Chapter 8

What came first - the hen or the egg   

Many are apt to seek the explanation to the distorted development of the thoughts, in the world of ideas and in the ideologies. My estimation is that:

It is best to look at, what power really is, and then look at the mess of the ideologies.

Those ideas and the mess of the ideologists that fit to a plan of the rulers directly or indirectly will always benefit. Camouflage-explanations is then made by experts suited for this job. When ideology is being financed by the state or internationally, it becomes dangerous.

It was not easy to get an agreement with the Zar of Russia at the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815 after the Napoleonic Wars, when Europe was divided and planned obvious would some say in a rather peculiar way. In the end of the 1800s and in the beginning of the 1900s the oil-extraction in Russia developed to something that could be compared with that of the monopolist in USA. Actually Russia developed away from a pure agriculture state to a modern industrial power in that period. Then the revolution came in 1917. Zar Nicolai and his family were murdered by order of the new rulers in june 1918.

Concerning the question of power, monopoly[1] is always to prefer.  With monopoly there is no possi-bility to choose. Monopoly or monopsony[2] are much like a one-party-state. The rulers in a one-party-state with the people called the workers, the consumers, the families, the citizens held in an iron-grip - can very easy be broad to a situation, where they need investors.

An unspoiled ten years old child can immediately tell you that such a system in any case will need a good banking-connection. Some few (today) bank-trillionaires in USA calculated just like that.

To all the others 28 volumes [3] had been written, most of it nonsense or witchcraft as you wish[4]. In the 1930s you could for the marketing of this ideology buy small installments with titles like 'Karl Marx in Five Minutes'. At this time these installments helped many unfortified souls to the right understanding of the second-largest and second-best planned swindle of the world's history.

15-20% which have to be in front in the totalitarian systems, to manage, to control and to use po-wer against the others, have to have what they need, even in such a sick arrangement. Inefficiency and very low productivity is no obstacle, when you take into consideration that the internationals al-ways are prepared to help, if it pays off, and especially if it fits into their plans.

That such arrangements also were suitable to get peoples of the Western World to have a look at everything else but the proper facts advanced matters considerably.

But now you must not think that our system is much different from a totalitarian dictatorship. Perhaps you think you are free, but are you free?

To get the Soviet Union (the state of monopoly) to act society was overthrown, the production was confiscated, and the bureaucracy and the party got the leading role in the society. This resulted in a society of scarcity of everything at once, also because the priority had to be directed one-sided to the rulers and bureaucrats and their needs for luxury and power-consolidation. In Denmark (and in the Western Europe) – in the so-called free world - the consumption was gradually confiscated to secure an always steady growing public sector ruled by the bureaucracy that is in the leading role in every totalitarian system[5]. This did not result in a society of scarcity of everything. In the first stages the citizens were socialized. Next the state meddle more and more in production, with taxation, control, supervision etc., and at last subsidies, confiscation, and more false money or bills on the future generations (our unborn children). The common sense could not take more tyranny, and in that way nearly all central parts of the production were almost monopolized or oligopolized. I am not just talking about the naturally order of the capitalistic society, where the integration of branches logically develop both vertically and horizontally soon or later.

The phenomenons as descibeed here automatically lead to a society of scarcity of everything the day workers cannot pay more tax, and the deficits of the state and the municipals is not financed any longer.

Remember the threats against Sweden and also Finland, when the rulers tried to make the Danish believe in the European Union in 1992. The citizens in Denmark coming from most foreign regions on the Earth plus those foreigners, who were given the Danish citizenship, and their children have nearly taken over the whole public so-called welfare, which really is an inferior edition of wealth created by the Danish citizens. The working citizens pay for the public welfare, but they pay much too much. In 1998 more than 150 billions kr. of 650 billions kr. were consumed by the foreigners or paid as interest on state debt that the citizens have not even contracted or really known anything about. Now the rulers transfer the result to the foreigner, which have not paid anything to get it.

They could pull the legs of the Danes, because they did it in the right order.

I repeat: If there had been good order in the economy, and the same in the finances of Denmark, it has not been possible for example with the immigrants as the last tool to crowd out the Danes. The Danes would on the account of the debt in 1960s - the false and the true - have had to pay some of their possibility to consume to the creditors, but the Danes had never by their free will paid the whole and given Denmark to the foreigners. On the other hand the highest ranging can remove the transfered private consumption and the public consumptions by taxation from the Danes, and then hand over the rights, and by this the country to peoples from foreign nations at last.

That is what they do.    

Public expenditures on the immigrants

I, an opponent of the public lies, made a charge-budget like those that sometimes are used in the public health sector, when the amount of yield and the charge have to be accounted in lack of a bet-ter foundation. This charge-budget is based on the information about anything what so ever from the authorities, and then it is placed together with the greatest care. Unfortunately the account of the immigration-policy is 10 times larger, than those permissions of the state that were shown to the public till the midd 1990s. Now the lie can not be used any longer. This certainly does not mean that the truth then is accepted, and presented by the authorized who's duty it is to make a honest budget, and to inform truthfully. For the time being you just seek to hold a lower profile - as it is called in the language of signalizing -, the critics must be effective prevented then from access to the media. That is very easy in a small country where all deciding institutions have been occupied by kindred spirits.

