Denmark, a social welfare utopia, takes a nasty turn on refugees
. . . morality, ethics, and the human element don't enter the equation. Socialism, international, or democratic, always ends up focused solely on money. While capitalism, and free markets nearly always focus on the human element, morality, ethics, and value. Socialism is nothing but unrestrained force, while capitalism is cooperation, value, and mutual benefit. Hard to believe so many believe the opposite. "The number of refugees taken in by Denmark, he said, should be “as close to zero as possible.” The alternative, in Poulsen’s view, is the end of everything Danes hold dear — including low crime rates and high-quality government services. Welcoming Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and others fleeing war, he said, is just too burdensome." * * * "“That was an eye-opener for many Danes,” said Kasper Moller Hansen, a University of Copenhagen political scientist. “They thought, ‘Wow, that’s a lot of people. We can’t help all of them.’ ” Instinctual response Other Danes took a different lesson, jumping in their cars and driving to the small ferry terminal in Rodby to offer asylum seekers a lift." Different lesson? One group learned the lesson that, "We can't help all of them." The other group learned the lesson, that they could offer asylum seekers a lift to Sweden." Exactly how is this a different lesson? This is an entirely manufacture problem. The politicians who manufactured the problem seem to have no solutions, and no serious ideas. I read these stories day after day, mouth agape, waiting for reason but observing nothing but ever more nonsense. So long Europe, it was good knowing you, and Britain is this Brexit thing still giving you problems? Are you paying attention? Hello, is this thing on?!
Comments
The Deeper Problems Behind Immigration | The Antiplanner
. . . US versus Europe Smackdown. The primary areas of difference are government benefits, and availability of work. The US limits illegal immigrants access to most government benefits. While these workers do have access to medical care, and even free medical care in emergencies, this is not a government benefit in the US, this is a forced charity. Most immigrants who choose to stay, and live in the US, assimilate into the larger culture, and integrate into the economy. This is in part due to the fact that the US is willing to employ them, and offer the same housing arrangements as the rest of the population. Economically, the US is far more egalitarian than Europe. 10 Myths About Immigration | Teaching Tolerance - Diversity, Equity and Justice The US has 41 million immigrants, 30 million of which are legal, of the 11 million who are illegal about 4.5 million entered the country legally and remained on an expired visa. The remaining 6.5 million illegally entered the US. While the US has always been a nation of high immigration, Europe has not. "Until the late 1960s and 1970s, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway,[3] Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom[4] were primarily sources of emigration, sending large numbers of emigrants to the Americas and Australia. A number also went to other European countries (notably France, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium). As living standards in these countries have risen, the trend has reversed and they were a magnet for immigration (most notably from Morocco, Somalia, Egypt to Italy and Greece; from Morocco, Algeria and Latin America to Spain and Portugal; and from Ireland, India, Pakistan, Germany, the United States, Bangladesh, and Jamaica to the United Kingdom)." This is a very big difference, with the US having a long and successful history of immigration, while Europe had a long and successful history of emigration, and a recent, short, and unsuccessful history of immigration. In Europe, immigrants are frequently balkanized into ghettos. While early on in the 1960s-1980s they were often brought into Europe as laborers, those labor jobs have mostly disappeared today. These immigrants, many now 2nd and 3rd generation natives are frequently not allowed access to work in better than labor professions. "Assimilation, for a Belgian with non-European roots, is a near-impossible task. For a nation that runs on compromise — where government is formed by complicated alliances of north and south, where complex issues are resolved by conceding something to every political party, where the largest party in Flanders favors secession — this is not only ironic but tragic. * * * In 1964, Belgium made agreements with Morocco and Turkey to attract migrant workers to the coal mines of Wallonia; Turkish and Moroccan immigrants began to populate Brussels. Soon after these conventions were signed, though, the demand for mine workers fell. The economy deteriorated, mines shut, unemployment rose and very little was done to help the new arrivals assimilate." The Near-Impossibility of Assimilation in Belgium "The North Africans, many of whom lacked formal education, found the process of assimilation to be very difficult, if not impossible. For the most part, they lived in the suburbs of France’s big cities (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, for example) in developments called “les HLMs” (habitation à loyer modéré) or low-income housing. As Jean-Benoît Nadeau and Julie Barlow, two Canadians journalist who spent two years in France researching their book on contemporary culture, explain in their chapter on France’s immigration problem, “Cités stated out as giant housing projects built throughout suburban France to answer urgent housing needs in the post-war period. The government meant well, but many of the projects quickly fell into decay thanks to poor design, poor building standards, and poor management.”4 Today, the cités, like La Courneuve in Paris, or La Bricarde in Marseille, have become completely lawless areas (zones de non droit) full of crime and violence.5 French authorities often renounce their responsibility for this problem and defend their apathy by saying that enforcing the law in these neighborhoods is too dangerous. In this way, the cites have become a constant and vivid reminder of the problem of immigrants in France and “have made a lost