The UN refugee agency estimates that over a million people have fled. Many of them are hiding in the jungle, and many of them have no food.
However, it piously avoids saying who is fleeing whom, and why.
The great majority of refugees are westernized Christians and animists fleeing Muslims with a markedly lower level of civilization. The great majority of refugees are not immigrants or the children of immigrants, but people who have lived on the coast for generations, who have now become exiles.
The refugees are people that made the Ivory Coast function. Those that drove them out are immigrants, many of them illegal immigrants, or the children of illegal immigrants, that come from inland areas with a marked lower level of civilization, lower living standard, and less westernization – and less ability to operate a society that is, by African standards, advanced.
These immigrants were allowed in, in part to provide cheap labor, but in large part to provide cheap votes. In due course, the tranzis bid for these cheap votes, and got them. One of the things they offered in return for these cheap votes, was a takeover of the Ivory Coast by the new voting block, offered them the land and housing and equipment of the old voting block.
What has happened in that inlanders led by tranzis have taken the coast away from its previous inhabitants, and driven the coastal people inland into the jungle.
These refugees are not fleeing a storm, or an earthquake. They are fleeing democracy in action.
The Ivory Coast illustrates the two great problems of democracy: The fact that bids for votes have no limit, since the politicians are bidding with the promise of stolen goods, and the propensity of governments, pursuing a cheaper vote, to elect a new people. A government composed of people native to the ivory coast elected a new people, a people not native to the ivory coast, and that new people, in turn, elected a new government, a government of tranzis in place of a government of people native to the Ivory Coast.
Tranzis tend to have a socialist outlook, that stuff such as banks, ports, farms, belong to the people collectively, rather than individually, so it is natural for them to bid for votes with all of other people’s property. And then those other people make problems, and have to be chased away from their property. And so they were.
You seem really on the ball to me.
So since, to use your term, the tranzis already rule the US and Europe, I suspect they’ll hold off on electing a new people somewhat, so their power doesn’t get threatened.
This is basically why I think cannibalism in the first world is unlikely, and indeed why Detroit didn’t go that far.
Your thoughts?
Why no links to where you got the information in this piece? Though there is a high number of economic immigrants, I think the situation is a good bit different than your account. In any case, there is no excuse for not providing references in this day and age of easy hyperlinking.
You agree there are a high number of “economic immigrants”
Perhaps you do not agree that they were allowed in for their votes, rather than do the low level jobs.
Perhaps you do not agree that the “economic immigrants” were largely Muslims from inland and with less contact to western civilization, and the locals were Christians with more contact with western civilization.
In what respect do you think my account is wrong, and needs citations?