 

In 1995 from 70 to dkr. 90 bill., in 1998 more than dkr. 100 bill. out of dkr. 650 bill. totally of public expenses were spent on the presence of the immigrants in Denmark. Our former Prime Minister Poul Schlüter (until 1993), who now is a member of the EU-Parliament often occurs with the Carnegie Foundation (more about this under 'The New Man'), decided that the Danes should not know the bill of the binge that has not been contemplated to stop.

Carefully and very simple accountings show that more than the half of what the Dane is paying in personal income tax is used for interest payments and repayments on a debt that the Dane has not even contracted, or it is used on the foreigners stay in Denmark. 74 % - perhaps 79 % - of the immigrants was on social security/welfare i 1995-2000 - the authorities mention the figure 40%, but they convenient forget either the receivers of social welfare or the unemployed who are members of an unemployment fund. These are the real figures i the period 1995-2000. Let us show an example from June 2000. We cannot reach the true result further. Without proper information it is very difficult. And I have to underline that never was my duty to informe on these subjects, if the responsible authorities had done their duties.

June 2^nd the Danish tabloid BT refers journalist A. J. van der Stern of Telegraaf by: "The reaction of Danish Minister on the critics that Dutch journalists gives me a renewed hope for the future. The Dutch policy has failed in every way".

Among several other things our former Minister of Internal Affaires Karen Jespersen was refered of have told the tv-viewers in Holland that the unemployment among immigrants in Denmark was 14.6 % all in all, and 20.2 % among immigrants from "lesser developed countries" in 1999.

This information was certainly not the truth, and Information of Denmark has tried several times without any result to correct both this minister and more the former ministers of both areas e.g. Minister of Economics Marianne Jelved. The last mentioned told nearly the same untrue story as Karen Jespersen did, when she visited OECD. At once this organization found out the mistakes made just to camouflage the real unemployment, because the lie was to big. Information of Denmark was right (one year before).

CRITIC MEANS NOTHING IN DENMARK ANYMORE

The unemployment among the Danish is about 18-24% (when you count those who seek employment and are controlled that they do so). Among the most foreign immigrants (more than 70% of all the immigrants) the unemployment was about 84 % in Denmark 1999.

Our documentation in Danish http://www.lilliput-information.com/tiar.html#arbejd and http://www. lilliput-information.com/ledig.html

Truth is the opposite to lies

In 1999 84 % of the foreigners in Denmark are living on public welfare. We had to clean the statements for camouflage. Included in the 84 % are children less 18 years and people in retire-ment not counted in [6]. They tried to argued that I am a racist. I  am not.

In 1998 our former Minister of Economy maintained that the foreigners had a much smaller part of their group included in the group of laborforce, of which members must supply themselves to the labor market. We asked if the other received any social security. They did not answered. But OECD had to correct our Minister of Economy, and media then told that the foreigners were 3½ times more unemployed than the Danes in 1998. Still we did not get the correct number or the correct procent.

The Minister of Social Affaires alarms

Jyllandsposten, September 10th 1999

Every third on social security is a foreigner

extract:

’30% of the group which receive social security are immigrants. While the Danish unemployed is offered work, more of the immigrant are becoming receivers of social security. The municipa-lities have to develop more target-oriented offers’, Social Minister Karen Jespersen says.

‘Immigrants only amount to 6% of the population, but 30% of the receivers of social security’. (unquote)

That was one of the central statements in the article.

* * *

Information om Danmark

Lecture of Danish immigrations-economy

No. 1

In the extraction of the article mentioned above we will concentrate on:

”The immigrants make up only 6 % of the population, but 30 % of those who receive long term social security”

Can this information be explained further?

 1th Immigrantes as a group have a larger share of those who receive social security than the Danish have.

 2th Immigrantes have a larger share in their group who concerning e.g.. age could come into the group of social security clients.

The distribution of ages is very different from the distribution among Danish.

 

If 1th and/or 2th were not actual, the 6 % foreigners living in Denmark would also have  6 %. of all social security clients. You may say that these 6 % are receivers of longterm social security, as if they made up 30 % of the population.

 

In 1993 a corresponding official picture was drawn :

Information of the foreigner’s  load on a number posts can be required from Department of Social Security. One of its investigations shows that 87 % of the refugies remain lasting clients on social security, and among the rest of 13 % a great number is trying to take an public financed education, if they do not receive another category of public subsidy. An accounting from the town Aarhus also shows that the expenses concerning refugies receiving social security have been doubled in a period of five years, and in 1993 these expenditures amounted 19 % of the total sum of expenditures spend on social security  (cf. the Weekly Newsletter Monday Morning no.4/ 1993).

 This information is of another type. Now you are concentrating on the share of indiduals in the group of receivers of social security. You are adding on the share of the total expenditures.

