The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Danish "Far-Right" Party Has Been Driving Immigration Policy Since 2001, So Denmark Is a Dystopia, Right?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As we all know, any political party that is skeptical about immigration is “far-right.” For example, from the New York Times two years ago:

Rise of Far-Right Party in Denmark Reflects Europe’s Unease
By STEVEN ERLANGER JUNE 19, 2015

LONDON — The surprisingly strong showing in elections on Thursday of Denmark’s anti-immigration, anti-Brussels Danish People’s Party has underlined a growing crisis of confidence in traditional political institutions and in the European Union itself.

The “far-right” Danish People’s Party has had a major influence on Danish immigration policy for about three-fourth’s of the years since 2001. So, Denmark must be a dystopian hell-hole, right? From CPH Post:

Denmark is the top ‘quality of life’ nation in the world
Social Progress Index ranks Denmark first in Nordic ‘celebration’

June 21st, 2017 8:51 am| by Christian W

According to the Social Progress Index (SPI), Denmark is the best nation in the world based on the quality of life it offers.

Produced annually by the non-profit organisation Social Progress Imperative, the SPI ranked Denmark first out of 128 nations based on scores in 50 indicators within three categories. …

Denmark ranked first in the world in the following indicators: Access to electricity, Household air pollution attributable deaths, Level of violent crime, Perceived criminality, Political terror, Secondary school enrolment, Mobile telephone subscriptions, Political rights, Freedom of expression, Freedom of assembly, Private property rights, Early marriage, Corruption, Undernourishment, Depth of food deficit, Access to piped water and Rural access to improved water source. …

It was all Africa and the Middle East at the bottom, however. Central African Republic finished rock bottom, followed by Afghanistan, Chad, Angola, Niger, Guinea and Yemen.

 
Hide 90 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Denmark ranked first in the world in the following indicators:

    Yes, but since Diversity is Strength, the Danes must be very weak and as a people surely must rank near the bottom in strength.

    It’s a wonder they even have the strength to lift a glass of Carlsberg to their mouths.

    What they really need are Diversity Trainers to whip them into shape and build up their strength.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/pelosi-georgia-ossoff-democrats.html?referer=https://www.google.com/


    Some congressional Dems are sayibg lay off the identity politics shit.


    Carvilles old saying "it's the economy stupid " comes to mind
    , @William Badwhite
    "Yes, but since Diversity is Strength, the Danes must be very weak and as a people surely must rank near the bottom in strength."

    Exactly, lack of political corruption and low violent crime is all well and good, but where do they rank in genital mutilation, train bombings, and sullen non-Danish speaking cab drivers? Or sullen "youths" clogging the welfare rolls and sponging public benefits? Their lack of vibrant diversity is troubling. They need to be added to the bombing list, right after we fix Syria.
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Obviously immigration wouldn’t be an economic boon to Denmark. However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, and obviously, just from looking at it, you can see that the Danish society is organized on principles that would maximize that sharing.

    A society with no real dysfunctions of its own to handle would be in the best position to improve the lives of refugees.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won’t? What % of the population must already be NAM? What’s the tipping point?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, ...
     
    Everybody is born "somewhere else." There is no such obligation.

    Foreign aid is awful on all levels. It's every dysgenic and dystopic incentive of domestic welfare on steroids. Foreign aid is why wave after wave of r-selected, surplus men with hopelessly low IQs are piling into Europe.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won’t? What % of the population must already be NAM? What’s the tipping point?
     
    You're asking the question from the wrong end, chronologically and sociologically.
    , @Difference maker
    That's called slavery
    , @Anonymous
    Elaborate. Why is that Immigrants are Good for the Economy is never an argument to diversify prosperous homogeneous nations like Denmark and Sweden? To ask the question is to answer it. It's only ever used on countries that are already rotted through, not so much to argue for immigration but to justify the rot after the fact. The initial rot was caused by historical slavery, or a calamitous post-WW2 labor shortage (so Germany looks for an economic silver lining to the refugee crisis, because it can't face up to its Turkish gastarbeiter dysfunction); and, in the case of Sweden, will be caused by prosperous homogeneity put into too close proximity to Third World dysfunction by a world shrinking through technology and globalism.
  3. Denmark is the top ‘quality of life’ nation in the world

    Tracy Morgan agrees.

    Okay, sorry for that. 🙁

  4. There’s two things you’ll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist…) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple “constantly numb” (Pink Floyd).

    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry…) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins “World Reveiver Grundig ‘SATELLITE’” broadcasted from – – a Danish – “bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz… is chchchchc …Kopenhagen…” – – Radio-Station.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).
     
    Actually, about the only countries in Europe that are doing fine are the ones that don't use the euro: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc. The Eurozone is an economic deadzone.
    , @Chrisnonymous

    in Merkel-Europe
     
    I prefer "Merkelstan."
    , @Peter Lund
    I think the most important issues about Denmark and The Danish People's Party are:

    1) how socialist most of their policies are. They are not loony left, just expensive left.
    2) how little influence they actually have. They don't have enough votes and the others have too many. Simple as that.
    3) how biased our (state owned or state subsidized) media are against them.

    All media in Denmark is state subsidized.

    Media corporations receive direct subsidies or indirect subsidies in terms of no VAT on their products (newspapers) or in terms of laws that favour them (TV2, a public TV station). The direct subsides are straight money transfers (newspapers, internet sites) and the right to tax people's internet or phone access. If you have a non-crippled internet connection or you own a smart phone you have to pay to the state for the privilege - most of the money goes to DR, the big public TV/radio/internet station.

    > a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).

    No they aren't. Family "reunification" is still an open door. We also can't seem to get rid of asylum seekers we have turned down and many of them end up being granted asylum on "humanitarian grounds" after delaying the process for long enough.

    Immigration restrictions only seem to apply to the kind of people we actually want.

    We have kicked out or threatened to kick out people from the other Nordic countries (which we have a mini union with that lets people move even freer than in the EU) and the US and Australia.

    And for what? Minor discrepancies in how forms were filled out or because the Civil Service decided that they or their (often common law) spouses made too little money.

    Somehow those rules never apply to Muslims.

    Btw, we still can't get decent information from Danmarks Statistik regarding the number of Muslims in Denmark or from Finansministeriet (Finance), Indenrigsministeriet (Home Office/Internal Affairs), Justitsministeriet (Justice), Integrationsministeriet (Integration), etc regarding their cost or how things (don't) improve regarding their education.

    Short-term immigration is pretty open from the EU/EFTA + even more open from the other Nordic countries.

    We also have green card short-term immigration and student short-term immigration (in the hope that some of the foreign students will both 1) stay and 2) be economically positive for us).

    The EU short-term immigration has blessed us with a 3-months at a time rotating gypsy population.

    The green card short-term immigration with a lot of Indians who are 1) not as well-educated as they seem to have thought and 2) not nearly as good at English as they seem to have thought. Most of them ended up working low wage jobs in the service sector.

    The Nordic immigration hasn't been problematic for us yet, but it could easily happen practically overnight with all the Muslims Sweden has in Malmö, right next door to Copenhagen. There is even a nice bridge that makes it really easy for them to get across.

    Mostly the bridge has been lucky for us (and really shitty for Sweden) because Merkels Millions wandered through Denmark and onwards to Sweden (which is why we turned a blind eye to them while they were here).

    > b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    We are de facto members of the Eurozone.

    Because the DKK is a tiny currency, it is relatively easy/cheap to speculate against it. The USD and EUR are much bigger currencies so they are far better protected against that. That makes it far more important to keep our house in order in terms of government debt, government expenditure, and coinage.

    We participate fully in ERM II -- The second phase of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which links the participating currencies to a common target. The target was initially the DM or the ECU, later it became the Euro. We are also currently the only remaining member, the others having upgraded (or downgraded, if one prefers) to using the Euro directly.

    The participating countries were/are supposed to keep the exchange rate of their currencies within a tight band around a center line. We are committed to a 2.25% fluctuation but our historical deviation has been less than 1%.

    We fulfill all the Euro criteria and have for quite some time.

    We also own a (tiny!) share of the ECB and participate and various new common policies regarding banking, fiscal, and monetary issues that have been implemented since the first the 2008 melt down and then the ongoing Euro/Greek crises. We do that even though we mostly didn't have to and even though most of it is controlled by the Eurogroup, which we are not a member of.
    , @CJ
    The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    Nobody who is outside the currency Eurozone wants in. Even braindead British Europhiles want to keep the pound. That pretty much tells the story right there, but as you note, people have to figure it out for themselves.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    "comfortably numb" (Pink Floyd).
  5. @Achilles

    Denmark ranked first in the world in the following indicators:
     
    Yes, but since Diversity is Strength, the Danes must be very weak and as a people surely must rank near the bottom in strength.

    It's a wonder they even have the strength to lift a glass of Carlsberg to their mouths.

    What they really need are Diversity Trainers to whip them into shape and build up their strength.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/pelosi-georgia-ossoff-democrats.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

    Some congressional Dems are sayibg lay off the identity politics shit.

    Carvilles old saying “it’s the economy stupid ” comes to mind

    • Replies: @mukat
    The Dems are missing a piece that is crucial.

    Tony Blair staged a quiet immigration surge and ordered his people to shut up about it. His Jewish minister in charge of immigration wanted to give a speech crowing about it; Blair vetoed the speech.

    Hate speech laws in Britain ensured that immigration opponents would also be shut up.

    1st amendment (still zealously protected by the Supreme Court) is the baseball bat in the spokes of the American state. Globalists can't shut up their opponents.
  6. Steve,

    Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with “kid loves” as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    > Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    You'd think that, wouldn't you?

    Besides, there's plenty of new guilt to go around. African guilt. Palestinian guilt. Lebanese guilt. Libyan guilt. Syrian guilt (big one!). Greek guilt (they are in trouble because we don't help them enough + we export too much!). South American guilt. Soon Venezuelan guilt will be in vogue, for example. You do know that the only reason why they are in trouble is due to Evil Capitalist Countries + the IMF, right? It was totally not because socialism didn't work!

    > While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with “kid loves” as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    The reason was purely practical: if they treated us nicely, the occupation would cheap and easy so they could spend their soldiers elsewhere + they really, really needed our food.

    Denmark was and is a huge exporter of food. Germany had problems feeding itself, especially with all the labour being elsewhere as soldiers or in weapons factories and with nitrogen (fertilizer) being hard to get -- it costs energy to produce + it is needed for explosives.
    , @Joe Magarac

    Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.
     
    If I recall correctly, the gripe against Germany in WWII was not that they didn't let in refugees. ;)
  7. Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”

    Denmark’s success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark’s success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different “tribes”. The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don’t like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    • Replies: @Chiron

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have.
     
    This is especially true in France, the French elite despise the rural Catholics and the White working-class that voted Communist but now vote Le Pen because the Left abandoned them.
    , @Jake
    I think your wise post may be pared down to: Democracy works well only in the city-state. As the city-state grows toward empire, it ruins its ability to have meaningful democracy.

    As for the country bumpkins despised and taken advantage of by the urban Elites - Yep. Now think of the antithesis: ancient Athens. Even the time of Socrates, as Athenian democracy was degenerating thanks to imperialism, Athenians still regularly maintained their ties to their agricultural/pastoral roots. Athenian democracy became meaningless as wealthy Athenians lost their ties to the land and thus their respect for those who live and work on the land every day.
    , @AM

    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”
     
    Except for the tiny problem that Danes have basically stopped having children. Except that, socialism works perfectly in Denmark.

    The birth rate is so low (1.67, only slightly higher than Germany's) that they've been doing ad campaigns to increase birth rates. Typically with those strategies there's a tiny uptick, but nothing amazing long term.

    Socialism is a steady wealth transfer from young to old, with the promise that in your old age, you'll tap into the income of young people. When you take over 50% of a young families income and tell them, oh but you can have the baby for "free", people aren't stupid. Paying for having the baby is the easy part. It's trying to find housing, feeding them, clothing them for the next 2 decades - that's the hard part. Socialism makes all of that very expensive.

    Meanwhile, if you know you'll have an income and health care in your old age, why bother with kids? Why not work and save what disposable income you have for stuff that you like right now? And that's exactly what people do, even in educated, homogeneous, hard working societies.

    There are a lot of layers going on to European/Western social rot, but one of the major components is her unrepentant love of socialism. I've chatted at length with a Belgian who is fairly socially conservative. When I pointed out the negative social effects of socialism her response basically was "You'll pry socialism out of my cold dead hands". Well, okay. I'll check in with what few children there are in a decade or two from now and see what they think.

    European renewal will begin in earnest once the ponzi scheme called socialism collapses. Foreigners will have little incentive to stay in cold northern climes once the free money, housing, and food is gone. Young people will not necessarily have more cash, but they will have much more incentive to have children and less government interference in the process. It will be a disaster in the short run when the money musical chairs stops. But I think it will be better after that.

    , @Lurker
    I see echoes of this among the non-elite SJWs, they will happily cuck for non-whites all day long but at first whiff of nativism of any kind they gleefully talk about deporting bad-whites, denying them welfare etc.
    , @Trutherator
    To Peter: Denmark's purported success with welfare state policy, if you define "success" as stability, says nothing about libertarian policy, which has been rarely tried throughout history.

    Switzerland is a better candidate for success, with its truly federal system, where the localities have MUCH more autonomy than most places, declares neutrality in all disputes that do not involve the interests of its citizens, and generally still respects privacy for the most part though this is waning under the pressure of the American Imperial city, and respects private property. These are much more libertarian policies.

    Free zones, special economic zones like Shanghai and Hong Kong and another in Dubai, show that free market economies do much more for the poor than welfare programs. The American Indian tribes do best that do not have access to the some 75 federal free-money programs in the U. S., another example.
    , @Bill B.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have.
     
    This was not true - or at least requires serious qualification - prior to roughly the mid-20th Century.

    There was a lot of regional identification in both countries and some recognition that all members of society contribute.

    In the UK certainly there was an important sense of noblesse oblige - in the 19th Century the upper classes competed to engage in 'good works'. As Peter Oborne said in The Trump of the Political Class the 10,000 - the landed gentry - of 200 years ago were closer to ordinary people than the contemporary self-replicating political class.