generation out of children of France’s first wave of Muslim immigration.”6" Racism, Assimilation, and Immigration: A New Culture in France? The obvious answer is NO! There is no new culture in France. One is either French or foreign. If white, and European, one can be accepted, if not, well, there is no assimilation. It is much the same throughout the rest of Europe, when workers are needed, they are brought in from a place with cheap labor, but unless they look like the locals, there will be no attempt to assimilate them into the culture. And even if they assimilate, they will always be the "other." Combine these problems with nationalism, parochialism, an aristocratic paternalism, and an economy slowly strangling under protectionist rules, regulations, and stultifying employment for life rules, and there is no possibility for assimilation. The "other" will simply be relegated to the arrondissement, the ghetto, placed on welfare, and ignored. As if they will simply disappear. But, of course, they don't. To the contrary, Europe's mechanism to address the problem is precisely the same as the optimized mechanism to create the potential converts to a mass movement, mass movements like the various Islamist mass movements. Eric Hoffer, in the True Believer, points out that these converts occurs in a number of different '"flavors." They come in the poor, including the new poor, the abjectly poor, the free poor, the creative poor, and the unified poor; the misfits; the inordinately selfish; the ambitious facing unlimited opportunities; the bored; and the sinners. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics) by Eric Hoffer This is a must read book to understand the problems facing us here at the End of History in the 21st century. Europe's problem here is likely within the categories of the new poor, and the free poor. The people who immigrated frequently lived a subsistence or better lifestyle, and many were middle class in their countries of origin. Once in Europe, they had work and opportunity, until the manual labor jobs were automate, or eliminated, and then they become the new poor, or the free poor. This freedom is irksome, it places all of the responsibility directly on the shoulders of the individual. There is no sharing of this burden. Failure, frustration, all point out the weakness, incompetence, and failures of the self. Unless these persons are provided the palliatives of action, movement, change, and protest, they will have only two stark choices, either accept the self as failure, or join a mass movement, and subsume the self. Where the US and Europe differ is in offering these individuals palliatives which can divert the individual from the frustrations of freedom, of being the newly poor. The US does this well, it disallows these individuals nothing. They have the same opportunities as anyone. Europe does not allow this, these people are balkanized, and their employments are strictly limited, their ability to become French, Belgian, Spanish are all virtually nil. The US also allows immigrants to live apart, if they wish. Little Italy, Chinatown, among myriad other name list these voluntary separations, but by the time the first generation of their children are adult, they speak english fluently, and are mostly culturally indistinguishable from long term Americans. Why the U.S. Is So Good at Turning Immigrants Into Americans It's what we do, and we do it really well. Europe needs to think long, and hard about what they are doing, and make changes which will allow their immigrant surge to successfully assimilate. The next step for the US is to reform or welfare arrangements, our work laws, including minimum wage laws, to allow us to more broadly open the border and allow immigration within the framework of a legal process. We need not only highly educated immigrants but the less well educated as well. Ultimately, immigration like trade creates wealth for the recipient nation, and the sending nation as well. This is a value we cannot afford to turn away. Instapundit: Trump eyeing money transfers from immigrants
. . . valid US green card. It's all about the antidrug/terrorism laws, donchaknow. Might need to institute rules about who, and how much, etc. to keep the funds out of the hands of drug dealers, and terrorists, wink, wink, nudge, nudge . . . Refugees Flooding Italy Surge 80%; Italy Seeks Greek-Style Returns; Proposed Solution in Single Picture | MishTalk
. . . and ends up wondering where Saudi Arabia is in all of this. Good question. The House of Saud is the enemy of the West, and civilization. Tt has no interest in helping these refugees or paying for their assistance. We need to begin treating the House of Saud for what it is not for what it represented during the Cold War. Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed
. . . and if by "working" one means, "improved the living standards of all, including the poorest." "While socialism remains highly unpopular among the public as a whole, Americans under the age of 30 — who have few or no memories of communism — respond to it favorably. The Bernie Sanders campaign has introduced once-verboten questions about the market system into Democratic Party politics — a challenge Hillary Clinton has beaten back by relying on the residual loyalties of her base rather than mounting a frontal ideological challenge. Meanwhile, Jacobin magazine has given long-marginalized Marxist ideas new force among progressive intellectuals. It seems impossible at the current moment to imagine Marxists exercising power at the national level. But it also seemed impossible to imagine New Deal–hating conservatives — then just a faction within a party — exercising national-scale power after their standard-bearer was routed in the 1964 elections. Yet, a mere 16 years later, their time had arrived. So, on the theory that it’s never too early to start planning the counterrevolution, it is worth reiterating that Marxism is terrible." Americans, insulated from the bloody horror of Marxism, and the crushing hell of Socialism, have little experience, and no understanding. Instead they hear, the pied pipers of the Academe waxing wonderful about these two attempts to return to feudalism. Sanders is not an independent thinker, he is an acolyte of