Only a naive leftist would suggest mass attendance to this terrorist's funeral doesn't reflect large radical segment in the immigrant community. But then again, they are in an entirely different country, so they can even begin to understand and don't need to. They live is a bubble of moral equivalence, relativism, egalitarianism, and naivety. Since American liberals love Muslims so much, perhaps they can take them off our hands. Denmark has had its full of Muslims and that is why the nationalist party is popular over there. As a response to mass immigration, over, they have made tighter immigration laws and reduced immigration around 70% beginning in 2001 through today(though it should be more restrictive and restricted to Europeans only). They have also the strictest asylum laws in Europe. Events like this reflect why these policies are correct and reflect the Danish people's dislike of immigration overall.
Denmark Saves 10 Billion by Restricting Third World Immigration FrontPage Magazine
Not really, I'd suggest a rational realist who can count. 500 people, an undetermined number of whom may well not have been Muslim, and not even radicalised Muslim in any event attended the funeral. This is out of a Muslim population of Denmark that numbers around 222,700, roughly 4% of the total population of Denmark. Just putting matters into perspective.
I would suggest that the political Right has an agenda of scaremongering against "the other" whoever they decide is target du jour; admittedly a very effective tactic in hard economic times, just look back to the 1930's to see how effective scapegoating Jewish people was.
Yea, I suppose all this radical islamist's non-muslims friends, I am sure it was a very diverse gathering. What you are saying sounds foolish. Honestly, why are you being deliberately obtuse? Have some common sense here. They are clearly all of immigrant and islamic background if you look at the videos and photos. Point me to all the Danes and Europeans in the crowd?
Neither you nor I know for certain who they were or where they were from. I'm not being obtuse, just objective. Many had their heads covered so could have come from anywhere, or be terrorists hiding from the cameras, we don't know and shouldn't jump to conclusions.
No one is saying every Muslim in Denmark is a terrorist. That was never the point until you on the Left made it as a strawman argument. Not every Muslim in Denmark needs to show up to reflect the fact that the new multicultural society in Denmark that is the result of mass immigration has led to this social tension. Community fracture and ghettoization has resulted in fanning the flames of radicalism that are already inherent in the Islamic religion. These two societies clearly aren't compatible and when you have large gatherings in favor of a terrorist like this in an immigrant area this reflects this incompatibility of cultures. This is why immigration needs to stop. There has been progress with reducing numbers and that is why Denmark doesn't have the issues of say France for example, but they need to limit immigration to nations within Europe and begin repatriation of these illegals and many of these phony asylum seekers.
Glad to hear it. Given there are only about 220,700 Muslims in Denmark, 4% of the total population, I'm at a loss as to how you can describe this as "mass migration", they didn't all arrive at the same time. or for that matter ascribe "social tension" "community fracture", etc. to such a small number of people. Is Danish society that fragile, it can't cope with a few Muslims?
This isn't scapegoating, this is the reality of multiculturalism. But I suppose more incidents like this are worth your striving for this utopian dream, since you are off in your own liberal cocoon in America, and can make these pronouncements of equality and cultural relativism with no consequences. This isn't an issue of economics, Denmark has a strong economy relatively speaking in the Eurozone. This is a social and cultural issue more than one of economics, and it has existed in the years for the economic crisis, so it isn't an issue of "economic scapegoating" as you claim...
I'm British and part of the 99%, FYI. Yes, we have our own home grown whackos like UKIP who existed before the economic crisis, who by scapegoating and fear-mongering, have managed to gain support amongst the more uneducated and gullable. The parallels with the rise of the Nazis is of far more concern to me than an issue of immigration which focuses disproportionatley on non-whites or Muslims.
You aren't being a rational realist. What you are doing is assuming there is a handful of non-muslims, which hasn't been established, and ignoring what is in front of you,. Ignoring obvious patterns, in this case, that hundreds of Muslims in an immigrant neighborhood went to the funeral of a terrorist. You are assuming that because there might have been a handful of non-muslims on hand, this somehow negates the large gathering of radical islamists. As I said before, these 500 aren't the only radical muslims in Denmark, you are making this false assumption again. They are representative of a larger segment of the islamic population, to deny this and say, this is only 500 and they are the only 500 is naive. Ignoring the patterns here, the the significance of this large gathering of muslims for this terrorist is not by any definition of the word rational. Rational people can observe patterns, which you haven't done here.
I can't help you if you are at a loss. But for a country that had practically zero immigration for its history, certainly not of the non-european variety up until the 80s or so, hundreds of thousands of non-european immigrants is mass immigration proportionally speaking. And it isn't just the numbers, it is the ethnic and cultural differences. Yes, the social fabrics of society are fragile when you bring ethnic diversity into the mix, especially clearly distinct and separate groups such as Muslims.
There is a growing body of work that backs the common sense on the matter. Diversity is an antithesis to community, and undermines social capital. I will refer you to studies by Robert Putnam from Harvard and Zachary and Jennifer Neal from Michigan state on the matter.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe
Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggest that when people for relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community.
Separately, Portes and Vickstrom (2011) offer a similar review, finding that demographic homogeneity has often been linked with higher levels of trust, social cohesion, and belongingness typically thought to compose sense of community.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
And these are liberal sociologists admitting this and "sugarcoating it" so to speak. They admit this leads to social atomization, division, a lack of trust, identification with, and participation in the community as they become more diverse.
This social fracture exists at 4% in Denmark and will only get worse. You even admitted yourself, White British people feel the population of Muslims in the UK is 21% when it is 5%. This speaks to the social tension I have talked about. Imagine what it will be at 10%, 15%? I mean, White British are a minority already in their capital city and at current rates their numbers will continue to dwindle throughout the country. This tension, this reduction in social capital is confirmed by the aforementioned studies.
UKIP is growing in popularity because they are the only one willing to even talk about the immigration issue and the economic and social impacts, particularly on the working class. The fact is, about 70% of the British people want to ban any new migration, so it isn't an extremist position at all. It is the so called main parties that represent the minority opinion here.
70 say no to more migrants Survey reveals public s concerns about immigration Daily Mail Online
UKIP doesn't even call for a ban on immigration, just reductions and a point system. They aren't even as "extreme" as a large segment of the British people. It is hard to take you seriously when you mention UKIP in the same breath with "nazis", that is just shrill hyperbole. And you are confirming my point about the Left's contempt for their original working class base, calling them "uneducated and gullible".