    Christopher Lasch of course wrote in Revolt of the Elites the increasing concentration of wealth in a compacted cognitive elite has seen that noblesse oblige rub off to be replaced by a preening, arrogant, virtue-signaling overlord class that cares not a whit for ordinary people.
  8. It’s off-topic, but I’m genuinely seeking wisdom from others: adverts for some tearjerking campaign to “save the oppressed Burmese Mohammedans” have begun to appear to me. I immediately wondered of course whether there is any avenue to support whoever is wisely and ethically keeping the Mohammedans down or forcing them out of Burma. Anyone more familiar with the situation know whom right-headed people can support and how?

    I’m also hoping Steve will offer thoughts about the recent Eichman-Watsoning of the head of Uber. Apparently the guy is in fact a big jerk, but that doesn’t merit being unpersoned from one’s own corporation (e.g., it surely didn’t in the case of the shiftless Lebanese mountebank and his fruit company…).

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. They stamp out any alien tribes that threaten their cherished Buddhist identity quickly and ruthlessly. They do not need your support.

    America needs help. Europe needs help. Western civilization needs more defenders.

    , @anon
    It's disgusting. Out of all the pro democracy/nation building, Burma stands out as the only victory. It has a population of roughly 50 million and 1 or 2 million muslims is bringing out the absurd holocaust rhetoric.

    SJW's are unhinged. Migration is any material numbers occurred relatively recently from Bangladesh. Who don't want them back. It's a shame and all, but really.

    The NYT's can't let this go. They are back on a regular basis. The Free Tibet crowd should be supporting one of the few Buddhist countries. And if they have to pitch a fit over genocide, the Palestinians are always available.
    , @Bill B.
    The problem in Burma is that the birth rate for Buddhists has dropped fairly sharply over the last decade or so but the birth rate for Muslims remains quite a bit higher.

    There is deep resentment over Islam's never ending attempts to increase its territory and influence, including of course the 'capturing' of Buddhist girls in one way marriages.

    Muslims often run village shops so you also have the hatred of the ethnic middle-man class that Amy Chua talked about in her book World on Fire.

    The Rohingya are called Bengalis - or worse - and indeed it seems likely that many of them are; even pro-Rohingya activists admit that half of 'Rohingya' boat people are from Bengal proper.

    The Bengalis are seen as having sneakily crept into Burma at times of regional weakness - when the Arakan area was depopulated by internal fighting and when the Japanese invaded. Pleasant and not overcrowded Burma is bang next door to flood-prone unhappy Bangladesh that is teaming with people who would love to move over the border.

    One thing you could do is support organizations that campaign for the rights of the original Arakanese people - who are Buddhist but distinct from ordinary Burmese.

    Another thing would be to push back against NGO blindness to geopolitic and nationalist issues in favour of 'doing the decent thing' even if this is an existential threat to a people.

    Progressive journalists are asking if Aung San Suu Kyi is a 'monster' for not supporting the Rohingya - so not even a mighty progressive icon is safe if she does not kowtow to the cult of human rights against her best instincts.

    Another commentator here said one could spend one's time more usefully shoring up the defenses of the original West. I appreciate the sentiment but I think an extremely powerful weapon to hamstring open borders zealots and diversity loons is the example of the rest of the world where nationalism is the default mode.

    Much more could be made of rest of the world attitudes that shun liberal shibboleths.
  9. @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have.

    This is especially true in France, the French elite despise the rural Catholics and the White working-class that voted Communist but now vote Le Pen because the Left abandoned them.

  10. The Danish People’s Party is not “right wing” by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    > They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    Not true.

    You still can't say that you want the "Syrian" "refugees" locked up in camps until they can be sent home. Or that they should be segregated by sex in those camps. Or that their mobile phones should be taken away from them. Or that starvation or beatings is a good way to get asylum seekers with groundless and rejected claims to accept being sent home. Or that birth control implants or injections for the female asylum seekers is a good idea. Or that a border fence might be a very good idea. Or that if you can't turn a mass of violent "asylum seekers" away at the border with tear gas and rubber bullets, then shooting them with real bullets might be a good idea. Or that "rescuing" (ferrying) "Syrian" "refugees" from the shores of Africa is an extremely bad idea. Or that the proper thing to do is not to ferry them back -- but to actively sink their vessels. Or that sterilizing violent immigrant criminals might actually be a good idea -- or at the least a workable idea, if not an ethical idea.

    You can also be fined if you have a cab company and a Muslim driver shows up late for meetings with an attitude problem and won't shake hands. You get fined firing him, he doesn't get fined for disrespecting women. You can lose your job as a teacher if you don't constantly pretend the Muslim boys are no worse than any other boys.

    You can lose a libel case against a former Soviet influence agent after calling him that even though his officers in the KGB testified that he was precisely that, after records in the Mitrokhin archive showed it, after archives in the Danish Intelligence archives showed that they believed him to be an agent (and had pretty good proof), etc.

    The case went all the way to our Supreme Court where the "libeler" (who was a pretty good history professor who had done research on Soviet agents and spoke fluent Russian and had seen the records) still lost.

    Probably partly because one of the Supreme Court judges has (strong) socialist leanings. He has btw been promoted to President of the Supreme Court.

    You can also mostly lose your job (de facto) for doing IQ research, especially if you link it to immigration. You cannot lose your job for believing in various kinds of pseudo science about social heritability, multiple intelligences, Freud, or similar crap.

    Etc.

    On the other hand, there are no negative consequences for adulating Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Freud or for wanting to turn Denmark into a Workers' (= Students') Paradise.
    , @27 year old
    >The Danish People’s Party is not “right wing” by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.

    The far right are the real leftists!
    , @Hail

    They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
     
    Not important. The only issue that matters in the coming years, decades, is how well Denmark (or insert any state) resists the Third World tide. There is also a risk of going too far and getting "Serbia'ed" (targeted for isolation and undermined, economically, perhaps territoriality; then, if things go really far, getting humanitarian-bombed).

    Denmark is in a much better position than poor Sweden, but this 8.4% Non-Western population, probably nearly all deadweight, with thousands more arriving yearly, is not good news.

    , @nebulafox
    It depends on what you mean by "right wing". Compared to the screwed up American political spectrum? Yes: you people are flat out socialist. So is Marine Le Pen. Macron's election just exacerbates that.

    But if you mean "conservative" in the sense of actually wanting to conserve things, a la Otto von Bismarck, Edmund Burke, Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Theodore Roosevelt, the American right wing hasn't been conservative for multiple decades. It used to be called classical liberal economics for a reason. I'd caution you about viewing the American political spectrum as anything approximating normal. The liberals here aren't all that liberal, in the literal sense of the term. Same with the conservatives.

    (Foreign policy is an even better example. What kind of old style conservative realist, valuing the geopolitical balance of power and national interests over abstract ideals, destabilizes the Middle East in the name of democracy and human rights, to "invade the world, invite the world"?)

    , @fnn
    The big split between the Danes and Swedes. Danes said to be more irreverent, less conformist, take themselves less seriously than the Swedes.
    , @utu
    "to find that there is no self policing of speech."

    In mono-ethnic and mono-cultural society you do not have to self-police since chances for offending "the other" are much lower. If you want to keep this freedom do not let too many foreigners in. The same goes for the welfare state. The push for immigration and creation of multi-cultural society to large extend comes from neoliberal designs to destroy the welfare state.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Economically left, culturally right?
  11. What is “Early marriage” doing on that list? Is it a subtle dig at Mo and Moism?

  12. Hail says: • Website

    Racial/Ethnocultural Situation in Denmark, Spring 2017 (Govt. Statistics)
    – 5,756,170: Persons Resident in Denmark
    – 5,262,752 : Citizens of Denmark (91.4%)
    – 4,361,518 : Lutheran Church of Denmark members (a possible proxy for ethnic Danes) (82.9% of citizens) [200,000 fewer than in 1990]
    – 336,351: Immigrants from Non-Western Countries (foreign born)
    – 145,289: Second-Generation Non-Western Immigrants (see definition below)
    481,640: Sum of Non-Western Population (8.4%)
    – 268,907: Sum of Western-Origin Foreigners in Denmark (4.7%)

    _________________________________

    This 8.4% non-Western population must be mainly Islamic. A quick Googling claims 4% of Denmark residents were Muslim in the 2006 during the Cartoon Riots, presumably now increased somewhat.

    One-third of total persons of foreign (Western and non-Western) origin have gotten Danish citizenship.

    _________________________________

    Definition of ‘Non-Western’:

    Western countries: All 28 EU countries and Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican State, Canada, USA, Australia, and New Zealand.
    Non-western countries: All other countries

    The figure 8.4% may have to be increased slightly due to the fine print, i.e. that this is not a racial designation but about citizenship of the mother (the father can be Non-Western; or the mother can be a Nonwhite with Western citizenship):

    When both parents are known, the country of origin is defined as the country of birth of the mother, respectively country of citizenship. (Definition of ‘Non-Western Immigrant and Descendant’ is here)

  13. Guess they’ve gotten that whole rot business straightened out, then.

  14. Hail says: • Website

    New Immigrants to Denmark From Africa and Asia, all types (Govt. data)
    1997: 7,756
    1998: 8,831
    1999: 8,301
    2000: 10,671
    2001: 12,590
    2002: 9,987
    2003: 8,171
    2004: 6,688
    2005: 6,376
    2006: 6,592
    2007: 8,800
    2008: 10,578
    2009: 10,249
    2010: 11,750
    2011: 11,664
    2012: 11,246
    2013: 14,429
    2014: 19,038
    2015: 27,457 (peak year; about 0.5% of the total resident population)
    2016: 23,297
    Sum: 234,471 (or 4.1% of total resident population of Denmark as of Spring 2017. Presumably a large share of these have since left)

    (This is Africa and Asia only. Non-Western immigrants from non-EU Eastern Europe will increase each number by about a third.)

    _____________________________

    Note the dramatic fall-off in immigration from Africa and Asia in 2002-2004 compared to 2001. By 2004, immigration from Asia and Africa was only half its 2001 level.

    The “far right” Danish People’s Party (DF by Danish acronym) was in some way involved in government and agenda setting on immigration from early 2002 to fall 2011, and now again from summer 2015 to present.

    The DF’s rise and entrance into parliament with 12% of seats, in late 2001, was a political watershed in Denmark, described by Wiki as follows:

    The [November 2001] election marked a major shift in Danish politics: It was the first time that the right leaning parties held an outright majority in the parliament since the beginning of the modern democratic system in Denmark in 1901;[3] although right leaning parties had held power several times, they had always had to share power with more centrist or left-wing parties…

    One of the most important changes that forced the change was the rise of immigration as a political issue and the ensuing rise of the Danish People’s Party.[3]

    The ramp-up of immigration from Africa and Asia in 2015 and 2016 was, I presume, initiated by the left-wing parties that governed from fall 2011 to summer 2015. The Danish People’s Party currently has 21.1% of seats in parliament, its strongest delegation ever, elected in June 2015, just before Merkel’s refugee crisis. If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The political growth and supposed influence* of the anti immigrant party is what the story is about(*I note that a man is being prosecuted by the Danish state for burning a Koran). However, when the actual number of immigrants is looked at one sees that non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period , and of late it has fluctuated but little. Peter Sutherland made this point, and noted that the governments cannot actually do what they say they will do and drastically reduce immigration. In Britain the Conservatives got elected making pledges on immigration and are currently admitting TEN times the number they said they would.

    Sutherland on Denmark


    In Denmark people backing #EU membership jumped from 59.8% before #Brexit to 69% post-Brexit,[...] If you look at Denmark as an economy, you have higher marginal rates of tax, lower unemployment, a very high safety net support, and GDP per capita significantly higher than this country’s. [...] What you also have, agreed with the unions, is a flexible labour market. Labour market flexibility is to my mind very, very important – far more important than the ability to earn very large sums of money.”
     
    Business want a flexible labour market, and immigrants want to live where there is a very high safety net support and GDP per capita. Business run a welfare state into the ground with immigration; it is unstoppable just look at what is happening behind the Far-Right-calling-the-shots smokescreen.
    , @Peter Lund
    > If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    The Danish system is not a winner takes all system so it probably wouldn't have matted all that much.

    There are also *many* parties who want more immigrants/"refugees"!
    , @anon
    Why on god's green earth would the Danes want any people from Asia or Africa in their country?
  15. @Dieter Kief
    There's two things you'll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) - without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist...) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple "constantly numb" (Pink Floyd).


    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry...) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins "World Reveiver Grundig 'SATELLITE'" broadcasted from - - a Danish - "bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz... is chchchchc ...Kopenhagen..." - - Radio-Station.

    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    Actually, about the only countries in Europe that are doing fine are the ones that don’t use the euro: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc. The Eurozone is an economic deadzone.

    • Replies: @Jake
    Not for Germany. The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe.
  16. @Dieter Kief
    There's two things you'll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) - without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist...) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple "constantly numb" (Pink Floyd).


    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry...) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins "World Reveiver Grundig 'SATELLITE'" broadcasted from - - a Danish - "bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz... is chchchchc ...Kopenhagen..." - - Radio-Station.

    in Merkel-Europe

    I prefer “Merkelstan.”

    • LOL: Hail
    • Replies: @Thea
    I love it!

    My personal theory is that she covertly converted to Islam (they can lie about it.)

    And the policies of French, British and German governments are such that your average Saudi would approve but believing Christians find grotesque. Hmmm
  17. @Autochthon
    It's off-topic, but I'm genuinely seeking wisdom from others: adverts for some tearjerking campaign to "save the oppressed Burmese Mohammedans" have begun to appear to me. I immediately wondered of course whether there is any avenue to support whoever is wisely and ethically keeping the Mohammedans down or forcing them out of Burma. Anyone more familiar with the situation know whom right-headed people can support and how?

    I'm also hoping Steve will offer thoughts about the recent Eichman-Watsoning of the head of Uber. Apparently the guy is in fact a big jerk, but that doesn't merit being unpersoned from one's own corporation (e.g., it surely didn't in the case of the shiftless Lebanese mountebank and his fruit company...).

    The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. They stamp out any alien tribes that threaten their cherished Buddhist identity quickly and ruthlessly. They do not need your support.

    America needs help. Europe needs help. Western civilization needs more defenders.

    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    "The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. "

    Roll Tide.
    , @Autochthon
    The Burmese don't need my help and the Americans don't want it. What is an aging warrior to do...?

    I nearly joined the French Foreign Legion in disgust last year, but I decided agianst it when I ultmately reflected I would be serving alongside a bunch of Negroes and Arabs to fight pointless campaigns wholly unrelated – and indeed opposed to – the interests of the French or any other European people. Now I'm finally too old to join in any case.
  18. @Yak-15
    The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. They stamp out any alien tribes that threaten their cherished Buddhist identity quickly and ruthlessly. They do not need your support.

