Part 1 of a Series
Mike Scruggs
In the last several months, three prominent European leaders—German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy—have declared that multiculturalism is a failure and that their national immigration policies must change. All three represent center-right political parties in their respective countries. This must have knocked the socks off the liberal-socialist establishment in Europe, who have been touting the moral imperative and happy clappy virtues of multiculturalism and diversity for decades.
Until recently, few European politicians, even of the center-right parties, have had the courage to speak out against what a Danish professor in 1999 bravely called a “foolish experiment.” However, the fiscal and social consequences of open-door immigration and happy clappy multiculturalism are now becoming visible to enough European voters to ring alarm bells in many European parliaments. There is also a growing realization, even on the left that, as Milton Friedman warned, you cannot have a welfare state and open-door immigration, except for a few short years before economic collapse.
On August 29, 1999, (the) Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper in Jutland (Jylland), published an article by demographics professor Poul C. Matthiessen warning of Denmark’s impending demographic crisis. This powerful analysis of the scale and future consequences of Muslim immigration to Denmark was given the newspaper’s top billing. Matthiessen said that present Danish immigration policies “would change Denmark—it would bring results that nobody seemed to want to discuss, but that would affect the country’s culture, religion, and way of life. Denmark would undergo a comprehensive transformation—and the crucial factor would be the Muslim population.” Matthiessen warned that by 2020 Denmark would be nearly 14 percent Muslim
He also predicted that as the Muslim population of Denmark increased, the Muslims would intensify demands for respect for Islamic traditions and customs. Jyllands-Posten is the same newspaper that published the Muhammad cartoons in 2005.
Matthiessen’s message hit the usual political correctness wall, and he was branded a racist and charged with arrogance and poor scholarship. Social Democrat Danish Prime Minister P. N. Rasmussen and many other Danish politicians snubbed him and dismissed his views as irrelevant. But a member of Rasmussen’s own party, Karen Jepersen, clipped the Jyllands-Posten article and saved it. Six months later she was made Interior Minister. This new post included responsibility for immigration policy. Based on Matthiessen’s research, she proposed a government commission to study the matter, especially the problem of “spouse fetching.” Spouse fetching is the widespread practice among Muslim men in Europe of importing Muslim brides from their country of origin. Jepersen’s proposal was, however, swept under the rug, and the Social Democrats refused to change course despite increased public concern and mounting evidence that Matthiessen was correct in his analysis and projections.
The Social Democrats consequently lost their parliamentary leadership in 2001, but they continued their cowardly inaction on immigration policy and were beaten again in 2005 and 2007. Prime Minister L.L. Rasmussen has led a center-right parliamentary coalition since 2001.
In 2005, Matthiessen, writing again in Jyllands-Posten, revealed that although Muslims were only four percent of the population, they received almost 40 percent of the social-welfare budget. In addition, less than half of adult non-Western immigrants in Denmark had jobs, and their crime rate was double that of native Danes. He also expressed concern that the Muslims occupied enclaves in Denmark that adhered to Muslim culture and rejected Danish culture. Moreover, he pointed out the unpleasant truth that the Muslim immigration wave impacting Denmark was the first by people who were explicitly antagonistic to Danish values and culture. He summarized: “In reality we have dome something terribly bold.”—terribly foolish.
Denmark is the first European country in recent memory to make a drastic change in its immigration policies. Immigration policies must now benefit Denmark and the Danish people. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and diversity for diversity’s sake are no longer valid considerations in immigration policy. The previous Danish immigration policies were costing taxpayers 36 billion kroner ($7 billion) per year, a large expenditure for a nation of only 5.5 million people.
The worldwide Muslim rage over the 2005 Muhammad cartoons in Jyllands-posten also revealed some things about Muslim leadership in Denmark. Danish imams act in a dual role of religious leader and community organizer. Furthermore, they do not want to accommodate to Danish values or secular democracy. They want to force Sharia (Islamic Law) on Danish Muslims and then Denmark. Their long-term goal is a European Caliphate. During the cartoon crisis, they proliferated lies and deceptions to weaken Denmark’s international reputation and promote their own.
The assimilation problem in Denmark is similar to other European countries. More than 53 percent of Danish Muslims identify almost entirely with Islam rather than Denmark. Indeed, given the huge cultural and religious differences between Muslims and Danes, especially the magnitude of Muslim immigration, it was extremely naïve to believe Muslim assimilation or Danish multiculturalism would be successful.
Norwegian author Hege Storbaug points out that one of the costs for Danes, Norwegians, and other Europeans in this massive immigration experiment is that it forces Europeans to deny their own values and even to tolerate intolerance. It is politically correct social tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment