? I've checked with the Impartiality Police. They said stick to the facts. Like many ailing, ageing western democracies, we've had low growth, soaring debts and flat living standards for nearly two decades. Have our politicians met the moment? You tell me. Perhaps, as The Spectator has long advocated, we need some heretical and brave thinking to improve our prospects and make sense of the giant forces – of technology, ecology and demography – that are reshaping our world at a dizzying rate. For a decade, I have tried to rebalance the news, from events to trends. The result of all this: a new podcast from the Today franchise, called Radical. I've always had a soft spot for the word. When I was at Downing College, Cambridge, my don said that when he sat the All Souls exam in Oxford, where you write about one word for three hours, his word was 'radical'. It comes from Latin radix, for root. Though now associated with upheaval, the etymology carries a different sense, closer to 'the root of the matter'. If writing about the word today, I would argue that the radical spirit, long associated with the left, now animates the transatlantic right. On last week's episode, Dr James Orr, the Cambridge theologian and friend of J.D. Vance who is becoming to Nigel Farage what Keith Joseph was to Mrs Thatcher, described the ambition of his new thinktank, the Centre for a Better Britain. I reminded him of the lovely line from William Buckley, in his 1955 opening editorial for the National Review, that a conservative is one who 'stands athwart history, yelling Stop!' I suggested the elegiac conservatism of Michael Oakeshott and Roger Scruton has been succeeded by the missionary zeal of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, who stand afore history, yelling 'Go!' Dr Orr believes this is not just because of the marriage between MAGA and assorted techno-utopians; nor is it a response merely to the rampaging globalisation chronicled in Vance's memoir, with its Scrutonian title of Hillbilly Elegy. He argues that 1789 to 2016 was an Age of Liberalism, and now we're suffering the birth pangs of a new epoch. What should we call it? Such is the rate of technological innovation today, some people call it The Great Acceleration. Sadly, that's been and gone. AI, which is underhyped rather than overhyped, will speed up history as never before. For instance, I suspect the future of work is Head (AI), Hand (Robots), Heart (Us, we hope). Acceleration is the rate of change of speed. The rate of change of acceleration is jerks. This is the Age of Jerks. At Lord's the other week, I spoke to a former prime minister. This kind soul wondered aloud if PMQs is the optimal use of a PM's time. It eliminates half of Wednesday and much of Tuesday, so around 20 per cent of the week. The arguments for PMQs are familiar. Of course PMs hate it, you may say. But would a monthly interrogation by the liaison committee, while annoying for bulletin editors and keyboard warriors, better serve democracy? I put this to Kemi Badenoch, whom I have just interviewed for TV. She said she likes the current arrangement. I shall remind her of that if she becomes prime minister. Watching the edit, I wondered if I am encouraging too many tears on television. Recently, in a BBC pilgrimage to India, I cried when thinking about my dear departed dad. Mrs Badenoch has a similar moment when talking about her late father. It was a revealing moment from a politician who's not normally known for her vulnerability. I strongly believe in rote learning poetry. I can recite, verbatim, most of Gray's 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard', Satan's unanswerable temptation in Book IX of Paradise Lost, and several of Shakespeare's sonnets. I do it partly to combat cognitive decline. In the week of BBC scandals about Gaza, Glastonbury and MasterChef, I dutifully turned my attention to a denser verse – the BBC editorial guidelines – but found the decline accelerated.


Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Inside the Mohammed Hijab trial
Mohammed Hijab sat at the back of the courtroom and ate doughnuts while his lawyer, Mark Henderson, delivered his closing submission. 'You will have seen that my client is argumentative, can be provocative,' said Henderson. 'Some people might think that he is a bit of a smart alec, a bit too cocky.' Hijab reclined in his chair and licked the sugar from his fingers. Hijab acted like a schoolboy throughout last month's four-day trial at the Royal Courts of Justice. He laughed and shouted while giving evidence. 'It's an unsalvageable case, Greg! It really is!' he yelled at The Spectator's legal counsel Greg Callus at the end of his second day in the stand, leaning over the side. Well, he lost. Hijab sued The Spectator and Douglas Murray over Douglas's column of 24 September 2022, claiming that Douglas had misrepresented what he said in a speech in Leicester during the sectarian disorder there three years ago. In his ruling this week, Mr Justice Johnson has confirmed that what Douglas wrote is 'substantially true'. We can now repeat it: Mohammed Hijab is a street agitator who whipped up his followers in Leicester during the unrest there between Muslims and Hindus. He mocked Hindus, and claimed that they must live in fear because they have been reincarnated as 'pathetic, weak, cowardly people'. On 18 September 2022, with Leicester in chaos, Hijab travelled there from London and made sectarian tensions worse. 'Let me tell you something,' he said to a gathered crowd of mostly masked Muslim men. 'All due respect, actually no due respect, yeah, if they believe in reincarnation, yeah, what a humiliation and pathetic thing for them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that. I'd rather be an animal.' In his column, Douglas said that Hijab had attacked Hindus in this speech; in court, Hijab said that he had only criticised Hindutva (extreme Hindu nationalists). Hijab tried to argue that it was possible that a Hindutva could be a non-Hindu. Therefore, Douglas had defamed him. When asked by Callus to name a non-Hindu Hindutva, Hijab struggled. In the moment, he could only think of one: Benjamin Netanyahu. He later remembered two others: Tommy Robinson and Douglas Murray. Hijab's case was a pile of unbelievable claims of this kind. At one point, the court was played a video of a seminar he hosted in April 2022, before the disturbances in Leicester, where he openly smirked while asking Hindus about their belief in reincarnation. The Spectator's lawyers wanted to show that he had form for ridiculing the religion. 'What would you choose to be? A bear or a gorilla?' Hijab said in the video. 'I would rather be a bear because if a bear and a gorilla had a fight, the bear would win.' 'Is she the one with the four arms?' he also said, when referring to a Hindu deity. Hijab continued to smile in the stand as these clips were played, then tried to claim to the court that they showed him a 'humble learner' making genuine enquiries. Of course he was not mocking Hindus. The judge did not buy any of it. Phrases such as 'not credible', 'not consistent', 'untenable' and 'confected' fill his judgment. He calls Hijab a liar. Hijab has previously tried to bully British publications who cross him, threatening them with lawsuits worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages and legal fees. In this case, Hijab said that three contracts with three organisations had been cancelled because of Douglas's article. The Spectator argued, and Johnson agrees, that the messages showing that these unevidenced contracts were apparently cancelled as a result of the article in order that Hijab could claim damages were contrived and implausible. Hijab's evidence for these damages verged on comic. In one instance, a man who intended to 'cancel' Hijab's 'contract', who had known him for years and called him 'bro' over WhatsApp, informed Hijab of the news over email. He addressed him formally, as if they'd never met, with the formal salutation of 'Dear Mr Hegab'. (Mohammed Hegab is Hijab's real name.) It seemed Hijab and his mates wanted this flimsy evidence to look more official. When Hijab was not shouting, smirking, lolling in his chair or eating doughnuts, he looked at a printout of Douglas's column, the one he was suing over, with Douglas's caricature at the top. Hijab had been desperate to 'debate' Douglas for years, and had hoped that the two would meet in court. In the end, he didn't get the satisfaction, because Douglas wisely decided not to attend.