    America needs help. Europe needs help. Western civilization needs more defenders.

    “The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. ”

    Roll Tide.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Nicely done. A friend of mine once worked with a vwry dark Negro in job requiring a lot of interaction with the public in Georgia. One day a curmudgeon complained to the management about something or other the Negro did, using the insult "blue gummed, Alabaman Negro" (the man did not say "Negro" but I have discovered Steve, for all his professed distaste at political manipulations and restrictions on language to coerce thought and discourse, will not publish the word spoken...).

    The Negro objected passionately "I am NOT from Alabama!"

    True story. I shit you negative.

  19. @Dieter Kief
    There's two things you'll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) - without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist...) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple "constantly numb" (Pink Floyd).


    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry...) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins "World Reveiver Grundig 'SATELLITE'" broadcasted from - - a Danish - "bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz... is chchchchc ...Kopenhagen..." - - Radio-Station.

    I think the most important issues about Denmark and The Danish People’s Party are:

    1) how socialist most of their policies are. They are not loony left, just expensive left.
    2) how little influence they actually have. They don’t have enough votes and the others have too many. Simple as that.
    3) how biased our (state owned or state subsidized) media are against them.

    All media in Denmark is state subsidized.

    Media corporations receive direct subsidies or indirect subsidies in terms of no VAT on their products (newspapers) or in terms of laws that favour them (TV2, a public TV station). The direct subsides are straight money transfers (newspapers, internet sites) and the right to tax people’s internet or phone access. If you have a non-crippled internet connection or you own a smart phone you have to pay to the state for the privilege – most of the money goes to DR, the big public TV/radio/internet station.

    > a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).

    No they aren’t. Family “reunification” is still an open door. We also can’t seem to get rid of asylum seekers we have turned down and many of them end up being granted asylum on “humanitarian grounds” after delaying the process for long enough.

    Immigration restrictions only seem to apply to the kind of people we actually want.

    We have kicked out or threatened to kick out people from the other Nordic countries (which we have a mini union with that lets people move even freer than in the EU) and the US and Australia.

    And for what? Minor discrepancies in how forms were filled out or because the Civil Service decided that they or their (often common law) spouses made too little money.

    Somehow those rules never apply to Muslims.

    Btw, we still can’t get decent information from Danmarks Statistik regarding the number of Muslims in Denmark or from Finansministeriet (Finance), Indenrigsministeriet (Home Office/Internal Affairs), Justitsministeriet (Justice), Integrationsministeriet (Integration), etc regarding their cost or how things (don’t) improve regarding their education.

    Short-term immigration is pretty open from the EU/EFTA + even more open from the other Nordic countries.

    We also have green card short-term immigration and student short-term immigration (in the hope that some of the foreign students will both 1) stay and 2) be economically positive for us).

    The EU short-term immigration has blessed us with a 3-months at a time rotating gypsy population.

    The green card short-term immigration with a lot of Indians who are 1) not as well-educated as they seem to have thought and 2) not nearly as good at English as they seem to have thought. Most of them ended up working low wage jobs in the service sector.

    The Nordic immigration hasn’t been problematic for us yet, but it could easily happen practically overnight with all the Muslims Sweden has in Malmö, right next door to Copenhagen. There is even a nice bridge that makes it really easy for them to get across.

    Mostly the bridge has been lucky for us (and really shitty for Sweden) because Merkels Millions wandered through Denmark and onwards to Sweden (which is why we turned a blind eye to them while they were here).

    > b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    We are de facto members of the Eurozone.

    Because the DKK is a tiny currency, it is relatively easy/cheap to speculate against it. The USD and EUR are much bigger currencies so they are far better protected against that. That makes it far more important to keep our house in order in terms of government debt, government expenditure, and coinage.

    We participate fully in ERM II — The second phase of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which links the participating currencies to a common target. The target was initially the DM or the ECU, later it became the Euro. We are also currently the only remaining member, the others having upgraded (or downgraded, if one prefers) to using the Euro directly.

    The participating countries were/are supposed to keep the exchange rate of their currencies within a tight band around a center line. We are committed to a 2.25% fluctuation but our historical deviation has been less than 1%.

    We fulfill all the Euro criteria and have for quite some time.

    We also own a (tiny!) share of the ECB and participate and various new common policies regarding banking, fiscal, and monetary issues that have been implemented since the first the 2008 melt down and then the ongoing Euro/Greek crises. We do that even though we mostly didn’t have to and even though most of it is controlled by the Eurogroup, which we are not a member of.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks much for this detailed post; it's interesting and very informative.
  20. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with "kid loves" as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    > Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    You’d think that, wouldn’t you?

    Besides, there’s plenty of new guilt to go around. African guilt. Palestinian guilt. Lebanese guilt. Libyan guilt. Syrian guilt (big one!). Greek guilt (they are in trouble because we don’t help them enough + we export too much!). South American guilt. Soon Venezuelan guilt will be in vogue, for example. You do know that the only reason why they are in trouble is due to Evil Capitalist Countries + the IMF, right? It was totally not because socialism didn’t work!

    > While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with “kid loves” as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    The reason was purely practical: if they treated us nicely, the occupation would cheap and easy so they could spend their soldiers elsewhere + they really, really needed our food.

    Denmark was and is a huge exporter of food. Germany had problems feeding itself, especially with all the labour being elsewhere as soldiers or in weapons factories and with nitrogen (fertilizer) being hard to get — it costs energy to produce + it is needed for explosives.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Peter Lund:

    Thanks for your response.

    I believe that WW II German collaboration guilt is the ultimate cause of all the later pathologies that you list (African, Palestinian, Lebanese, etc, guilts).

    I believe that German behavior was based in no small part with Germany's desire to set forth Denmark as the model vassal state. Their shared genetic makeup played no small part in this enterprize.
  21. @Hail
    New Immigrants to Denmark From Africa and Asia, all types (Govt. data)
    1997: 7,756
    1998: 8,831
    1999: 8,301
    2000: 10,671
    2001: 12,590
    2002: 9,987
    2003: 8,171
    2004: 6,688
    2005: 6,376
    2006: 6,592
    2007: 8,800
    2008: 10,578
    2009: 10,249
    2010: 11,750
    2011: 11,664
    2012: 11,246
    2013: 14,429
    2014: 19,038
    2015: 27,457 (peak year; about 0.5% of the total resident population)
    2016: 23,297
    Sum: 234,471 (or 4.1% of total resident population of Denmark as of Spring 2017. Presumably a large share of these have since left)

    (This is Africa and Asia only. Non-Western immigrants from non-EU Eastern Europe will increase each number by about a third.)

    _____________________________

    Note the dramatic fall-off in immigration from Africa and Asia in 2002-2004 compared to 2001. By 2004, immigration from Asia and Africa was only half its 2001 level.

    The "far right" Danish People's Party (DF by Danish acronym) was in some way involved in government and agenda setting on immigration from early 2002 to fall 2011, and now again from summer 2015 to present.

    The DF's rise and entrance into parliament with 12% of seats, in late 2001, was a political watershed in Denmark, described by Wiki as follows:

    The [November 2001] election marked a major shift in Danish politics: It was the first time that the right leaning parties held an outright majority in the parliament since the beginning of the modern democratic system in Denmark in 1901;[3] although right leaning parties had held power several times, they had always had to share power with more centrist or left-wing parties...

    One of the most important changes that forced the change was the rise of immigration as a political issue and the ensuing rise of the Danish People's Party.[3]
     
    The ramp-up of immigration from Africa and Asia in 2015 and 2016 was, I presume, initiated by the left-wing parties that governed from fall 2011 to summer 2015. The Danish People's Party currently has 21.1% of seats in parliament, its strongest delegation ever, elected in June 2015, just before Merkel's refugee crisis. If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    The political growth and supposed influence* of the anti immigrant party is what the story is about(*I note that a man is being prosecuted by the Danish state for burning a Koran). However, when the actual number of immigrants is looked at one sees that non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period , and of late it has fluctuated but little. Peter Sutherland made this point, and noted that the governments cannot actually do what they say they will do and drastically reduce immigration. In Britain the Conservatives got elected making pledges on immigration and are currently admitting TEN times the number they said they would.

    Sutherland on Denmark

    In Denmark people backing #EU membership jumped from 59.8% before #Brexit to 69% post-Brexit,[…] If you look at Denmark as an economy, you have higher marginal rates of tax, lower unemployment, a very high safety net support, and GDP per capita significantly higher than this country’s. […] What you also have, agreed with the unions, is a flexible labour market. Labour market flexibility is to my mind very, very important – far more important than the ability to earn very large sums of money.”

    Business want a flexible labour market, and immigrants want to live where there is a very high safety net support and GDP per capita. Business run a welfare state into the ground with immigration; it is unstoppable just look at what is happening behind the Far-Right-calling-the-shots smokescreen.

    • Replies: @Hail

    non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period [of Danish People's Party participation in government], and of late it has fluctuated but little.
     
    I think there is evidence both for and against a DPP influence on this.

    -- 2001: A peak year for African and Asian immigration (12,500) (0.25% of Denmark resident population).
    -- December 2001: The (so called) right-wing coalition wins the election. DPP influence begins
    -- 2002-2006, African and Asian immigrant numbers go down to a new equilibrium around 6,500, nearly half the 2001 peak.
    -- 2008 to 2012: Numbers creep up again to a new average level (11,000 per year).
    -- September 2011: Left-wing narrowly wins election and back in power. Denmark's first female Prime Minister (Social Democrat). DPP national-conservstive bloc slips to 12.3% of seats. DPP head (also a woman) resigns.
    -- 2013 to 2016: Steady increase in Islamic immigration. In 2015-2016 alone, a combined 51,000 Asian and African 'immigrants' came in.
    -- June 2015: DPP roars back, winning 21.1% of seats.

    2015-2016 African/Asian immigration level: 3.5x higher than the 2000s' level.

    ___________________________

    Question. Why did African/Asian immigration take off from 2013?
    (Possible) A. The DPP was out of government and the left-wing was back in control when these policies were loosened up (following the election in September 2011). Denmark is not Uganda where decisions about who stays and goes are sudden and final, i.e. no mass expulsions (not so far). In other words, there is a certain lag to immigration policy. I would expect 2017, 2018, and 2019 Asian/African immigrant numbers, given that the DPP has four-tenths of the ruling bloc votes, to go down.

  22. @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    > They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    Not true.

    You still can’t say that you want the “Syrian” “refugees” locked up in camps until they can be sent home. Or that they should be segregated by sex in those camps. Or that their mobile phones should be taken away from them. Or that starvation or beatings is a good way to get asylum seekers with groundless and rejected claims to accept being sent home. Or that birth control implants or injections for the female asylum seekers is a good idea. Or that a border fence might be a very good idea. Or that if you can’t turn a mass of violent “asylum seekers” away at the border with tear gas and rubber bullets, then shooting them with real bullets might be a good idea. Or that “rescuing” (ferrying) “Syrian” “refugees” from the shores of Africa is an extremely bad idea. Or that the proper thing to do is not to ferry them back — but to actively sink their vessels. Or that sterilizing violent immigrant criminals might actually be a good idea — or at the least a workable idea, if not an ethical idea.

    You can also be fined if you have a cab company and a Muslim driver shows up late for meetings with an attitude problem and won’t shake hands. You get fined firing him, he doesn’t get fined for disrespecting women. You can lose your job as a teacher if you don’t constantly pretend the Muslim boys are no worse than any other boys.

    You can lose a libel case against a former Soviet influence agent after calling him that even though his officers in the KGB testified that he was precisely that, after records in the Mitrokhin archive showed it, after archives in the Danish Intelligence archives showed that they believed him to be an agent (and had pretty good proof), etc.

    The case went all the way to our Supreme Court where the “libeler” (who was a pretty good history professor who had done research on Soviet agents and spoke fluent Russian and had seen the records) still lost.

    Probably partly because one of the Supreme Court judges has (strong) socialist leanings. He has btw been promoted to President of the Supreme Court.

    You can also mostly lose your job (de facto) for doing IQ research, especially if you link it to immigration. You cannot lose your job for believing in various kinds of pseudo science about social heritability, multiple intelligences, Freud, or similar crap.

    Etc.

    On the other hand, there are no negative consequences for adulating Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Freud or for wanting to turn Denmark into a Workers’ (= Students’) Paradise.

  23. @Hail
    New Immigrants to Denmark From Africa and Asia, all types (Govt. data)
    1997: 7,756
    1998: 8,831
    1999: 8,301
    2000: 10,671
    2001: 12,590
    2002: 9,987
    2003: 8,171
    2004: 6,688
    2005: 6,376
    2006: 6,592
    2007: 8,800
    2008: 10,578
    2009: 10,249
    2010: 11,750
    2011: 11,664
    2012: 11,246
    2013: 14,429
    2014: 19,038
    2015: 27,457 (peak year; about 0.5% of the total resident population)
    2016: 23,297
    Sum: 234,471 (or 4.1% of total resident population of Denmark as of Spring 2017. Presumably a large share of these have since left)

    (This is Africa and Asia only. Non-Western immigrants from non-EU Eastern Europe will increase each number by about a third.)

    _____________________________

    Note the dramatic fall-off in immigration from Africa and Asia in 2002-2004 compared to 2001. By 2004, immigration from Asia and Africa was only half its 2001 level.

    The "far right" Danish People's Party (DF by Danish acronym) was in some way involved in government and agenda setting on immigration from early 2002 to fall 2011, and now again from summer 2015 to present.

    The DF's rise and entrance into parliament with 12% of seats, in late 2001, was a political watershed in Denmark, described by Wiki as follows:

    The [November 2001] election marked a major shift in Danish politics: It was the first time that the right leaning parties held an outright majority in the parliament since the beginning of the modern democratic system in Denmark in 1901;[3] although right leaning parties had held power several times, they had always had to share power with more centrist or left-wing parties...

    One of the most important changes that forced the change was the rise of immigration as a political issue and the ensuing rise of the Danish People's Party.[3]
     
    The ramp-up of immigration from Africa and Asia in 2015 and 2016 was, I presume, initiated by the left-wing parties that governed from fall 2011 to summer 2015. The Danish People's Party currently has 21.1% of seats in parliament, its strongest delegation ever, elected in June 2015, just before Merkel's refugee crisis. If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    > If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    The Danish system is not a winner takes all system so it probably wouldn’t have matted all that much.

