Ever wondered why so many western elites are so vehemently supportive of mass immigration? Ever question how willfully blind the establishment is to the costs (human and capital) of allowing any- and everyone into the heart of European nations? Well wonder no more...

As a reminder, the world faces decades of depopulation. Our present economic issues began decades ago. To understand what is happening economically, simply check the headwaters of (de)population (excluding Africa) under way since 1990...the chart below shows the 0-5yr/old population (excluding Africa) vs. the 0-5yr/old population of Africa.

World 0-5yr/old population change (excluding Africa):

1950-->1990 + 234m

1990-->2015 <-47m>

2015-->2050 <-67m> (UN med. est.)

Africa 0-5yr/old population change:

1950-->1990 + 71m

1990-->2015 +75m

2015-->2050 +95m (UN med. est.)

Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth...so a downturn in population growth matters...particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest. I'm not describing something that may happen in the future...I'm describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.

Which means, as Econimica's Chris Hamilton recently noted, the next business cycle recession will be unending and is very likely to run years into decades and perhaps a century or more. A declining population already indebted with record debt and zero interest rates will consume less...meaning overcapacity and excess inventories will never be fully cleared before the next downturn...and on and on and on.

But the absence of a growing consumer base isn't just a US issue...this is a global problem. The annual growth of the 0-64yr/old population of the combined OECD nations (most the EU, US, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, Australia / New Zealand) plus China, Brazil, and Russia show the growth that has driven nearly all economic growth has come to an end...and begins declining from here on.

And when importers are shrinking, exporters have no one to export to...and on and on and on. The depopulation we are now facing is not simply a demographic issue that so many believe; the end of growth is the start of the SHTF scenario in which we now find ourselves. While this situation offers short term nirvana to investors, the economic repercussions are ultimately disastrous.

* * *

And so with that as background - and as noted above, a crisis that has been foreseeable on the horizon for years - it appears, based on a recently exposed United Nations report from the year 2000, that the 'new world order' envisioned a 'final solution' to this demographic dilemma of a collapsing consumer base for the west's credit-based economies ...

The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled ?Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations??. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates. United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2. Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing. Major findings of this report include: In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million. Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future. Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report . However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants -- a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants -- a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years. The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

The only exception is the United States. The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 -- between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 -- between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy. Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number -- 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number -- 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year. The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations. In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.

The problem with this cunning plan to immigrant-ize western nations to backfill the domestic demographic decline is that the immigrants - as a whole - are a drag on growth (via politically-correct benefits, extra policing, and border enforcements) as opposed to the economy-improving growth dynamos that the United Nations assumed any sentient-credit-consuming-being would be in the year 2000.

Even the world's richest man is starting to get the joke that the new world order's cunning plan is not working...

Europe will be devastated by African refugees if they don’t “make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent,” and the solution lies in European nations committing billions of taxpayer money towards overseas aid.

According to Gates, the combination of explosive population growth in Africa combined with Europe’s notoriously generous open-border migrant welfare programs – as illustrated by the ‘German attitude to refugees’ have incentivised migrants to flood into Europe.