Eric Weinstein has succeeded in making Americans poor and poorer.
Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly…
— Johnny Vedmore (@JohnnyVedmore) September 25, 2024
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore.
Full article from Johnny Vedmore here.
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries.
The United Nations International Labor Organization in Geneva set up "the MIGRANT Division" to analyze and find solutions to these issues. To lead the unit, the UN appointed Manolo Abella to be Chief of MIGRANT, who is now linked with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the University of Oxford, and others.
Their stated challenge was to: “Find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.”
To achieve this goal they decided on a solution. They wrote:
“Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages. Thus the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers which has previously been obscured or hidden. We then discover that if the (highly valuable) right of host country citizens to block access to labor markets is properly converted into a salable right, workers are made better off (since a salable right is always more financially valuable than a non-salable one). We thus convert the rights to preferential labor market access into rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care the market will now return an efficient solution with all parties being made better off.”
Essentially the UN decided that the democratic voters of a nation-state would oppose unfettered economic migration, as we are experiencing today, and the folks at this globalist entity believed they knew better. To achieve their goals, the United Nations needed to subversively introduce this agenda in an undemocratic manner without gaining the consent of the native citizens of the democracies that they were to target. The man they chose to analyse and map out this scheme, which many refer to now as “The Great Replacement” was Eric R. Weinstein, who has since become a central figure in the “Intellectual Dark Web” whose members include Ben Shapiro, David Rubin, Jordan B. Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, and Eric’s brother Bret Weinstein.
was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled, "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”, Weinstein wrote:
“When migrant and native workers of comparable value to an employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who costs him/her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and the migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their “company loyalty” is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer-sponsors, some migrants will out-compete natives of comparable or greater value simply by virtue of the terms of employment set by the MWP. Since this is precipitated by a rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as a natural, if unfortunate, by-product of direct migrant sponsorship.”
The Weinstein plan was always going to cost the government money, as we see unfolding today. A meticulous and proactive plan would have to be enacted by the nation-state in question to deal with the impact of large-scale migration and the author makes this clear in the document, with Eric R. Weinstein stating:
“In effect, the government would assume all the administrative and transport costs for a group of migrants, as well as calculating the additional external impacts of hosting them. To indicate these costs, the government would calculate the expected migrant impact cost as a function of the number of migrants. Such a function would be expected not only to grow as the number of migrants increased, but also to do so in accelerating fashion, because of concern for the environment, monitoring costs, societal stress, and security risks.”
The plan which was set out by Eric Weinstein predisposes the necessity of what he describes as “a much larger redistribution of native income”. The influx of migrants will always take wealth and opportunities away from the native population and this has a knock-on effect on how the “self-interested electorate” of the nation-state involved will vote.
“In the first instance, the tethering of migrants to employer-sponsors creates a non-market system with a host of inefficiencies, as well as the potential for human rights violations. Second, naively opening markets to migrants from lower-income countries can act as a kind of “tax”, redistributing native income away from workers and towards employers. Of course, it can be argued that any proposed redistribution is intrinsically neither good nor bad, yet such transfers can make it nearly impossible to reach broad consensus on many important migration issues within the host country electorate: rationality indicates that proposals which threaten to harm the majority of individuals are unlikely to be approved by a self-interested electorate.”
While comparing and analysing different methods of controlling the influx of migrants, Weinstein also studies the “Borjas Model” of economic migration and the predictable effect of its implementation on native workers, stating:
“Native workers in the sector concerned may experience none of the economic benefits of the migration program. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income, as the benefit to the host society stems from the ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed.”
The problems of “ghettoization” and issues relating to “long-term native shortages” are brought up by Weinstein as known consequences of the redistribution of income away from native populations, but at no point are these problems expressed as reasons not to force economic migration upon target populations. In this United Nations document, Eric Weinstein specifically pushes Marxist ideology concerning the redistribution of income and wealth which benefits economic migrants at the expense of the native populations.
Eric Weinstein proudly advertised his work for the United Nations on his website at the time, as well as posing himself as an expert on the subject. Under the title of “International Migration”, Weinstein even had a special email address for issues concerning migration where it was written:
“If you are interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, please contact me at migration@eric-weinstein.net regarding the article 'Migration for the Benefit of All' to appear in 2002 in the International Labor Review.
It is a pleasure to thank the MIGRANT division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work.”
Whether you like him or not, Eric Weinstein has not been honest about his part in designing the failed Globalist system of economic migration which many people today refer to as the “Great Replacement”. He also hasn’t advertised his previous involvement with the United Nations, and his connection to Edge while it was fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. During this time, Weinstein was also producing models for JP Morgan, one of Epstein’s keenest employers.
Find this article with source material at newspaste.com/2024/09/25/eri
I have also linked the original UN sponsored document produced by Eric Weinstein, entitled: "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." in PDF format.