    There are also *many* parties who want more immigrants/”refugees”!

    • Replies: @Hail
    I find it strange that the biggest two parties in 2015 did not get to form the government:

    47 seats Social Democrats (typical postmodern left wing)
    37 seats Danish People's Party (DF) (immigration patriot)
    34 seats Venstre (apparently centrist and free-trade-oriented)
    61 seats All Other Parties

    The government was formed by the head of Venstre, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister April 2009 to October 2011 and June 2015 to Present.

    I also see from polling data that DF outperformed the polls, getting 21.1% but predicted to get around 18.0% (average of many polls). It seems one in six DF voters would not admit their preference to a pollster.

    The ruling coalition has a narrow overall majority, and forty percent of it is DF, which makes it the biggest party of the ruling coalition, yet DF appears locked out of the Prime Ministership, as if by law.

  24. The problem, for everyone on the planet, is obvious. Whites all bunched together create too many good things for themselves, which is unfair. It causes non-whites to be much less efficient, and much more criminally inclined, than they would be otherwise. Therefore, the entire world must be ‘bussed’ so that no nation is more than 49% white.

  25. @Seamus Padraig

    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).
     
    Actually, about the only countries in Europe that are doing fine are the ones that don't use the euro: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc. The Eurozone is an economic deadzone.

    Not for Germany. The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe.

    • Replies: @AM

    The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe
     
    Remarkable, isn't it? Why did Hitler attempt to take Europe by force? He should have just invented the Euro and socialism.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Not rue - Germany is exporting the most, that's true, but the average wages are only at the 8th position in Europe:

    https://www.reinisfischer.com/average-salary-european-union-2015

    The same with average posession - if it is not even lower than the 8th position in Europe. The Greeks - imagine that - rank with the Germans as far as average posession is concerned. One reason for that is, that the average German family does n o t own the house or the appartment, they live in.

    One other reason is the effectiveness of the German tax system, whereas the Greek's ... is world famous for it's ineffectiveness.
  26. @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    I think your wise post may be pared down to: Democracy works well only in the city-state. As the city-state grows toward empire, it ruins its ability to have meaningful democracy.

    As for the country bumpkins despised and taken advantage of by the urban Elites – Yep. Now think of the antithesis: ancient Athens. Even the time of Socrates, as Athenian democracy was degenerating thanks to imperialism, Athenians still regularly maintained their ties to their agricultural/pastoral roots. Athenian democracy became meaningless as wealthy Athenians lost their ties to the land and thus their respect for those who live and work on the land every day.

  27. Beautiful Danish political leader Pernille Vermund says mass immigration threatens the safety and security of Denmark. Patriots in the United States need beautiful lady political leaders to get the gals to think about the dangers of mass immigration.

    Pernille Vermund:

  28. AM says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”

    Except for the tiny problem that Danes have basically stopped having children. Except that, socialism works perfectly in Denmark.

    The birth rate is so low (1.67, only slightly higher than Germany’s) that they’ve been doing ad campaigns to increase birth rates. Typically with those strategies there’s a tiny uptick, but nothing amazing long term.

    Socialism is a steady wealth transfer from young to old, with the promise that in your old age, you’ll tap into the income of young people. When you take over 50% of a young families income and tell them, oh but you can have the baby for “free”, people aren’t stupid. Paying for having the baby is the easy part. It’s trying to find housing, feeding them, clothing them for the next 2 decades – that’s the hard part. Socialism makes all of that very expensive.

    Meanwhile, if you know you’ll have an income and health care in your old age, why bother with kids? Why not work and save what disposable income you have for stuff that you like right now? And that’s exactly what people do, even in educated, homogeneous, hard working societies.

    There are a lot of layers going on to European/Western social rot, but one of the major components is her unrepentant love of socialism. I’ve chatted at length with a Belgian who is fairly socially conservative. When I pointed out the negative social effects of socialism her response basically was “You’ll pry socialism out of my cold dead hands”. Well, okay. I’ll check in with what few children there are in a decade or two from now and see what they think.

    European renewal will begin in earnest once the ponzi scheme called socialism collapses. Foreigners will have little incentive to stay in cold northern climes once the free money, housing, and food is gone. Young people will not necessarily have more cash, but they will have much more incentive to have children and less government interference in the process. It will be a disaster in the short run when the money musical chairs stops. But I think it will be better after that.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. - Ohhh - and now??

    What woud be the problem if Denmark someday would have as many inhabitants as -say: 1964.

    What - excuse me - what was wrong with 1964?

    And isn't the Danish birthrate something Danish - I mean: If they prefer to care more for frogs and hedgehogs and wild sheep for a while, than for a birthrate of 2,5 or whatever you'd be comfortable with: What would be wrong about that - I just like to call it: The hedgehog-choice?

    I didn't get this whole part of the - at it's core traditionally Christian - growth discourse, as it seems: Be friuitful and multiply! - I'd call for a Catholic Reformation, what this sentence is concerned.
    If you find a historian, who doesn't get the fact, that European Protestantism in many cases (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands...) was about appropriate growth of the number of people in a country - even in a county, or a "Gau", or a Swiss "Kanton" etc., I'd risk to say, that this is no good historian/social scientist etc. Because the examples for the restriction of population growth in Lutheran and Calvinist and Zwinglian regions is undisputable, as far as I can see.


    As an aside:
    If I got O. E. Wilson right, humas will never be as sucessful as ants.

    A joke, ok, in the end:
    I still prefer being a human.

    Last aside:
    I'd even hold that it's a feature, not a bug, that humans can decide how numerous they want to be.

    Ok - the very last one:

    Ants have no choice.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Slow-motion European self-destruction is nothing new - without even going into pensions, my experience is that its miserable to try to operate a business there. This worsens the economic situation and makes people even more reliant on social benefits.
    , @anon
    The problem is not population decline from low birth rates. The problem is population replacement from immigration of alien peoples. Note how immigration-free Japan has a lower birth rate. I don't see the Japanese being replaced by Africans or Muslims though.
  29. @Yak-15
    The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. They stamp out any alien tribes that threaten their cherished Buddhist identity quickly and ruthlessly. They do not need your support.

    America needs help. Europe needs help. Western civilization needs more defenders.

    The Burmese don’t need my help and the Americans don’t want it. What is an aging warrior to do…?

    I nearly joined the French Foreign Legion in disgust last year, but I decided agianst it when I ultmately reflected I would be serving alongside a bunch of Negroes and Arabs to fight pointless campaigns wholly unrelated – and indeed opposed to – the interests of the French or any other European people. Now I’m finally too old to join in any case.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    http://www.freeburmarangers.org/who-we-are/

    ;)
  30. @Desiderius
    "The Bama people have a way of running their multi-ethnic state that Is not handicapped by the cultural ennui of western civilization. "

    Roll Tide.

    Nicely done. A friend of mine once worked with a vwry dark Negro in job requiring a lot of interaction with the public in Georgia. One day a curmudgeon complained to the management about something or other the Negro did, using the insult “blue gummed, Alabaman Negro” (the man did not say “Negro” but I have discovered Steve, for all his professed distaste at political manipulations and restrictions on language to coerce thought and discourse, will not publish the word spoken…).

    The Negro objected passionately “I am NOT from Alabama!”

    True story. I shit you negative.

  31. @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    >The Danish People’s Party is not “right wing” by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.

    The far right are the real leftists!

  32. Slightly OT – “We don’t need them’: Austrian FM wants to end Islamic kindergartens to boost integration … “

    Controversy regarding Muslim kindergartens was recently stirred when a study by Austrian-Turkish Professor Ednan Aslan found more than 10,000 children aged from two to six attend around 150 Muslim preschools in Vienna which teach the Koran and pave the way for “parallel societies,” according to AFP.

    https://www.rt.com/news/393550-austria-closure-islamic-kindergartens/

    The fear is that the kindergartens are currently subsidized by the state as a de facto mechanism to fund the creation of an Islamic state-within-a-state in Austria. The plan is to end the state subsidies in the hope most of the Islamic kindergartens would close. However, there is a recognized downside to the plan. It would reduce diversity and the development of Austria as a multi-cultural society.

    However, it seems that most of this is playing “Whack a Mole” with the issue of Islamic integration into European liberal, secular, and democratic societies. As a fundamental, Islamic integration into European societies is impossible because the religion and culture forbid it. It’s adherents accept that Islam is, at the same time, an integrated religious, social, and political system that is inconsistent with the Western way of life.

  33. @Anonymous
    Obviously immigration wouldn't be an economic boon to Denmark. However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, and obviously, just from looking at it, you can see that the Danish society is organized on principles that would maximize that sharing.

    A society with no real dysfunctions of its own to handle would be in the best position to improve the lives of refugees.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won't? What % of the population must already be NAM? What's the tipping point?

    However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, …

    Everybody is born “somewhere else.” There is no such obligation.

    Foreign aid is awful on all levels. It’s every dysgenic and dystopic incentive of domestic welfare on steroids. Foreign aid is why wave after wave of r-selected, surplus men with hopelessly low IQs are piling into Europe.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won’t? What % of the population must already be NAM? What’s the tipping point?

    You’re asking the question from the wrong end, chronologically and sociologically.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You’re asking the question from the wrong end, chronologically and sociologically.
     
    Elaborate. Why is that Immigrants are Good for the Economy is never an argument to diversify prosperous homogeneous nations like Denmark and Sweden? To ask the question is to answer it. It's only ever used on countries that are already rotted through, not so much to argue for immigration but to justify the rot after the fact. The initial rot was caused by historical slavery, or a calamitous post-WW2 labor shortage (so prosperous Germany looks for an economic silver lining to the refugee crisis, because it can't face up to its Turkish gastarbeiter dysfunction); and, in the case of Sweden, will be caused by prosperous homogeneity put into too close proximity to Third World dysfunction by a world shrinking through technology and globalism. (But then I do need to explain the prosperously homogeneous Danes, but as Hail points out, their immigration policy doesn't look to have been that far right.)
  34. I thank God that demographics are not in your favor because you guys are snarky jerks

    How does it feel? Knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?

    • Replies: @black sea

    How does it feel? Knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?
     
    It feels like being on your own
    with no direction home
    a complete unknown
    like a rolling stone.

    --Leonard Pitts
  35. I’m sure the Euro-elites will find a way to turn that around.

  36. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with "kid loves" as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    If I recall correctly, the gripe against Germany in WWII was not that they didn’t let in refugees. 😉

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
  37. Hail says: • Website
    @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.

    Not important. The only issue that matters in the coming years, decades, is how well Denmark (or insert any state) resists the Third World tide. There is also a risk of going too far and getting “Serbia’ed” (targeted for isolation and undermined, economically, perhaps territoriality; then, if things go really far, getting humanitarian-bombed).

    Denmark is in a much better position than poor Sweden, but this 8.4% Non-Western population, probably nearly all deadweight, with thousands more arriving yearly, is not good news.

  38. @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    It depends on what you mean by “right wing”. Compared to the screwed up American political spectrum? Yes: you people are flat out socialist. So is Marine Le Pen. Macron’s election just exacerbates that.

    But if you mean “conservative” in the sense of actually wanting to conserve things, a la Otto von Bismarck, Edmund Burke, Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Theodore Roosevelt, the American right wing hasn’t been conservative for multiple decades. It used to be called classical liberal economics for a reason. I’d caution you about viewing the American political spectrum as anything approximating normal. The liberals here aren’t all that liberal, in the literal sense of the term. Same with the conservatives.

    (Foreign policy is an even better example. What kind of old style conservative realist, valuing the geopolitical balance of power and national interests over abstract ideals, destabilizes the Middle East in the name of democracy and human rights, to “invade the world, invite the world”?)

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The traditional conservative view on economics is mercantilism. In that regard, Communist China is more conservative than the US Republican Party.
  39. @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    The big split between the Danes and Swedes. Danes said to be more irreverent, less conformist, take themselves less seriously than the Swedes.

  40. @Chrisnonymous

    in Merkel-Europe
     
    I prefer "Merkelstan."

    I love it!

    My personal theory is that she covertly converted to Islam (they can lie about it.)

    And the policies of French, British and German governments are such that your average Saudi would approve but believing Christians find grotesque. Hmmm

  41. AM says:

    Not important. The only issue that matters in the coming years, decades, is how well Denmark (or insert any state) resists the Third World tide.

    It is important. Socialism is one of the key social/economic constructs of our time preventing meaningful resistance to the Third World Tide. That’s true even the US, which, if we’re a bit more objective amount how much money we dole out, is really a system pretty close to Europeans. It’s just less comprehensive in some areas, that’s all.

    Key social disincentives of socialism:

    -Creates complacency in the populace and absolute trust in the state to provide. That discourages spiritual growth and looking to the traditional base of Western spirituality, Christianity for comfort and strength. If Daddy state will always provide for everything, why fuss about few foreigners or that silly thing called the church? Socialism means you never have to grow up in certain ways.

    -Socialism makes the traditional Christian work of missionaries (how Christians helped foreigners without mussing up the nest) and providing for the poor merely hobby work. It has little to no meaning in socialized countries, further undermining traditional Christianity

    -Women, instead of looking to husbands as providers, look to the state. It is no coincidence that once women gain suffrage that socialism appears. It does appear in places without women’s suffrage, but if socialism didn’t exist before and women get the vote, as sure as the sun rises in the East, it will appear within a few decades.

    -What stable, married couples do form find child rearing expensive and pointless. If the state will provide for you in your old age, why not live it up now? Child rearing also becomes “a hobby”. It’s one that people will pressure you not to do a lot of because they’re looking at their tax bill and they don’t want you to be “extravagant” in using the social system. Kids end up s bills not to just their parents, but everyone, rather than the asset we saw them as for most of time.

    -The wrong kind of foreigners are attracted to moths like a flame to your generous social system, built primarily for insecure white women fretting about their mid to old age. In some ways, they are less fussy than the women who wanted the system in the first place. Whatever you give them they’ll be okay with living because it’s easier than work, but they will be resentful for it. Remarkably, the white women themselves find the standard of living too low on welfare system..it’s just there for their nightmare scenarios they’ve got running in their heads.

    You can keep slashing off the heads of the hydras if you want. Or you can make a go for the immortal head and put it under a rock. I’d go for the later myself.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    Good post, AM.

    Leftie 'Christians' and post-Christian socialists are unable to grasp a distinction between Christians themselves/the Church caring for the poor and lame, and the state taking care of it. They outsource Christian charity to the government, when Jesus (and Paul, and other church leaders) told them to do precisely the opposite.

    In this heretical worldview, the Christian role is reduced to what I've heard pompously referred to as 'speaking with a prophetic voice', which in practice simply means lobbying the state to provide more entitlements, and campaigning for left-wing politicians.
  42. @Anonymous
    Obviously immigration wouldn't be an economic boon to Denmark. However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, and obviously, just from looking at it, you can see that the Danish society is organized on principles that would maximize that sharing.

    A society with no real dysfunctions of its own to handle would be in the best position to improve the lives of refugees.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won't? What % of the population must already be NAM? What's the tipping point?

    That’s called slavery

  43. utu says:
    @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    “to find that there is no self policing of speech.”

    In mono-ethnic and mono-cultural society you do not have to self-police since chances for offending “the other” are much lower. If you want to keep this freedom do not let too many foreigners in. The same goes for the welfare state. The push for immigration and creation of multi-cultural society to large extend comes from neoliberal designs to destroy the welfare state.

  44. @Jake
    Not for Germany. The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe.

    The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe

    Remarkable, isn’t it? Why did Hitler attempt to take Europe by force? He should have just invented the Euro and socialism.

    • Replies: @anon
    Had there been no war in 1914, Germany would probably have (economically and financially) taken over the continent of Europe peacefully by about 1940. The average German worker in 1914 was far better fed, housed and treated then his British counterpart who lived crammed into the worst slums in Europe.
  45. @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    I see echoes of this among the non-elite SJWs, they will happily cuck for non-whites all day long but at first whiff of nativism of any kind they gleefully talk about deporting bad-whites, denying them welfare etc.

  46. @Expat Dane
    The Danish People's Party is not "right wing" by any stretch of the term. They are adamantly for the cradle to grave welfare state.
    I have known many liberal Americans who spent some time in Denmark expecting to find the same PC types they associate with at home. They were all shocked to find that there is no self policing of speach.

    I continually remind my bilingual kids that what goes with the cousins could be a career stopper if voiced this side of the pond.

    Economically left, culturally right?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    "If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one."

    To be fair, I do think Singapore has a non-trivial amount of immigration from mainland China to keep the populace level semi-sustainable. But obviously, that's a very different deal from importing Somalis, Pashtuns and Arabs, even if we leave aside the fact that Singapore is 2/3rds Chinese to begin with anyway.

  47. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon
    It's off-topic, but I'm genuinely seeking wisdom from others: adverts for some tearjerking campaign to "save the oppressed Burmese Mohammedans" have begun to appear to me. I immediately wondered of course whether there is any avenue to support whoever is wisely and ethically keeping the Mohammedans down or forcing them out of Burma. Anyone more familiar with the situation know whom right-headed people can support and how?

    I'm also hoping Steve will offer thoughts about the recent Eichman-Watsoning of the head of Uber. Apparently the guy is in fact a big jerk, but that doesn't merit being unpersoned from one's own corporation (e.g., it surely didn't in the case of the shiftless Lebanese mountebank and his fruit company...).

    It’s disgusting. Out of all the pro democracy/nation building, Burma stands out as the only victory. It has a population of roughly 50 million and 1 or 2 million muslims is bringing out the absurd holocaust rhetoric.

    SJW’s are unhinged. Migration is any material numbers occurred relatively recently from Bangladesh. Who don’t want them back. It’s a shame and all, but really.

    The NYT’s can’t let this go. They are back on a regular basis. The Free Tibet crowd should be supporting one of the few Buddhist countries. And if they have to pitch a fit over genocide, the Palestinians are always available.

  48. Ok, but how’s the food? Do they have authentic ethnic cuisine?

    It does not matter at some point the children of the migrants, with EU nationality will wander into Denmark.

  49. @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    To Peter: Denmark’s purported success with welfare state policy, if you define “success” as stability, says nothing about libertarian policy, which has been rarely tried throughout history.

    Switzerland is a better candidate for success, with its truly federal system, where the localities have MUCH more autonomy than most places, declares neutrality in all disputes that do not involve the interests of its citizens, and generally still respects privacy for the most part though this is waning under the pressure of the American Imperial city, and respects private property. These are much more libertarian policies.

    Free zones, special economic zones like Shanghai and Hong Kong and another in Dubai, show that free market economies do much more for the poor than welfare programs. The American Indian tribes do best that do not have access to the some 75 federal free-money programs in the U. S., another example.

  50. @Autochthon
    The Burmese don't need my help and the Americans don't want it. What is an aging warrior to do...?

    I nearly joined the French Foreign Legion in disgust last year, but I decided agianst it when I ultmately reflected I would be serving alongside a bunch of Negroes and Arabs to fight pointless campaigns wholly unrelated – and indeed opposed to – the interests of the French or any other European people. Now I'm finally too old to join in any case.
  51. CJ says:
    @Dieter Kief
    There's two things you'll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) - without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist...) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple "constantly numb" (Pink Floyd).


    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry...) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins "World Reveiver Grundig 'SATELLITE'" broadcasted from - - a Danish - "bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz... is chchchchc ...Kopenhagen..." - - Radio-Station.

    The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    Nobody who is outside the currency Eurozone wants in. Even braindead British Europhiles want to keep the pound. That pretty much tells the story right there, but as you note, people have to figure it out for themselves.

  52. @Autochthon
    It's off-topic, but I'm genuinely seeking wisdom from others: adverts for some tearjerking campaign to "save the oppressed Burmese Mohammedans" have begun to appear to me. I immediately wondered of course whether there is any avenue to support whoever is wisely and ethically keeping the Mohammedans down or forcing them out of Burma. Anyone more familiar with the situation know whom right-headed people can support and how?

    I'm also hoping Steve will offer thoughts about the recent Eichman-Watsoning of the head of Uber. Apparently the guy is in fact a big jerk, but that doesn't merit being unpersoned from one's own corporation (e.g., it surely didn't in the case of the shiftless Lebanese mountebank and his fruit company...).

    The problem in Burma is that the birth rate for Buddhists has dropped fairly sharply over the last decade or so but the birth rate for Muslims remains quite a bit higher.

    There is deep resentment over Islam’s never ending attempts to increase its territory and influence, including of course the ‘capturing’ of Buddhist girls in one way marriages.

    Muslims often run village shops so you also have the hatred of the ethnic middle-man class that Amy Chua talked about in her book World on Fire.

    The Rohingya are called Bengalis – or worse – and indeed it seems likely that many of them are; even pro-Rohingya activists admit that half of ‘Rohingya’ boat people are from Bengal proper.

    The Bengalis are seen as having sneakily crept into Burma at times of regional weakness – when the Arakan area was depopulated by internal fighting and when the Japanese invaded. Pleasant and not overcrowded Burma is bang next door to flood-prone unhappy Bangladesh that is teaming with people who would love to move over the border.

    One thing you could do is support organizations that campaign for the rights of the original Arakanese people – who are Buddhist but distinct from ordinary Burmese.

    Another thing would be to push back against NGO blindness to geopolitic and nationalist issues in favour of ‘doing the decent thing’ even if this is an existential threat to a people.

    Progressive journalists are asking if Aung San Suu Kyi is a ‘monster’ for not supporting the Rohingya – so not even a mighty progressive icon is safe if she does not kowtow to the cult of human rights against her best instincts.

    Another commentator here said one could spend one’s time more usefully shoring up the defenses of the original West. I appreciate the sentiment but I think an extremely powerful weapon to hamstring open borders zealots and diversity loons is the example of the rest of the world where nationalism is the default mode.

    Much more could be made of rest of the world attitudes that shun liberal shibboleths.

  53. @Peter Lund
    > Since Denmark is not loaded down with guilt about their role in WW II, they feel free to implement a realistic immigration policy.

    You'd think that, wouldn't you?

    Besides, there's plenty of new guilt to go around. African guilt. Palestinian guilt. Lebanese guilt. Libyan guilt. Syrian guilt (big one!). Greek guilt (they are in trouble because we don't help them enough + we export too much!). South American guilt. Soon Venezuelan guilt will be in vogue, for example. You do know that the only reason why they are in trouble is due to Evil Capitalist Countries + the IMF, right? It was totally not because socialism didn't work!

    > While Denmark acted with probity in the war, it should be noted that Germany treated the Danes with “kid loves” as they wanted them to serve as an exemplar of German occupation.

    The reason was purely practical: if they treated us nicely, the occupation would cheap and easy so they could spend their soldiers elsewhere + they really, really needed our food.

    Denmark was and is a huge exporter of food. Germany had problems feeding itself, especially with all the labour being elsewhere as soldiers or in weapons factories and with nitrogen (fertilizer) being hard to get -- it costs energy to produce + it is needed for explosives.

    Peter Lund:

    Thanks for your response.

    I believe that WW II German collaboration guilt is the ultimate cause of all the later pathologies that you list (African, Palestinian, Lebanese, etc, guilts).

    I believe that German behavior was based in no small part with Germany’s desire to set forth Denmark as the model vassal state. Their shared genetic makeup played no small part in this enterprize.

  54. Pernille Vermund is a beautiful political leader in Denmark. Pernille Vermund has the brains to pander for the votes of men, that means she wants to win.

    Mass immigration will be the issue that destroys the evil EU. Denmark is a great place to live because it is full of Danes.

    Pernille Vermund is a woman who loves to be fit and trim. Pernille Vermund knows she has to be in good shape to be her best when she fights for Denmark. Pernille Vermund will use physical fitness the way Nigel Farage used ale drinking in pubs: as a way to avoid and deflect any and all attempts by the mass media to dehumanize her and her pro-sovereignty political message.

  55. @Daniel Chieh
    Economically left, culturally right?

    “If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one.”

    To be fair, I do think Singapore has a non-trivial amount of immigration from mainland China to keep the populace level semi-sustainable. But obviously, that’s a very different deal from importing Somalis, Pashtuns and Arabs, even if we leave aside the fact that Singapore is 2/3rds Chinese to begin with anyway.

  56. Hail says: • Website
    @Peter Lund
    > If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    The Danish system is not a winner takes all system so it probably wouldn't have matted all that much.

    There are also *many* parties who want more immigrants/"refugees"!

    I find it strange that the biggest two parties in 2015 did not get to form the government:

    47 seats Social Democrats (typical postmodern left wing)
    37 seats Danish People’s Party (DF) (immigration patriot)
    34 seats Venstre (apparently centrist and free-trade-oriented)
    61 seats All Other Parties

    The government was formed by the head of Venstre, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister April 2009 to October 2011 and June 2015 to Present.

    I also see from polling data that DF outperformed the polls, getting 21.1% but predicted to get around 18.0% (average of many polls). It seems one in six DF voters would not admit their preference to a pollster.

    The ruling coalition has a narrow overall majority, and forty percent of it is DF, which makes it the biggest party of the ruling coalition, yet DF appears locked out of the Prime Ministership, as if by law.

  57. Denmark makes a stand for European Christians everywhere.

    https://twitter.com/Kaide_Walsh/status/857818658101493761

    Doggerland was an area now beneath the southern North Sea that connected Great Britain to continental Europe during and after the last glacial period. It was flooded by rising sea levels around 6,500–6,200 BC. Geological surveys have suggested that it stretched from Britain’s east coast to the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany and the peninsula of Jutland.[1] It was probably a rich habitat with human habitation in the Mesolithic period,[2] although rising sea levels gradually reduced it to low-lying islands before its final submergence, possibly following a tsunami caused by the Storegga Slide.[3] — Wikipedia

  58. @Peter Akuleyev
    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of "we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state."

    Denmark's success is an inconvenient fact both for liberals and libertarians.

    The problem for Europe is that Denmark's success is not easily replicable in other European countries because they are not as ethnically and culturally homogeneous as Europeans seem to think. Germany for example has always been riven by squabbles between the different "tribes". The economic and military sucess of the Wilhelmine Reich, and then the shared suffering in WWI created an illusion of national unity that Hitler was able to play off, but that has quickly dissipated back into the traditional pattern of everyone being jealous of Bavarians, mistrusting Swabians, despising Saxons and laughing at Saarlanders.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have. Like the US, it is easy for political parties to use immigrants as wedges against other native groups you don't like. The countries with the best chance of replicating the Danish model are places like the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

    The problem in France and the UK is that both societies are so class driven. The elites feel very little, if any, ethnic solidarity with the working and rural classes, and never have.

    This was not true – or at least requires serious qualification – prior to roughly the mid-20th Century.

    There was a lot of regional identification in both countries and some recognition that all members of society contribute.

    In the UK certainly there was an important sense of noblesse oblige – in the 19th Century the upper classes competed to engage in ‘good works’. As Peter Oborne said in The Trump of the Political Class the 10,000 – the landed gentry – of 200 years ago were closer to ordinary people than the contemporary self-replicating political class.

    Christopher Lasch of course wrote in Revolt of the Elites the increasing concentration of wealth in a compacted cognitive elite has seen that noblesse oblige rub off to be replaced by a preening, arrogant, virtue-signaling overlord class that cares not a whit for ordinary people.

  59. @Neoconned
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/pelosi-georgia-ossoff-democrats.html?referer=https://www.google.com/


    Some congressional Dems are sayibg lay off the identity politics shit.


    Carvilles old saying "it's the economy stupid " comes to mind

    The Dems are missing a piece that is crucial.

    Tony Blair staged a quiet immigration surge and ordered his people to shut up about it. His Jewish minister in charge of immigration wanted to give a speech crowing about it; Blair vetoed the speech.

    Hate speech laws in Britain ensured that immigration opponents would also be shut up.

    1st amendment (still zealously protected by the Supreme Court) is the baseball bat in the spokes of the American state. Globalists can’t shut up their opponents.

  60. The Danes are aesthetically pleasing as a race. Denmark is home to a Germanic people who are handsome and beautiful. Ugly globalizers want to pour Third Worlders into Denmark.

    The same evil globalizer creatures who would have us venerate Michelle Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as exemplars of pure beauty are the same skunks who want to flood ugly Third Worlders into Denmark.

    One of the more ugly globalizers is an ugly drunk skunk rodent by the name of Juncker. Juncker is the President of the European Commission. The European Commission is a sovereignty-sapping bunch of thugs who presume to speak for the member states of the EU.

  61. @AM

    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”
     
    Except for the tiny problem that Danes have basically stopped having children. Except that, socialism works perfectly in Denmark.

    The birth rate is so low (1.67, only slightly higher than Germany's) that they've been doing ad campaigns to increase birth rates. Typically with those strategies there's a tiny uptick, but nothing amazing long term.

    Socialism is a steady wealth transfer from young to old, with the promise that in your old age, you'll tap into the income of young people. When you take over 50% of a young families income and tell them, oh but you can have the baby for "free", people aren't stupid. Paying for having the baby is the easy part. It's trying to find housing, feeding them, clothing them for the next 2 decades - that's the hard part. Socialism makes all of that very expensive.

    Meanwhile, if you know you'll have an income and health care in your old age, why bother with kids? Why not work and save what disposable income you have for stuff that you like right now? And that's exactly what people do, even in educated, homogeneous, hard working societies.

    There are a lot of layers going on to European/Western social rot, but one of the major components is her unrepentant love of socialism. I've chatted at length with a Belgian who is fairly socially conservative. When I pointed out the negative social effects of socialism her response basically was "You'll pry socialism out of my cold dead hands". Well, okay. I'll check in with what few children there are in a decade or two from now and see what they think.

    European renewal will begin in earnest once the ponzi scheme called socialism collapses. Foreigners will have little incentive to stay in cold northern climes once the free money, housing, and food is gone. Young people will not necessarily have more cash, but they will have much more incentive to have children and less government interference in the process. It will be a disaster in the short run when the money musical chairs stops. But I think it will be better after that.

    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. – Ohhh – and now??

    What woud be the problem if Denmark someday would have as many inhabitants as -say: 1964.

    What – excuse me – what was wrong with 1964?

    And isn’t the Danish birthrate something Danish – I mean: If they prefer to care more for frogs and hedgehogs and wild sheep for a while, than for a birthrate of 2,5 or whatever you’d be comfortable with: What would be wrong about that – I just like to call it: The hedgehog-choice?

    I didn’t get this whole part of the – at it’s core traditionally Christian – growth discourse, as it seems: Be friuitful and multiply! – I’d call for a Catholic Reformation, what this sentence is concerned.
    If you find a historian, who doesn’t get the fact, that European Protestantism in many cases (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands…) was about appropriate growth of the number of people in a country – even in a county, or a “Gau”, or a Swiss “Kanton” etc., I’d risk to say, that this is no good historian/social scientist etc. Because the examples for the restriction of population growth in Lutheran and Calvinist and Zwinglian regions is undisputable, as far as I can see.

    As an aside:
    If I got O. E. Wilson right, humas will never be as sucessful as ants.

    A joke, ok, in the end:
    I still prefer being a human.

    Last aside:
    I’d even hold that it’s a feature, not a bug, that humans can decide how numerous they want to be.

    Ok – the very last one:

    Ants have no choice.

    • Replies: @AM

    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. – Ohhh – and now??
     
    Hey, if you're for countries disappearing in 2-3 generations and just generally eating it's seed corn through socialism, who I am to talk you out of it? There was at least replacement level before socialism and occasionally a little growth.

    So yippee, they weren't ants, because we're way stupider than that apparently.
  62. @nebulafox
    It depends on what you mean by "right wing". Compared to the screwed up American political spectrum? Yes: you people are flat out socialist. So is Marine Le Pen. Macron's election just exacerbates that.

    But if you mean "conservative" in the sense of actually wanting to conserve things, a la Otto von Bismarck, Edmund Burke, Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Theodore Roosevelt, the American right wing hasn't been conservative for multiple decades. It used to be called classical liberal economics for a reason. I'd caution you about viewing the American political spectrum as anything approximating normal. The liberals here aren't all that liberal, in the literal sense of the term. Same with the conservatives.

    (Foreign policy is an even better example. What kind of old style conservative realist, valuing the geopolitical balance of power and national interests over abstract ideals, destabilizes the Middle East in the name of democracy and human rights, to "invade the world, invite the world"?)

    The traditional conservative view on economics is mercantilism. In that regard, Communist China is more conservative than the US Republican Party.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    To be honest, the Chinese are more conservative than the Republicans in many other ways as well.
  63. @AM

    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”
     
    Except for the tiny problem that Danes have basically stopped having children. Except that, socialism works perfectly in Denmark.

    The birth rate is so low (1.67, only slightly higher than Germany's) that they've been doing ad campaigns to increase birth rates. Typically with those strategies there's a tiny uptick, but nothing amazing long term.

    Socialism is a steady wealth transfer from young to old, with the promise that in your old age, you'll tap into the income of young people. When you take over 50% of a young families income and tell them, oh but you can have the baby for "free", people aren't stupid. Paying for having the baby is the easy part. It's trying to find housing, feeding them, clothing them for the next 2 decades - that's the hard part. Socialism makes all of that very expensive.

    Meanwhile, if you know you'll have an income and health care in your old age, why bother with kids? Why not work and save what disposable income you have for stuff that you like right now? And that's exactly what people do, even in educated, homogeneous, hard working societies.

    There are a lot of layers going on to European/Western social rot, but one of the major components is her unrepentant love of socialism. I've chatted at length with a Belgian who is fairly socially conservative. When I pointed out the negative social effects of socialism her response basically was "You'll pry socialism out of my cold dead hands". Well, okay. I'll check in with what few children there are in a decade or two from now and see what they think.

    European renewal will begin in earnest once the ponzi scheme called socialism collapses. Foreigners will have little incentive to stay in cold northern climes once the free money, housing, and food is gone. Young people will not necessarily have more cash, but they will have much more incentive to have children and less government interference in the process. It will be a disaster in the short run when the money musical chairs stops. But I think it will be better after that.

    Slow-motion European self-destruction is nothing new – without even going into pensions, my experience is that its miserable to try to operate a business there. This worsens the economic situation and makes people even more reliant on social benefits.

    • Replies: @AM
    Socialism does that, too. It makes sense. It's slow motion diaster.
  64. Indeed. The Chinese follow the lessons of Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List quite well.

  65. AM says:
    @Dieter Kief
    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. - Ohhh - and now??

    What woud be the problem if Denmark someday would have as many inhabitants as -say: 1964.

    What - excuse me - what was wrong with 1964?

    And isn't the Danish birthrate something Danish - I mean: If they prefer to care more for frogs and hedgehogs and wild sheep for a while, than for a birthrate of 2,5 or whatever you'd be comfortable with: What would be wrong about that - I just like to call it: The hedgehog-choice?

    I didn't get this whole part of the - at it's core traditionally Christian - growth discourse, as it seems: Be friuitful and multiply! - I'd call for a Catholic Reformation, what this sentence is concerned.
    If you find a historian, who doesn't get the fact, that European Protestantism in many cases (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands...) was about appropriate growth of the number of people in a country - even in a county, or a "Gau", or a Swiss "Kanton" etc., I'd risk to say, that this is no good historian/social scientist etc. Because the examples for the restriction of population growth in Lutheran and Calvinist and Zwinglian regions is undisputable, as far as I can see.


    As an aside:
    If I got O. E. Wilson right, humas will never be as sucessful as ants.

    A joke, ok, in the end:
    I still prefer being a human.

    Last aside:
    I'd even hold that it's a feature, not a bug, that humans can decide how numerous they want to be.

    Ok - the very last one:

    Ants have no choice.

    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. – Ohhh – and now??

    Hey, if you’re for countries disappearing in 2-3 generations and just generally eating it’s seed corn through socialism, who I am to talk you out of it? There was at least replacement level before socialism and occasionally a little growth.

    So yippee, they weren’t ants, because we’re way stupider than that apparently.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Returning to the status of 1964 is not the same as claming, that the Danes (or the Japanese) would disappear.

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.
  66. @Daniel Chieh
    Slow-motion European self-destruction is nothing new - without even going into pensions, my experience is that its miserable to try to operate a business there. This worsens the economic situation and makes people even more reliant on social benefits.

    Socialism does that, too. It makes sense. It’s slow motion diaster.

  67. anon • Disclaimer says:

    You mean the absence of all those black and brown Africans and Muslims has not weakened or impoverished Denmark? How can this be? We all know “diversity is strength”. Right? Right..???

    I also like how this “far-right” party is called “anti-immigrant”. I doubt very much the Danes mind some well educated Norwegians in their country. It is the “immigrants” (rapefugees con artists from the Muslim world) that is their concern.

  68. Denmark was at the top and Central African Republic was at the bottom.

    Should one infer from this that the whiter a country is the better and the blacker it is the worse?

  69. @Hail
    New Immigrants to Denmark From Africa and Asia, all types (Govt. data)
    1997: 7,756
    1998: 8,831
    1999: 8,301
    2000: 10,671
    2001: 12,590
    2002: 9,987
    2003: 8,171
    2004: 6,688
    2005: 6,376
    2006: 6,592
    2007: 8,800
    2008: 10,578
    2009: 10,249
    2010: 11,750
    2011: 11,664
    2012: 11,246
    2013: 14,429
    2014: 19,038
    2015: 27,457 (peak year; about 0.5% of the total resident population)
    2016: 23,297
    Sum: 234,471 (or 4.1% of total resident population of Denmark as of Spring 2017. Presumably a large share of these have since left)

    (This is Africa and Asia only. Non-Western immigrants from non-EU Eastern Europe will increase each number by about a third.)

    _____________________________

    Note the dramatic fall-off in immigration from Africa and Asia in 2002-2004 compared to 2001. By 2004, immigration from Asia and Africa was only half its 2001 level.

    The "far right" Danish People's Party (DF by Danish acronym) was in some way involved in government and agenda setting on immigration from early 2002 to fall 2011, and now again from summer 2015 to present.

    The DF's rise and entrance into parliament with 12% of seats, in late 2001, was a political watershed in Denmark, described by Wiki as follows:

    The [November 2001] election marked a major shift in Danish politics: It was the first time that the right leaning parties held an outright majority in the parliament since the beginning of the modern democratic system in Denmark in 1901;[3] although right leaning parties had held power several times, they had always had to share power with more centrist or left-wing parties...

    One of the most important changes that forced the change was the rise of immigration as a political issue and the ensuing rise of the Danish People's Party.[3]
     
    The ramp-up of immigration from Africa and Asia in 2015 and 2016 was, I presume, initiated by the left-wing parties that governed from fall 2011 to summer 2015. The Danish People's Party currently has 21.1% of seats in parliament, its strongest delegation ever, elected in June 2015, just before Merkel's refugee crisis. If the election has been three months later, DF could conceivably be the biggest and dominant party.

    Why on god’s green earth would the Danes want any people from Asia or Africa in their country?

    • Agree: Hail
  70. @AM

    Denmark demonstrates that socialism in the form of a strong welfare state actually works pretty well for a well educated homogeneous population. A Danish professor said a few years ago something to the effect of “we all contribute our share because we are all in the same boat. Immigrants are perceived as a disruptive element who create a threat to the Danish welfare state.”
     
    Except for the tiny problem that Danes have basically stopped having children. Except that, socialism works perfectly in Denmark.

    The birth rate is so low (1.67, only slightly higher than Germany's) that they've been doing ad campaigns to increase birth rates. Typically with those strategies there's a tiny uptick, but nothing amazing long term.

    Socialism is a steady wealth transfer from young to old, with the promise that in your old age, you'll tap into the income of young people. When you take over 50% of a young families income and tell them, oh but you can have the baby for "free", people aren't stupid. Paying for having the baby is the easy part. It's trying to find housing, feeding them, clothing them for the next 2 decades - that's the hard part. Socialism makes all of that very expensive.

    Meanwhile, if you know you'll have an income and health care in your old age, why bother with kids? Why not work and save what disposable income you have for stuff that you like right now? And that's exactly what people do, even in educated, homogeneous, hard working societies.

    There are a lot of layers going on to European/Western social rot, but one of the major components is her unrepentant love of socialism. I've chatted at length with a Belgian who is fairly socially conservative. When I pointed out the negative social effects of socialism her response basically was "You'll pry socialism out of my cold dead hands". Well, okay. I'll check in with what few children there are in a decade or two from now and see what they think.

    European renewal will begin in earnest once the ponzi scheme called socialism collapses. Foreigners will have little incentive to stay in cold northern climes once the free money, housing, and food is gone. Young people will not necessarily have more cash, but they will have much more incentive to have children and less government interference in the process. It will be a disaster in the short run when the money musical chairs stops. But I think it will be better after that.

    The problem is not population decline from low birth rates. The problem is population replacement from immigration of alien peoples. Note how immigration-free Japan has a lower birth rate. I don’t see the Japanese being replaced by Africans or Muslims though.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @AM

    The problem is not population decline from low birth rates.
     
    Agreed. But my point was that socialism is like a hydra. The low white birth rates are related to it, as is the loss of Christianity, as the strange situation where white people are actually paying for foriegn peoples to come live among them and not work in their homelands.

    Removing socialism is not a complete panacea. But I guarantee if I could somehow pull the plug on it in any Western nation, there would be a rapid shift in the social climate that would be much more conducive to avoiding death by cultural suicide. If done too abruptly it would also probably lead to riots in the streets, so there is that.

    That Japan doesn't have that problem is great, but they seem to the exception, not the rule.
  71. @AM

    The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe
     
    Remarkable, isn't it? Why did Hitler attempt to take Europe by force? He should have just invented the Euro and socialism.

    Had there been no war in 1914, Germany would probably have (economically and financially) taken over the continent of Europe peacefully by about 1940. The average German worker in 1914 was far better fed, housed and treated then his British counterpart who lived crammed into the worst slums in Europe.

  72. @Achilles

    Denmark ranked first in the world in the following indicators:
     
    Yes, but since Diversity is Strength, the Danes must be very weak and as a people surely must rank near the bottom in strength.

    It's a wonder they even have the strength to lift a glass of Carlsberg to their mouths.

    What they really need are Diversity Trainers to whip them into shape and build up their strength.

    “Yes, but since Diversity is Strength, the Danes must be very weak and as a people surely must rank near the bottom in strength.”

    Exactly, lack of political corruption and low violent crime is all well and good, but where do they rank in genital mutilation, train bombings, and sullen non-Danish speaking cab drivers? Or sullen “youths” clogging the welfare rolls and sponging public benefits? Their lack of vibrant diversity is troubling. They need to be added to the bombing list, right after we fix Syria.

  73. AM says:
    @anon
    The problem is not population decline from low birth rates. The problem is population replacement from immigration of alien peoples. Note how immigration-free Japan has a lower birth rate. I don't see the Japanese being replaced by Africans or Muslims though.

    The problem is not population decline from low birth rates.

