The Price of European Immigration


Thank you to the Opinionator


The Price of European Immigration

Posted by Bio ↓ on Jun 27th, 2012 



In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.

Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.

Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance, exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party. The well-to-do themselves rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.

Immigrants are simply referred to as “new countrymen,” who as if by magic always seem to enrich the natives with their presence. In Denmark, multiculturalists have successfully managed to establish the neologism nydansker or “new Danes,” a vibrant new breed of people currently displacing the tired and boring “old Danes.”

For poorer people, immigration was a concrete issue, as immigrants moved into their neighborhoods and went to school with their children. To put it bluntly, for those with money, globalization initially meant that they could travel on holidays to exotic lands and treat the world as their playground. For those who were less well off, it meant that the entire world suddenly moved into their street and took over their children’s local playground.

When the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean struck an iceberg just before midnight on 14 April 1912, the first people who could see the water pouring in were the third-class passengers who happened to be situated closest to the waterline. Meanwhile, the richest passengers at the top were drinking fine cognac long after the ship had started sinking. They didn’t realize what was going on for quite some time, because they were further removed from the physical problem. The poor passengers still unfortunately suffered the highest fatality rates, because the wealthy benefitted from having privileged access to the lifeboats.

We see the same phenomenon on display today, on a much larger scale. Having Islamophobia in Europe today is just as rational as having icebergophobia on board the Titanic in 1912.

Uhrskov Jensen in 2012 published another book, Indvandringens Pris (“The Price of Immigration”) about how much money non-European mass immigration costs his native Denmark. His conclusion is that this cost is great in terms of welfare payments and rising crime combined with declining efficiency and technological innovation.

He shows through carefully researched statistics that only certain Asian immigrants are able to keep up with northern Europeans in the educational system. A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot lower.

It should be mentioned here that these numbers correlate quite well with average IQ, where a few other Asians can compete with Europeans, but primarily East Asians. Other ethnic groups cannot do so. Although it has become taboo to say this in the modern Western world, it is well-documented fact that IQ correlates well with economic level, for individuals as well as for nations. The scholar Charles Murray has written much about this.

Former professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark has conducted controversial research on the subject of the genetic inheritance of intelligence. His conclusion is that today’s mass immigration of non-Europeans will lead to an overall marked decline in the average intelligence of the population, and by extension a significant decline in social and economic competence, scientific progress, as well as technological innovation.

For decades Westerners have been told that immigration from less developed Third World countries is “good for the economy” and will “pay for future pensions.” Morten Uhrskov Jensen proves conclusively that this claim is fundamentally wrong, not just regarding Denmark or Scandinavia but for other Western countries, too.

Certain private companies may enjoy short-term benefits by having access to cheap labor and borderless export markets. Socialist parties can cynically import a reliable voter base of backward peoples who overwhelmingly vote for left-wing parties so they can receive generous welfare payments from the high tax payments extracted from the majority population, essentially forcing the white natives to fund their own colonization by foreign peoples.

Page: 1 2»


 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments

  • 27 Jun 2012, 8:51 PM Urban11 wrote:
    I have no idea how they got away with the "immigration is good for the economy" crap.
    It's bloody obvious that the importation millions of welfare dependent violent thick savages is bad for the economy.
    And even if what they said was true i.e. they make an "enormous contribution" we would be depriving their poverty stricken homelands of their greatest assets for our collective gain. No better than slavery, really.
    Reply to this
    1. 29 Jun 2012, 9:37 AM DP111 wrote:
      Urban

      The politicians tried to muddy the waters by referring only to East European immigration after the enlargement of the EU. They stated there was nothing that could be done about it as they were all EU citizens.

      Wrong

      1. The EU had made it quite clear that individual nations could limit immigration from even within the EU.

      2. People wee not concerned about EU immigration but non-EU immigration.In particular from Muslim and African countries. This was not because of race but because immigration from the above two led to huge problems because of a massive disparity in culture and normal behaviour.

      Our politicians tried to pretend that the public was really concerned about European immigration rather then the alien cultures of Africa and Asia. Raisng the Islam issue was condemned as racist (Remember the incident of G Brown rant against a decent woman Stoke).

      In reality, politicians were the ones who were being racist, while the common man was pointing out not to race, but the alien culture that was being imported, that could not and would not integrate.
      Reply to this
  • 27 Jun 2012, 9:35 PM WitteringsfromWitney wrote:
    Have linked to an article of yours - again.

    Reciprocation? Or have i missed something?
    Reply to this
  • 28 Jun 2012, 12:48 AM Anonymous wrote:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2165584/Peter-Sutherland-globes-grandee.html
    Reply to this
  • 28 Jun 2012, 10:07 AM DP111 wrote:
    The Deputy “Reichsführer” has spoken

    http://witteringsfromwitney.com/the-deputy-reichsfuhrer-has-spoken/

    In this article WfW points out that our deputy PM is bemoaning the fact out that peers should be elected, on the basis that the ruled should decide who is to rule over them.

    First - the peers do not decide primary legislation.

    Second, it doesn't seem to have occurred to our deputy PM, that most of legislation originates from Brussels. The EU commissioners, president etal, have not been elected by us, or for that matter by European citizens. But Cleggy is happy about that.

    You can trust a liberal democrat to ignore the elephant in the room.


    Gandalf

    You need top watch what is happening in Europe/Brussels. Though Islam is the main threat, our future, and how we will neuter the Islam threat, is being decided there.
    Reply to this
    1. 28 Jun 2012, 12:42 PM DP111 wrote:
      Terrific general reading

      Orwell And The Modern BBC

      http://biased-bbc.com/2012/06/26/orwell-and-the-modern-bbc/#comment-41985
      Reply to this
  • 29 Jun 2012, 12:21 PM Urban11 wrote:
    http://irishsavant.blogspot.co.uk/?zx=1824c0a0dd8fdf09

    Hi Gandalf, DP111 some of your readers might like this blog.
    Reply to this
    1. 29 Jun 2012, 6:46 PM DP111 wrote:
      Urban

      The same is happening here. The future of the West is writ large in the Maternity wards in London and other cities in Europe.
      Reply to this
  • 29 Jun 2012, 12:24 PM Peter wrote:
    There was a discussion on the Arab version of Al Jazeera (as opposed to the sanitised version broadcast out of London)between a representative from CAIR called Hooper and two tame US service personnel about a course for the latter which the arabs considered to be anti-islamic i.e. it told the truth. During the discussion, the US counterJihad was trashed as being unrepresentative and they took the opportunity to bad mouth the likes of Frank Gaffney,Pamela Geller and David Horowitz. At the end, someone repeated a quote from the CIA which was greeted with hoots of derision (It was the middle eastern station remember). it said "Unless islam changes, we have the means to cause it to self destruct in three years. Well, islam won't change so, when does the countdown start?
    Reply to this
    1. 29 Jun 2012, 3:02 PM Urban11 wrote:
      3 years ago, hopefully.
      Reply to this
    2. 29 Jun 2012, 6:41 PM DP111 wrote:
      As soon as we can get the friendlys out of the fire zone.
      Reply to this
  • 29 Jun 2012, 11:00 PM TheOPINIONATOR wrote:
    It was recently reported that 50% of muslim men and 75% of muslim women do NOT work.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/v054403/Britains-coping-classes-at-breaking-point.html

    Thus they are spending fulltime procreating more dependents to eradicate the British culture and for the UK taxpayer to subsidize. More muslims are pouring in daily. When will the taxpayers/British people revolt?
    Reply to this
  • 4 Jul 2012, 8:35 PM TheOPINIONATOR wrote:
    Even their own country doesn't want them. Why not send them to one of the newly "democratised" "Arab Spring" nations - such as Libya or Egypt where they can enjoy the "freedom"?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167985/Iraq-refuses-thousands-asylum-seekers-lost-right-stay-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.