something he does not vaguely understand. "Sanders’s success does not reflect any Marxist tendency. It does, however, reflect a generalized hunger for radical solutions, discontent with the Obama administration’s pace of progress, and a generational weakening of the Democratic Party’s identification with liberalism over socialism. It has never been exactly clear what Sanders means when he calls himself “socialist.” Years ago, he supported the Socialist Workers Party, a Marxist group that favored the nationalization of industry. Today he endorses a “revolution” in metaphorical rather than literal terms, and holds up Denmark as the closest thing to a real-world model for his ideas. But, while “socialism” has meant different things throughout history, Denmark is not really a socialist economy. As Jonathan Cohn explained, it combines generous welfare benefits and high-quality public infrastructure with highly flexible labor markets — an amped-up version of what left-wing critics derisively call “neoliberalism.” While Denmark’s success suggests that a modern economy can afford to fund more generous social benefits, it does not reveal an alternative to the market system. It is on politics, not economics, where the influence of Marxist ideas has been most keenly felt. Enough time has passed since the demise of the Soviet Union to allow Marxist models to thrive without answering for communist regimes. In his fascinating profile of Jacobin, Dylan Matthews notes, “The magazine is not going to defend Stalin's collectivizations or Mao's Great Leap Forward or really any other aspect of ‘actually existing communism.’” But the fact that every communist country in world history quickly turned into a repressive nightmare is kind of important." Pish posh, what are a few million bloody corpses here or there? You are missing the bigger picture. This will allow progressives to feel really good about themselves, and that is surely more important that a few million pikers dying horrible deaths in the Cambodian Killing Fields, or China's starving fields, or the grand Russian steppe! "Many Marxist theorists have long attempted to rescue their theory from its real-world adherents by attributing its failures to idiosyncratic personal flaws of the leaders who took power (Lenin, Stalin, Mao … ). But the same patterns have replicated themselves in enough governments under enough leaders to make it perfectly obvious that the flaw rests in the theory itself. Marxist governments trample on individual rights because Marxist theory does not care about individual rights. Marxism is a theory of class justice. The only political rights it respects are those exercised by members of the oppressed class, with different left-wing ideological strands defining those classes in economic, racial, or gender terms, or sometimes all at once. Unlike liberalism, which sees rights as a positive-sum good that can expand or contract for society as a whole, Marxists (and other left-wing critics of liberalism) think of political rights as a zero-sum conflict. Either they are exercised on behalf of oppression or against it. Any Marxist government immediately sets about snuffing out the political rights of parties or ideas deemed reactionary (a category that also inevitably expands to describe any challenge to the powers that be). Repression is woven into Marxism’s ideological fabric. Political correctness borrows its illiberal model of political discourse from Marxism, and it has mostly played itself out on university campuses and other enclaves where the left is able to impose political hegemony. (This is why some liberals who don’t agree with political correctness, but also don’t want to criticize it, dismiss it as nothing more than harmless college prankery.) Just this week, Emory University’s president promised to use security cameras to track down and prosecute students who wrote “Trump” in chalk — chalking being a normally acceptable medium for sloganeering — after student activists pronounced the word a threat to their safety." It seems apropos that Marxism would retain some adherents here in America, while elsewhere, like Russia, China, Cuba, and even Venezuela it is in full retreat, an antiquated, if homicidal belief. "The efforts to shut down Trump reflect the growing influence of Marxian politics, and these ideas merit study. A Jacobin column defends “impair[ing] the circulation of Trump’s hate-filled message.” What about free speech? Well: Free speech, while an indispensable principle of democracy, is not an abstract value. It is carried out in the context of power disparities, and has real effects on peoples’ lives. We can defend freedom of speech — particularly from state crackdowns — while also resolutely opposing speech that scapegoats the most vulnerable and oppressed people in our society. Free speech is for people on the wrong end of “power disparities” — which is to say, the oppressed and their allies, or, put more bluntly, the left." Exactly. The left is an unalloyed good, everyone else is not and does not deserve, rights like free speech, or if one burrows down to it, human rights. How long before these depraved zombies begin agitating for heads? "In the meantime, obviously, Trump poses a far more dire danger than his would-be censors. But it is important not to succumb to the panic that the far left is inculcating around Trump. Trump would threaten American democracy if elected, but all evidence suggests his election is highly unlikely." Right! So riddle me this Batman, how is a gassy windbag somehow a more dire threat than a group of people who represent a political movement which has in EVERY incarnation, resulted in the democide of a hundred million innocents? What exactly can this gassy windbag do, magic? Is he a Gozer worshiper who will open a cleft from our universe to another more horrible universe? Will he require all men wear hair exactly like his? We find out why our intrepid correspondent is apoplectic about Trump in his last graph. "The popular, sitting liberal president has enacted the most important egalitarian social reforms in half a century, including higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the poor, and significant new income transfers to poor and working-class Americans through health-care