    Agreed. But my point was that socialism is like a hydra. The low white birth rates are related to it, as is the loss of Christianity, as the strange situation where white people are actually paying for foriegn peoples to come live among them and not work in their homelands.

    Removing socialism is not a complete panacea. But I guarantee if I could somehow pull the plug on it in any Western nation, there would be a rapid shift in the social climate that would be much more conducive to avoiding death by cultural suicide. If done too abruptly it would also probably lead to riots in the streets, so there is that.

    That Japan doesn’t have that problem is great, but they seem to the exception, not the rule.

  74. @AM

    Birthrates in Denmark are going down. – Ohhh – and now??
     
    Hey, if you're for countries disappearing in 2-3 generations and just generally eating it's seed corn through socialism, who I am to talk you out of it? There was at least replacement level before socialism and occasionally a little growth.

    So yippee, they weren't ants, because we're way stupider than that apparently.

    Returning to the status of 1964 is not the same as claming, that the Danes (or the Japanese) would disappear.

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.

    • Replies: @AM

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.
     
    Japan probably won't disappear. It's very unclear, however, if low birth rate Denmark can resist the tide of social suicide that is sweeping the rest of Europe by open borders. After all, Sweden is just a bridge away if I have my geography correct.

    And it's socialism that's priming the pump for social suicide. It's what's funding the invasion of the foreigners. It the outlook that causes such limp wristed, stupid ideas such as "We don't have a culture." It's what's turning churches into museum buildings, or worse, mosques.

    We all know that communism is a failure economically, morally, and culturally. Russia is still recovering from it. I have no idea why communism lite wouldn't be the same disaster, in a nicer, "liter" slow motion way.

    Hand waive all you want with random rants about Catholicism?? and ants and returning to 1964, like you can control the population like that somehow. All we have is trend lines and the Danes are not replacing themselves and haven't been for decades. And even the government itself is starting to be alarmed.

    The bottom line is that socialism has price even in the places where it might work, like Denmark. Like communism, it demands it's pound of a flesh all the same.

    The "good" news I guess here is that as an unsustainable system, it will collapse regardless of what anyone thinks of it, but crickey the end is probably not going to pretty and neither are the next few decades.
    , @anonymous
    It's crazy that people think we must forever increase our population. I don't know what the population of Denmark was during WW2, but I can tell you the USA had 140 million people then and was fully settled. Additionally those 140 million supplied 12 million into our armed forces and filled our factories that made over 300K aircraft.

    Today we have a population of 320 million and growing. Yet our military, active and reserves combined, doesn't exceed 2.2 million. And we all know we don't have near the demand for factory labor we once did.

    Yet we are told we are not having enough kids and that is the reason for our demographic replacement. But go back to 1967, two years after the 1965 Immigration Act that opened up the USA to the world was passed. In 1967, about 50 percent of our population was 25 years of age or YOUNGER. Half the population was less than 26 years of age! No nation with those demographics would be in need of immigrants to augment its population. In fact opening up the borders probably facilitated the decline in white births, as Steve said in another post, "whites don't breed well in captivity."

    But now we are told we have to take in immigrants because our populations are declining. Declining to what? They are still at record highs for our nations and probably could use some natural reduction.

    The insane thing is the only nations with surging populations are actually hellholes. China and India are far ahead the most populous nations, and both seem to realize its not so great with China going so far as to implement their one-child policy.

    The US is in third place, but all the nearest competitors are absolute garbage heaps. Yet we are told we have to keep growing or Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria or Bangladesh will overtake us. Are you serious?

    Finally the only reason our nations are being inundated is because our governments are not only not protecting our territorial integrity, but they are actively soliciting immigrants and subsidizing them with our very own taxes. If our governments put half as much effort into defending our borders as they do in to suppressing hate speech, we'd probably have no problems as ,Japan and even Israel can attest to. Both of which are examples that first world nations can protect their demographic ocmposition if they choose to do so.
  75. AM says:
    @Dieter Kief
    Returning to the status of 1964 is not the same as claming, that the Danes (or the Japanese) would disappear.

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.

    Japan probably won’t disappear. It’s very unclear, however, if low birth rate Denmark can resist the tide of social suicide that is sweeping the rest of Europe by open borders. After all, Sweden is just a bridge away if I have my geography correct.

    And it’s socialism that’s priming the pump for social suicide. It’s what’s funding the invasion of the foreigners. It the outlook that causes such limp wristed, stupid ideas such as “We don’t have a culture.” It’s what’s turning churches into museum buildings, or worse, mosques.

    We all know that communism is a failure economically, morally, and culturally. Russia is still recovering from it. I have no idea why communism lite wouldn’t be the same disaster, in a nicer, “liter” slow motion way.

    Hand waive all you want with random rants about Catholicism?? and ants and returning to 1964, like you can control the population like that somehow. All we have is trend lines and the Danes are not replacing themselves and haven’t been for decades. And even the government itself is starting to be alarmed.

    The bottom line is that socialism has price even in the places where it might work, like Denmark. Like communism, it demands it’s pound of a flesh all the same.

    The “good” news I guess here is that as an unsustainable system, it will collapse regardless of what anyone thinks of it, but crickey the end is probably not going to pretty and neither are the next few decades.

  76. @Jake
    Not for Germany. The EU has become the front for Germany ruling Western Europe, getting richer at the expense of most of the rest of Western Europe.

    Not rue – Germany is exporting the most, that’s true, but the average wages are only at the 8th position in Europe:

    https://www.reinisfischer.com/average-salary-european-union-2015

    The same with average posession – if it is not even lower than the 8th position in Europe. The Greeks – imagine that – rank with the Germans as far as average posession is concerned. One reason for that is, that the average German family does n o t own the house or the appartment, they live in.

    One other reason is the effectiveness of the German tax system, whereas the Greek’s … is world famous for it’s ineffectiveness.

  77. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief
    Returning to the status of 1964 is not the same as claming, that the Danes (or the Japanese) would disappear.

    I think neither Denmark nor Japan disappear.

    It’s crazy that people think we must forever increase our population. I don’t know what the population of Denmark was during WW2, but I can tell you the USA had 140 million people then and was fully settled. Additionally those 140 million supplied 12 million into our armed forces and filled our factories that made over 300K aircraft.

    Today we have a population of 320 million and growing. Yet our military, active and reserves combined, doesn’t exceed 2.2 million. And we all know we don’t have near the demand for factory labor we once did.

    Yet we are told we are not having enough kids and that is the reason for our demographic replacement. But go back to 1967, two years after the 1965 Immigration Act that opened up the USA to the world was passed. In 1967, about 50 percent of our population was 25 years of age or YOUNGER. Half the population was less than 26 years of age! No nation with those demographics would be in need of immigrants to augment its population. In fact opening up the borders probably facilitated the decline in white births, as Steve said in another post, “whites don’t breed well in captivity.”

    But now we are told we have to take in immigrants because our populations are declining. Declining to what? They are still at record highs for our nations and probably could use some natural reduction.

    The insane thing is the only nations with surging populations are actually hellholes. China and India are far ahead the most populous nations, and both seem to realize its not so great with China going so far as to implement their one-child policy.

    The US is in third place, but all the nearest competitors are absolute garbage heaps. Yet we are told we have to keep growing or Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria or Bangladesh will overtake us. Are you serious?

    Finally the only reason our nations are being inundated is because our governments are not only not protecting our territorial integrity, but they are actively soliciting immigrants and subsidizing them with our very own taxes. If our governments put half as much effort into defending our borders as they do in to suppressing hate speech, we’d probably have no problems as ,Japan and even Israel can attest to. Both of which are examples that first world nations can protect their demographic ocmposition if they choose to do so.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @AM

    It’s crazy that people think we must forever increase our population.
     
    We don't, but population attrition in an environment of abundant food requires a massive rethink about what's going on.

    There is a direct conflict between disliking humanity, which leads to thinking that reduction of population is a good thing and thinking that white people and nations in particular are worth the saving.

    What wins out, especially if there's no other spiritual component to speak of? Clearly, in the West, the answer right now is "disliking humanity", so nothing matters. Let them all in because we shouldn't be alive and we shouldn't have this stuff and we don't have any culture worth preserving. If human life isn't worth having, if population reduction is a good thing, then the most logical conclusion for the average white person is there's nothing special about whites worth fighting for.

    Yes, you have two first world nations that are protecting their demographics. Neither one by DNA is European whites. (I'm going here with a whatever with Jewish ancestry. They are still obviously a strain apart from typical Europeans)

    Jordan Peterson has a quip that people don't have ideas, ideas have people. For European whites, especially, that is profoundly true. If you want the West to save itself, it needs to understand that people are worth the saving and that population growth, even in a minor, tiny 0.0025 sustainable way, is an admirable goal for any nation.

    There's no both ways about this simply because of the nature of Europeans. We're going to have remake ourselves 100% into what our ancestors were to have a sustainable culture. We're not going to be able hang to that Progressive fetish of detesting humanity and think we can get the masses to try defend themselves and their culture. shrug
  78. AM says:
    @anonymous
    It's crazy that people think we must forever increase our population. I don't know what the population of Denmark was during WW2, but I can tell you the USA had 140 million people then and was fully settled. Additionally those 140 million supplied 12 million into our armed forces and filled our factories that made over 300K aircraft.

    Today we have a population of 320 million and growing. Yet our military, active and reserves combined, doesn't exceed 2.2 million. And we all know we don't have near the demand for factory labor we once did.

    Yet we are told we are not having enough kids and that is the reason for our demographic replacement. But go back to 1967, two years after the 1965 Immigration Act that opened up the USA to the world was passed. In 1967, about 50 percent of our population was 25 years of age or YOUNGER. Half the population was less than 26 years of age! No nation with those demographics would be in need of immigrants to augment its population. In fact opening up the borders probably facilitated the decline in white births, as Steve said in another post, "whites don't breed well in captivity."

    But now we are told we have to take in immigrants because our populations are declining. Declining to what? They are still at record highs for our nations and probably could use some natural reduction.

    The insane thing is the only nations with surging populations are actually hellholes. China and India are far ahead the most populous nations, and both seem to realize its not so great with China going so far as to implement their one-child policy.

    The US is in third place, but all the nearest competitors are absolute garbage heaps. Yet we are told we have to keep growing or Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria or Bangladesh will overtake us. Are you serious?

    Finally the only reason our nations are being inundated is because our governments are not only not protecting our territorial integrity, but they are actively soliciting immigrants and subsidizing them with our very own taxes. If our governments put half as much effort into defending our borders as they do in to suppressing hate speech, we'd probably have no problems as ,Japan and even Israel can attest to. Both of which are examples that first world nations can protect their demographic ocmposition if they choose to do so.

    It’s crazy that people think we must forever increase our population.

    We don’t, but population attrition in an environment of abundant food requires a massive rethink about what’s going on.

    There is a direct conflict between disliking humanity, which leads to thinking that reduction of population is a good thing and thinking that white people and nations in particular are worth the saving.

    What wins out, especially if there’s no other spiritual component to speak of? Clearly, in the West, the answer right now is “disliking humanity”, so nothing matters. Let them all in because we shouldn’t be alive and we shouldn’t have this stuff and we don’t have any culture worth preserving. If human life isn’t worth having, if population reduction is a good thing, then the most logical conclusion for the average white person is there’s nothing special about whites worth fighting for.

    Yes, you have two first world nations that are protecting their demographics. Neither one by DNA is European whites. (I’m going here with a whatever with Jewish ancestry. They are still obviously a strain apart from typical Europeans)

    Jordan Peterson has a quip that people don’t have ideas, ideas have people. For European whites, especially, that is profoundly true. If you want the West to save itself, it needs to understand that people are worth the saving and that population growth, even in a minor, tiny 0.0025 sustainable way, is an admirable goal for any nation.

    There’s no both ways about this simply because of the nature of Europeans. We’re going to have remake ourselves 100% into what our ancestors were to have a sustainable culture. We’re not going to be able hang to that Progressive fetish of detesting humanity and think we can get the masses to try defend themselves and their culture. shrug

  79. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Obviously immigration wouldn't be an economic boon to Denmark. However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, and obviously, just from looking at it, you can see that the Danish society is organized on principles that would maximize that sharing.

    A society with no real dysfunctions of its own to handle would be in the best position to improve the lives of refugees.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won't? What % of the population must already be NAM? What's the tipping point?

    Elaborate. Why is that Immigrants are Good for the Economy is never an argument to diversify prosperous homogeneous nations like Denmark and Sweden? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s only ever used on countries that are already rotted through, not so much to argue for immigration but to justify the rot after the fact. The initial rot was caused by historical slavery, or a calamitous post-WW2 labor shortage (so Germany looks for an economic silver lining to the refugee crisis, because it can’t face up to its Turkish gastarbeiter dysfunction); and, in the case of Sweden, will be caused by prosperous homogeneity put into too close proximity to Third World dysfunction by a world shrinking through technology and globalism.

  80. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    However, it ought to share its wealth with those who through no fault of their own were born somewhere else, ...
     
    Everybody is born "somewhere else." There is no such obligation.

    Foreign aid is awful on all levels. It's every dysgenic and dystopic incentive of domestic welfare on steroids. Foreign aid is why wave after wave of r-selected, surplus men with hopelessly low IQs are piling into Europe.

    How much social decay must a nation have before the argument becomes Immigrants are Good for the Economy, Immigrants Do the Jobs We Won’t? What % of the population must already be NAM? What’s the tipping point?
     
    You're asking the question from the wrong end, chronologically and sociologically.

    You’re asking the question from the wrong end, chronologically and sociologically.

    Elaborate. Why is that Immigrants are Good for the Economy is never an argument to diversify prosperous homogeneous nations like Denmark and Sweden? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s only ever used on countries that are already rotted through, not so much to argue for immigration but to justify the rot after the fact. The initial rot was caused by historical slavery, or a calamitous post-WW2 labor shortage (so prosperous Germany looks for an economic silver lining to the refugee crisis, because it can’t face up to its Turkish gastarbeiter dysfunction); and, in the case of Sweden, will be caused by prosperous homogeneity put into too close proximity to Third World dysfunction by a world shrinking through technology and globalism. (But then I do need to explain the prosperously homogeneous Danes, but as Hail points out, their immigration policy doesn’t look to have been that far right.)

  81. @Peter Lund
    I think the most important issues about Denmark and The Danish People's Party are:

    1) how socialist most of their policies are. They are not loony left, just expensive left.
    2) how little influence they actually have. They don't have enough votes and the others have too many. Simple as that.
    3) how biased our (state owned or state subsidized) media are against them.

