In English a useful distinction is made between “explaining” and “explaining away”, the latter being an expression for explaining the causes of something while at the same time denigrating those causes. Even when the explanation can be sensible, the issue can be framed in the tone appropriate for fishing a dead body out of a river several months after the person drowned: “stand by for repugnance and disgust”.
Thus the political left is having to explain away why Kristian Thulesen Dahl, the leader of a populist party, has gone from 12% of the vote in 2011 to 21% in 2015, and why he stands as kingmaker in the Danish parliament.
Perhaps because his party’s policies resonate with the voters?
In “Denmark’s far-right kingmakers”, Bo Lidegaard, editor of Denmark’s Politikken magazine, seeks to explain to the bien-pensant readership of the New York Times why this has happened. His explanation is actually important and well-reasoned, and rooted in the nature of a modern economy.
Much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in Denmark parallels that of other Western countries. But here the arguments are at least partly rooted in the logic of the welfare economy. The first step of the ladder into the labor market is very steep, demanding a high level of qualifications while offering generous salaries and good working conditions for everybody employed. Those who fall short of meeting these criteria are offered training and re-education in order to meet the standard of ever-more demanding and value-added jobs.
This system, often referred to as “Flexicurity,” works well for highly skilled workers, and the tax-subsidized free education and training programs pay off for them, too. But it fails in those segments of the population not capable of meeting the high standards — whether for social reasons or because of lack of language and other skills. While a worrying number of native Danes fall into this latter category, many see it as even more worrying that a disproportionately high number of immigrants and their descendants are stuck with similar problems.
A society as settled and mono-cultural as Denmark’s has a difficult time in integrating the lower end of its native Danish-speaking population into the modern technological and cognitively demanding economy. How much harder it is to integrate a bunch of Islamic hillbillies into that same economy, when simultaneously the immigrant population is fed and housed by a welfare system that seems a paradise by immigrant standards, and distracted by a hostile ideology of conquest and occupation, which justifies their non-integration and their crime against the natives.
Oh, and if you notice this phenomenon, then you are a racist Islamophobic hate-mongering rightist.
I receive reports out of Europe occasionally on a personal basis from in-laws, out-laws, acquaintances, and friends. I have not failed to hear that for at least 15 years, parts of European cities have become crime-ridden no-go areas for white natives, that though Muslims constitute some x% of the population they constitute 10x% of the criminal activity, and the the level of hostility from Muslims is unprecedented in formerly mono-cultural societies, unused to mass immigration, and worse, mass uncontrolled immigration. These are people who have reasonably expected that their daughters would be safe at night in most parts of the cities where they live, and are now told they must neither vocally draw attention to the fact of Muslim anti-white aggression but simultaneously take action to avoid it, and their daughters have been attacked, mocked, ridiculed, or raped by Muslim welfare-louts.
As The Manchester Guardian reports on the same phenomenon,
A similar phenomenon is evident across Scandinavia – and to some degree, in Britain – where the left has lost control of the agenda and is failing to provide credible alternative answers.
The reason the Left has lost control of the agenda is that it is always telling people that what they see with their own eyes is not happening, and that people are gravely morally deficient in noticing a causal relationship between uncontrolled borders, Islamic immigration, and crime.
People are not born racist or Islamophobic. They become so over the course of real-life experiences. When is the political Left ever going to understand the radical incoherence of multi-culturalism? Only one dominant culture can flourish at a time in any one political jurisdiction. That is the nature of existence. Multi-culturalism flourishes in pockets of quasi-separate jurisdiction, such as Indian reserves, or Quebec, but the general relationship of culture to jurisdiction is one for one. That is what jurisdictions are for, to keep separate those cultures whose workings are incompatible. Wishing it were otherwise cannot make it so.