reform and other measures. All of this has happened without the alliance with white supremacy that compromised the New Deal, or the disastrous war that accompanied the Great Society. The case for democratic, pluralistic, incremental, market-friendly governance rooted in empiricism — i.e., liberalism — has never been stronger than now. What an odd time to abandon a successful program for an ideology that has failed everywhere it has been tried." He thinks Obama is great, and liberal. But mostly Obama has used blunt force trauma, executive action, to achieve his goals. This is only one step from dissolving Congress altogether and doing government naked, er, as dictator. Obama's great actions with Congress were a few cash for clunker like stimulus deals, failures all, Obamacare, a failure, and successful Republican derivative actions like free trade agreements. Loving this guy for his liberalism is a bit crazy, since he has little interest in liberalism, and much interest but no skill in unilateral action. Obama is like a W. Clinton lite. Clinton attempted to convert healthcare to a government agency, failed, and nearly lost the Presidency. He realized his mistake, listening to his wife, cut her from power, and began to implement Republican reforms like welfare reform, and free trade deals. Pretty much all of his successes were Republican derived, and all of his failures were Democrat derived. While Trump is not particularly favorable to liberalism, this is because he is essentially a center left progressive who is vehemently anti-immigration. His policies are the same as Hillary's but with the anti-immigrant element. Trump is uncontrollable, while Hillary will follow the playbook to a T. And there is the risk Trump could blow up all of American politics, and neither establishment likes that idea. Now it seems clear, Trump is Hillary, and our intrepid correspondent is likely fearful that once Trumps platform is known, it will appeal to many Democrats, and Hillay, the unlikable, will have great difficulty retaining these Democrats. Here is a nice article on liberalism versus progressivism. Hillary, Sanders, and Trump are all progressives. I am a liberal, classical liberal to be correct. liberal versus progressive ISIS supporters vote UK top target as terrorists 'warn of London attack'
"The message translated to: "The beginning lies in Paris and Brussels... And in London, we shall form our state.'" Feral men who hate themselves beyond measure, want nothing more than to murder, injure, and destroy, if they cannot achieve their goals because of the incompetence of their beliefs, they will make sure no one can achieve their goals. These men are the same as the low life losers who when they fail, turn and murder their families "just because." They are deeply jealous of the success of others, and cannot believe their wonderful ideas never bear fruit. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics) Necessary reading to understand this mindset. "One tweeted: "The Islamic State will attack London, Washington, Rome and all the infidels' capitals." Another wrote: "The Crusaders are blundered and confused. Yesterday Paris, today Brussels, and they don't know where will be the next attack.'" So, we know the plan, widespread terror, utilizing asymmetrical paramilitary attacks. And the response? "This comes as teams of special forces troops are going undercover in London and throughout the country with more military support in case of an attack. All main airports throughout the UK have been given additional police patrols and armed response units are on high-alert for a call to tackle heavily armed terrorists. Police presence has been increased at train stations across the capital, including Waterloo and Kings Cross St Pancras, and specialist units have been deployed to Dover." So, somehow symmetrical, concentrated defense is to combat asymmetrical warfare? It cannot, it will fail, badly, unless the British are willing to hire armed men to stand on every street corner, 24 hours each day. That is a bridge too far, it cannot happen, and so the asymmetrical attacks will succeed. There is only one way to combat an asymmetrical attack, asymmetrical diffuse defense. And this can only be accomplished by allowing a significant part of the population to be armed, and to act as an unseen line of defense. The US allows this and this likely accounts for the reason why the US accounts for such a low terrorism position. If you are comfortable, obtain your Concealed Handgun License, provision an appropriate handgun, train, and become proficient, and carry, every day. Such asymmetrical defense is the only way to defend against the asymmetrical terrorist threat. "A source said: "Britain has never been at so much risk of an attack and everybody believes it’s now a case of ‘when’ it’s going to happen and not ‘if’." A crackdown on firearms has also been ordered by the National Crime Agency over concerns a similar gun assault could hit London. But despite multiple threats from terrorists in Syria, an unnamed government minister said the UK was well prepared for such an attack." This is a joke, the Brits cannot even keep their own in-house criminals from committing crimes, and murders. Why will the British anti-gun laws work any better than the French, or Belgian laws? Wishful thinking is not a policy. Disarming your law abiding population nearly ensures success for the asymmetrical attacker. Good luck Europe, you will need it. Brussels attacks: Isis claims responsibility for bombings - FT.com . . . killing perhaps 30, injuring myriad. "Isis claimed responsibility for twin bomb attacks in Brussels on Tuesday that killed at least 30 people and left scores injured in the EU capital." Graphic video from AP follow: "President Barack Obama said the “thoughts and prayers of the American people” were with the people of Belgium. “We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium in bringing to justice those who are responsible,” said Mr Obama, who was in Cuba. “This is yet another reminder that the world must unite, we must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism. We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world.'" I am fully in accord with our President. I just hope he means what he says here.
While Trump and I stand apart on nearly every issue, this would appear to confirm that it would be prudent to look closely at muslim immigration, at least for a while. I prefer a more open immigration policy, but when under obvious threat, this might need to be temporarily set aside. It would seem Europe will also need to reassess its current immigration policy. Focusing on ISIS alone will not alleviate this problem. The problem stems from the House of Saud's close ties with Wahhabism, and Salafism, which are the foundational beliefs behind modern Islamic terrorism. We need to begin to reduce the fundamental core of Islamic terror, the House of Saud, and its in house religion, Wahhabism. This is being attacked by Iran through proxy war. We should find ways to help the Iranians, in their war of Islamic Reformation. We need to also begin to pull back from assisting the House of Saud. We can use the kingdom's human rights violations to support these changes. We will need to move on these changes post haste. The Salafist oil kingdoms are weakened by low oil prices, this is the opportunity to strike, and make lasting change. This does not mean direct US involvement in war, that would be a serious mistake. This will need to be a more subtle undermining of the House of Saud, utilizing its natural enemies, to accomplish goals which both hold dear. Prayers to all in Belgium affected by this terrible act, and Godspeed to those investigating this crime. Denmark has new plan to get refugees into work
Because it seems from the news coming out of Europe that all the men, at least, will be under arrest before long. "Never Seen Anything Like This Before" - Sweden Stunned At "Unreal" Surge In Refugee Sex Attacks It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful It's hard not to be envious of all that great government they have over there in the old country, er, countries . . . or something. Here's a thought, give these criminals 15 years of chain gang labor for rape, and 30 for violent rape, then send them home. It wouldn't be fair and square, but it would be better than nothing. Oh, labor at 8 hours per day, 6 days per week, and make sure you norm what a days work equals, a half days work counts as only a half day in prison. Ladies, go get fitted for your Burka's now, avoid the rush, the long lines, the long wait times3/14/2016 "Never Seen Anything Like This Before" - Sweden Stunned At "Unreal" Surge In Refugee Sex Attacks
The police won't report the number of rapes. But they will charge women who defend themselves, the wonders of liberal Europe. "As a direct result of Europe's refugee crisis, new and very unpleasant social fractures have started to emerge. One particularly troubling issue is the extent to which officials have tended to “blame the victim" in the ever more frequent sex attacks resulting from Europe's refugee surge, something we first touched upon earlier this week. For instance, Cologne mayor Henriette Reker drew sharp criticism for suggesting that it was German womens' duty to prevent assaults by keeping would-be assailants “at arm’s length.” Then there was the now infamous case of the 17-year-old Danish girl who faced a fine from police after she allegedly used "illegal" pepper spray to deter an attacker." It is too late to visit Sweden, it has become a dangerous place for women, and there appears to be no help in sight. The only thing left for the women of Ostersund is to either don the Burka, or start carrying. I would suggest that Sweden have a serious think through on the idea of allowing Swedes to carry a handgun for self defense, and make it clear by statute that sexual assault, and threatened sexual assault, is grounds for self defensive use of a weapon. There is little doubt that these feral humans would find it less enjoyable to sexually assault, and rape when the victim is armed and dangerous. Step two is to rethink the idea of allowing feral humans into your house. Step three is to fire all of the politicians who made this error of judgement in the first place. Ladies, I suspect this is your fight, guns or Burka's, your choice. Choose wisely. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|