    All media in Denmark is state subsidized.

    Media corporations receive direct subsidies or indirect subsidies in terms of no VAT on their products (newspapers) or in terms of laws that favour them (TV2, a public TV station). The direct subsides are straight money transfers (newspapers, internet sites) and the right to tax people's internet or phone access. If you have a non-crippled internet connection or you own a smart phone you have to pay to the state for the privilege - most of the money goes to DR, the big public TV/radio/internet station.

    > a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).

    No they aren't. Family "reunification" is still an open door. We also can't seem to get rid of asylum seekers we have turned down and many of them end up being granted asylum on "humanitarian grounds" after delaying the process for long enough.

    Immigration restrictions only seem to apply to the kind of people we actually want.

    We have kicked out or threatened to kick out people from the other Nordic countries (which we have a mini union with that lets people move even freer than in the EU) and the US and Australia.

    And for what? Minor discrepancies in how forms were filled out or because the Civil Service decided that they or their (often common law) spouses made too little money.

    Somehow those rules never apply to Muslims.

    Btw, we still can't get decent information from Danmarks Statistik regarding the number of Muslims in Denmark or from Finansministeriet (Finance), Indenrigsministeriet (Home Office/Internal Affairs), Justitsministeriet (Justice), Integrationsministeriet (Integration), etc regarding their cost or how things (don't) improve regarding their education.

    Short-term immigration is pretty open from the EU/EFTA + even more open from the other Nordic countries.

    We also have green card short-term immigration and student short-term immigration (in the hope that some of the foreign students will both 1) stay and 2) be economically positive for us).

    The EU short-term immigration has blessed us with a 3-months at a time rotating gypsy population.

    The green card short-term immigration with a lot of Indians who are 1) not as well-educated as they seem to have thought and 2) not nearly as good at English as they seem to have thought. Most of them ended up working low wage jobs in the service sector.

    The Nordic immigration hasn't been problematic for us yet, but it could easily happen practically overnight with all the Muslims Sweden has in Malmö, right next door to Copenhagen. There is even a nice bridge that makes it really easy for them to get across.

    Mostly the bridge has been lucky for us (and really shitty for Sweden) because Merkels Millions wandered through Denmark and onwards to Sweden (which is why we turned a blind eye to them while they were here).

    > b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) – without the Euro).

    We are de facto members of the Eurozone.

    Because the DKK is a tiny currency, it is relatively easy/cheap to speculate against it. The USD and EUR are much bigger currencies so they are far better protected against that. That makes it far more important to keep our house in order in terms of government debt, government expenditure, and coinage.

    We participate fully in ERM II -- The second phase of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which links the participating currencies to a common target. The target was initially the DM or the ECU, later it became the Euro. We are also currently the only remaining member, the others having upgraded (or downgraded, if one prefers) to using the Euro directly.

    The participating countries were/are supposed to keep the exchange rate of their currencies within a tight band around a center line. We are committed to a 2.25% fluctuation but our historical deviation has been less than 1%.

    We fulfill all the Euro criteria and have for quite some time.

    We also own a (tiny!) share of the ECB and participate and various new common policies regarding banking, fiscal, and monetary issues that have been implemented since the first the 2008 melt down and then the ongoing Euro/Greek crises. We do that even though we mostly didn't have to and even though most of it is controlled by the Eurogroup, which we are not a member of.

    Thanks much for this detailed post; it’s interesting and very informative.

  82. @AM

    Not important. The only issue that matters in the coming years, decades, is how well Denmark (or insert any state) resists the Third World tide.
     
    It is important. Socialism is one of the key social/economic constructs of our time preventing meaningful resistance to the Third World Tide. That's true even the US, which, if we're a bit more objective amount how much money we dole out, is really a system pretty close to Europeans. It's just less comprehensive in some areas, that's all.

    Key social disincentives of socialism:

    -Creates complacency in the populace and absolute trust in the state to provide. That discourages spiritual growth and looking to the traditional base of Western spirituality, Christianity for comfort and strength. If Daddy state will always provide for everything, why fuss about few foreigners or that silly thing called the church? Socialism means you never have to grow up in certain ways.

    -Socialism makes the traditional Christian work of missionaries (how Christians helped foreigners without mussing up the nest) and providing for the poor merely hobby work. It has little to no meaning in socialized countries, further undermining traditional Christianity

    -Women, instead of looking to husbands as providers, look to the state. It is no coincidence that once women gain suffrage that socialism appears. It does appear in places without women's suffrage, but if socialism didn't exist before and women get the vote, as sure as the sun rises in the East, it will appear within a few decades.

    -What stable, married couples do form find child rearing expensive and pointless. If the state will provide for you in your old age, why not live it up now? Child rearing also becomes "a hobby". It's one that people will pressure you not to do a lot of because they're looking at their tax bill and they don't want you to be "extravagant" in using the social system. Kids end up s bills not to just their parents, but everyone, rather than the asset we saw them as for most of time.

    -The wrong kind of foreigners are attracted to moths like a flame to your generous social system, built primarily for insecure white women fretting about their mid to old age. In some ways, they are less fussy than the women who wanted the system in the first place. Whatever you give them they'll be okay with living because it's easier than work, but they will be resentful for it. Remarkably, the white women themselves find the standard of living too low on welfare system..it's just there for their nightmare scenarios they've got running in their heads.

    You can keep slashing off the heads of the hydras if you want. Or you can make a go for the immortal head and put it under a rock. I'd go for the later myself.

    Good post, AM.

    Leftie ‘Christians’ and post-Christian socialists are unable to grasp a distinction between Christians themselves/the Church caring for the poor and lame, and the state taking care of it. They outsource Christian charity to the government, when Jesus (and Paul, and other church leaders) told them to do precisely the opposite.

    In this heretical worldview, the Christian role is reduced to what I’ve heard pompously referred to as ‘speaking with a prophetic voice’, which in practice simply means lobbying the state to provide more entitlements, and campaigning for left-wing politicians.

    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    They outsource Christian charity to the government
     
    The churches that take on Somali refugees seem to have no problem lobbying the government so they, the church, can bring it back in-house. Even if they're playing pretend and using government funds, and are liable for a fraction of the true cost.

    There's an obvious incentive to pool your charitable feelings in the state so you can feel you did your part no less than anyone else, but how would you get the good feeling of doing something charitable? Those Minnesota churches have squared the circle.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    Good post, AM.

    Leftie 'Christians' and post-Christian socialists are unable to grasp a distinction between Christians themselves/the Church caring for the poor and lame, and the state taking care of it. They outsource Christian charity to the government, when Jesus (and Paul, and other church leaders) told them to do precisely the opposite.

    In this heretical worldview, the Christian role is reduced to what I've heard pompously referred to as 'speaking with a prophetic voice', which in practice simply means lobbying the state to provide more entitlements, and campaigning for left-wing politicians.

    They outsource Christian charity to the government

    The churches that take on Somali refugees seem to have no problem lobbying the government so they, the church, can bring it back in-house. Even if they’re playing pretend and using government funds, and are liable for a fraction of the true cost.

    There’s an obvious incentive to pool your charitable feelings in the state so you can feel you did your part no less than anyone else, but how would you get the good feeling of doing something charitable? Those Minnesota churches have squared the circle.

  84. Hail says: • Website
    @Sean
    The political growth and supposed influence* of the anti immigrant party is what the story is about(*I note that a man is being prosecuted by the Danish state for burning a Koran). However, when the actual number of immigrants is looked at one sees that non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period , and of late it has fluctuated but little. Peter Sutherland made this point, and noted that the governments cannot actually do what they say they will do and drastically reduce immigration. In Britain the Conservatives got elected making pledges on immigration and are currently admitting TEN times the number they said they would.

    Sutherland on Denmark


    In Denmark people backing #EU membership jumped from 59.8% before #Brexit to 69% post-Brexit,[...] If you look at Denmark as an economy, you have higher marginal rates of tax, lower unemployment, a very high safety net support, and GDP per capita significantly higher than this country’s. [...] What you also have, agreed with the unions, is a flexible labour market. Labour market flexibility is to my mind very, very important – far more important than the ability to earn very large sums of money.”
     
    Business want a flexible labour market, and immigrants want to live where there is a very high safety net support and GDP per capita. Business run a welfare state into the ground with immigration; it is unstoppable just look at what is happening behind the Far-Right-calling-the-shots smokescreen.

    non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period [of Danish People’s Party participation in government], and of late it has fluctuated but little.

    I think there is evidence both for and against a DPP influence on this.

    — 2001: A peak year for African and Asian immigration (12,500) (0.25% of Denmark resident population).
    — December 2001: The (so called) right-wing coalition wins the election. DPP influence begins
    — 2002-2006, African and Asian immigrant numbers go down to a new equilibrium around 6,500, nearly half the 2001 peak.
    — 2008 to 2012: Numbers creep up again to a new average level (11,000 per year).
    — September 2011: Left-wing narrowly wins election and back in power. Denmark’s first female Prime Minister (Social Democrat). DPP national-conservstive bloc slips to 12.3% of seats. DPP head (also a woman) resigns.
    — 2013 to 2016: Steady increase in Islamic immigration. In 2015-2016 alone, a combined 51,000 Asian and African ‘immigrants’ came in.
    — June 2015: DPP roars back, winning 21.1% of seats.

    2015-2016 African/Asian immigration level: 3.5x higher than the 2000s’ level.

    ___________________________

    Question. Why did African/Asian immigration take off from 2013?
    (Possible) A. The DPP was out of government and the left-wing was back in control when these policies were loosened up (following the election in September 2011). Denmark is not Uganda where decisions about who stays and goes are sudden and final, i.e. no mass expulsions (not so far). In other words, there is a certain lag to immigration policy. I would expect 2017, 2018, and 2019 Asian/African immigrant numbers, given that the DPP has four-tenths of the ruling bloc votes, to go down.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    I agree.


    The DPP did help deregulate the Danish job market - and this means presssure on immigrants, too - one reason, why so many of them did not want to stay in Denmark, but moved on to Swweden: Because in Sweden, it's still mostly "could", whereas in Denmark, it's often times: You have to (show up in school, for example) - otherwise, you face real pressure.
  85. @Maj. Kong
    The traditional conservative view on economics is mercantilism. In that regard, Communist China is more conservative than the US Republican Party.

    To be honest, the Chinese are more conservative than the Republicans in many other ways as well.

  86. @Dieter Kief
    There's two things you'll hardly find even mentioned in TV and the press in Merkel-Europe, when covering Denmark:

    a) Immiration restrictions (which are tough).
    b) The Danish Crown (= the simple fact, that Denmark prospers (!) - without the Euro).

    GDR-Rebel and longtime Leninist Wolf Biermann explained the public discourse in the Eastern Block once (while still being a Leninist...) : The most important feature of this discourse were not the blatant lies, but the things not being mentioned at all. Bierman labeled this phenomenon: Telling lies by telling the truth (about mostly: uninteresting things, that is) day in day out, making poeple "constantly numb" (Pink Floyd).


    As a complete (almost:perfect) aside: I heard Wolf Bierman sing (and cry...) for the first time in my life as a Palatian kid via my elder cousins "World Reveiver Grundig 'SATELLITE'" broadcasted from - - a Danish - "bzzz, chchchchc: This bzzzz... is chchchchc ...Kopenhagen..." - - Radio-Station.

    comfortably numb” (Pink Floyd).

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Yeah right.

    If I'd try to make sense of my mistake, I could go on like this:
    Constantly numb fits the rhythm of the song perfectly, whereas comfortably numb fits in just soso. But: The overall mood of the song is dreamlike, and therefor, the less fitting word is the better one.
    Such are the true songsmiths: They bend and weld their material, in order to create something that is perfect in it's own right.

    It seems, as if the true artist's perfect would not be the perfect perfect.

  87. @Tiny Duck
    I thank God that demographics are not in your favor because you guys are snarky jerks

    How does it feel? Knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?

    How does it feel? Knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?

    It feels like being on your own
    with no direction home
    a complete unknown
    like a rolling stone.

    –Leonard Pitts

  88. @Hail

    non European immigration to Denmark has massively increased over the period [of Danish People's Party participation in government], and of late it has fluctuated but little.
     
    I think there is evidence both for and against a DPP influence on this.

    -- 2001: A peak year for African and Asian immigration (12,500) (0.25% of Denmark resident population).
    -- December 2001: The (so called) right-wing coalition wins the election. DPP influence begins
    -- 2002-2006, African and Asian immigrant numbers go down to a new equilibrium around 6,500, nearly half the 2001 peak.
    -- 2008 to 2012: Numbers creep up again to a new average level (11,000 per year).
    -- September 2011: Left-wing narrowly wins election and back in power. Denmark's first female Prime Minister (Social Democrat). DPP national-conservstive bloc slips to 12.3% of seats. DPP head (also a woman) resigns.
    -- 2013 to 2016: Steady increase in Islamic immigration. In 2015-2016 alone, a combined 51,000 Asian and African 'immigrants' came in.
    -- June 2015: DPP roars back, winning 21.1% of seats.

    2015-2016 African/Asian immigration level: 3.5x higher than the 2000s' level.

    ___________________________

    Question. Why did African/Asian immigration take off from 2013?
    (Possible) A. The DPP was out of government and the left-wing was back in control when these policies were loosened up (following the election in September 2011). Denmark is not Uganda where decisions about who stays and goes are sudden and final, i.e. no mass expulsions (not so far). In other words, there is a certain lag to immigration policy. I would expect 2017, 2018, and 2019 Asian/African immigrant numbers, given that the DPP has four-tenths of the ruling bloc votes, to go down.

    I agree.

    The DPP did help deregulate the Danish job market – and this means presssure on immigrants, too – one reason, why so many of them did not want to stay in Denmark, but moved on to Swweden: Because in Sweden, it’s still mostly “could”, whereas in Denmark, it’s often times: You have to (show up in school, for example) – otherwise, you face real pressure.

    • Agree: Hail
  89. @Harry Baldwin
    "comfortably numb" (Pink Floyd).

    Yeah right.

    If I’d try to make sense of my mistake, I could go on like this:
    Constantly numb fits the rhythm of the song perfectly, whereas comfortably numb fits in just soso. But: The overall mood of the song is dreamlike, and therefor, the less fitting word is the better one.
    Such are the true songsmiths: They bend and weld their material, in order to create something that is perfect in it’s own right.

    It seems, as if the true artist’s perfect would not be the perfect perfect.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS