Countries like Sweden, France, UK and Germany have accepted many migrants, particularly non-European males. To some extent that is also the case with the U.S., Canada, and Australia. For instance, the Swedish economist Jan Tullberg has asserted that Sweden now has 125,000 males for every 100,000 females.
This effect is magnified in the younger age cohorts due to the massive influx of Afghan unaccompanied
male adults refugee children, and Middle Eastern and African male economic migrants which have come as a consequence of the coordinated efforts from globalists like George Soros and various NGOs such as Save the Children International.
Some have also speculated that feminists in leadership positions either want to make things worse for native men, or that they want to increase the female value in the sexual market by making the society more competitive for men while improving their own access to men. More men imply a better situation for adult females who are free to pick among both native and non-native men and for both short- and long-term relationships.
The social consequences can become quite detrimental since this development leads to not just an unstable or even inverted sexual market and marriage market, but also higher crime rates and more men joining extreme nationalist, left-wing, and Islamic groups (ISIS in particular). Hence constructive changes are called for.
More females as a solution
Part of the solution is to halt and reverse immigration, but another aspect is to make room for more female migrants. My suggestion is to accept more women from poorer parts of Eastern Europe and adjust the numbers for the total population size of each host nation.
Countries like Russia (142 millions) and Ukraine (44 millions) will not be depleted of their women if a couple of million leave for Western countries. Additional poor countries with large populations like Brazil (207 millions), the Philippines (104 millions) and Indonesia (260 millions) could be other options in this regard. Furthermore, real refugee women from war-ridden countries like Yemen could be another group that is allowed to entry the West, at least short-term.
If this hypothetical scenario were to become true, it would probably have a number of positive effects for social cohesion. When both white and non-white citizens notice that they have a higher chance of finding a long-term partner, they will focus more on living a stable life instead of joining pathetic extremist groups that do no one no good.
Additionally, the sexual market will be much more balanced, and even native women may have to adjust and better themselves as a result of the tougher competition from their global sisters. And why should a man go and live in South America, Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia under worse material conditions when he can live in the West with a more traditional female partner?
This is largely a political task and few politicians will support this idea, at least initially. Hence this has to be put on the agenda in the online community, which can have spill-over effects in real politics.
The first step is to use clever rhetoric to put the question on the agenda. For example, what happened to the old adage that women and children should come first? The pathos of the public will be affected by pictures of poor girls and women in Russia, Ukraine, the Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen et cetera. Then we should put forward some of the logical arguments behind this idea. Eventually particular parties and politicians will push for this agenda.
More female migrants should flood the West in the coming years, perhaps even decades, in parallel with reversing male migrant flows from non-Western countries. This will have a number of positive effects on these societies, such as a more balanced sexual market, lower crime rates, and better social cohesion. We should all fight for this hypothesis to become real. The first step is to put the question on the agenda.
For more of William Adams’ material, check out his website Syncretic Politics.