At about the same time (1993) the media informed that the 6% that was the share of the foreigners made up then (officially) in Aarhus, received 30 % of the total social security. But notice that this problem is not necessarily the same as the mentioned in the extract of the newpaper article above.

 If it had been this information the Minister of Social Security had offered about Denmark another element of explanation should have been added:

 3th Foreigners receive in average larger or smaller amounts of expenditures of social security than the average Danish receiver of social security.

 If we concentrate on the possible explanations 1, 2 og 3, and at the same time take the total public expenditures, it is possible to make a rough estimate, and draw a picture of the load of the foreigners. The responsibles could have used the advanced ID-number, but they refused. Here you have to remember that the expenditures include not only the payment, but also the expenditures concerning service offered by civilian servants. We are so lucky that we have such an account called the functional distribution of  public expenditures of the nation. Repayment and reimbursement of payment do not disturb the account.

It has to be underlined that the mentioned 6% (1999) immigrants refered to by the minister does not match with the corrected account made by IoD. The naturalized and their children have to be included among others. The article did not succed with defining a Dane refering to our Constitution either.

A Dane is a Danish citizen, a least the one parents of whom is a Danish citizen, and also born in Denmark.

The share of immigrants is not smaller than 10% in Denmark (1999), possibly a great deal larger.

This was also indirectly confirmed by the account of criminality (1994) from commissioner of police. If the 6% had been correct according this last mentioned distribution of crimes on nationality, asylum-applicants should have been 15-18 times more criminal than the Danish, and should have made 84% of all shopliftings, for example. This a wild exaggeration, and they should have done much more without time to do it. This totally nonsense. If you will read the total documentation in Danish now 6 years later read the article on: http://www.united-bluff.com/ kraka.html. Some of the conclusion are included below. You get back by closing when you finished your reading.

 It has also been totally documented in the Danish link: http://www.united-bluff.com/indva. html .You get back by closing when you finished your reading.

By the accounting of the foreigners’ load you have to account not just the cost which directly can be connected to the target group. They are a burden on all entries like the Danes with a few exceptions. It is the special cost that means all the costs which would not had been without the immigrants. Earlier we have seen calculation of burdens of the students, of our older citizens and and of our children. The load-budget has also been used within the hospital service, as mentioned, so don’t to call our accouting something it is not.

Shares of the target group, frequency, resource-burden is central concepts here.

A couple of examples:

If the target group amounts 12%, and ressource burden is 1.75, while the frequency is the same (1), you get the proportional 12% multiplied with 1.75 or 21%

The target group may well amount to 18% even though the whole group only amount to 10% Immigrant have a much larger share of the group of children among them, for example.

In October 1998 Aarhus Town Counsel informed that two third of all swindle with social security were connected to immigrants. This means 67 % of the swindle was done by 10 % of the citizens. This means the burden is 6.7. If the immigrants receive social security 4 times as frequent as the Danes you can make a conclusion: The immigrants do this crime with frequency of 1.7 (67/40) in relation to the Danish. In this way we will continue through all entries on the public budget made public by Denmark’s Statistical Bureau (Danmarks Statistik).

Statistical Ten years survey 1999 from Denmark’s Statistical Bureau include the following table of expenditures (an extract of years):

Functional distribution. Expenditures in  tax-financed sectors and service
(mio.dkr.) by function and year.
	1993	1995		1997	1998
Total	549836	603283		637683	652709
Functional distr. expend. total, subtotal	484796	537169		573308	591157
Superior public duties, subtotal	65485	71571		77505	82625
General public duties, subtotal	39436	43456		47743	52544
General administration	16831	18525		19844	21330
The relation to foreign countries	20986	23002		25460	28912
Other	1619	1929		2439	2302
Defence a.o.	17789	18309		19410	19124
Public order and security	8260	9805		10352	10957
Society and social, subtotal	371127	415357		441775	454740
Education, subtotal	68752	73616		83432	88492
The Schools	28756	30922		35279	37796
The youth-educations	13328	16206		18288	19243
Higher educations	13993	15302		16009	16823
Grown up education special educ.	10144	8229		10718	11795
Services related to education	733	651		681	688
Administration	1758	2226		2386	2071
Other	40	79		71	76
Health service, subtotal	50310	52743		57480	59965
Hospitals a.o.	36083	38576		42390	45044
Individual health service	13142	13131		14269	13840
Administration	708	771		793	902
Other	378	266		28	179
Social safety and security, subtal	229277	264128		273839	278843
Safety service	166672	194920		196315	197826
Welfare service	55081	60628		68075	71196
Administration	7501	8522		9376	9722
Other	23	58		73	98
Home a.o.	9310	8877		9469	9770
Relation to home	6994	5674		5721	5857
Society planning	440	887		922	846
Sanitary services	1416	1822		2313	2555
Other	460	495		513	511

 

Religious, recreative og culturel  services
Subtotal	13478	15992	17555	17670
Religious  services	3450	4527	5038	5201
Recreative  services	4378	4782	5194	5258
culturel services	5509	6506	7076	6937
Other	141	176	248	273
Business-economic relations, subtotal	48183	50242	54028	53793