Europe's present - Our future?

From The Brussels Journal:

“Women are simply not accepted by the Muslim community,” says Mohammed. “So women had also better not do this work.” Mohammed is my colleague social worker [integration civil servant] in Antwerp’s immigrant quarters. He looks at me gravely. “That is just the way it is, and that is why I prefer not to work with a woman, that simply doesn’t work.” He is complaining about another colleague, a Flemish woman who is his superior.

Mohammed does not think that this mentality about women and work is wrong. In fact, whoever questions this attitude is wrong because it is his culture and belief, which is why he accepts it, he “understands” it and we, Flemings, do not. Consequently we must accept it, until we “understand” as well.

He sighs. Yesterday it came to a clash with his female Flemish superior. Together with a team of mostly immigrant co-workers, she organizes meaningful recreational activities for the mostly Moroccan youths in the neighborhood. The Flemish superior is also close to despair. Working together with Mohammed is not plain sailing.

She has no support from her Moroccan colleagues. On the contrary, slowly but surely she is being frozen out. Whenever she appears in the square several older man gather round her and start speaking the Berber language with her male colleagues. “They want to marry you,” her male colleagues of Moroccan origin laugh, “because we said that you’re not married.” In the evening the men wait for her and bother her, why won’t she? Several girls of Moroccan origin grab her phone. Her Moroccan colleagues look the other way, also when older kids who always start arguments with her kick her shins until they are blue and threaten her.

She did not want to discuss the complete lack of fellowship, the negative attitude of the Moroccan colleagues. Her problem was Mohammed. He didn’t want to work together with her. He walked away during a conversation with her and went to pray in the meeting room, calling on Allah to stand by him in the discussion with a woman! Perplexity on the part of his female colleague.

Naturally she submitted her conflict with Mohammed, and his praying in the meeting room, to the management. Yes, it’s annoying, but now what? The problem was bought before the staff manager. Who, strangely enough, made a completely absurd accusation. Not Mohammed, but rather the female co-worker, had overstepped her bounds. She had threatened Mohammed and provoked aggression.

How? By questioning his actions. Yes, that’s what Mohammed had said. To the staff manager of course. The female colleague stands as if hit by lighting. She doesn’t weigh half as much as Mohammed, she would be mad to wake up aggression by somebody who could wipe her off the map, Mohammed is also a kickboxer, she is not that crazy! She is left with her feeling of powerlessness. Not Mohammed. In this conflict she is getting picked on.

Her complaint about Mohammed’s behavior was not taken seriously anywhere. It should be, since Mohammed discriminates against women in the workplace, he is being accused by female colleagues of sexual intimidation, and above all he doesn't offer help to a colleague who is being assaulted by the target group. All for the simple reason that women shouldn’t be doing this work, because they are unacceptable for Mohammed and the target group, we must understand that, end of story.

Here is the definition problem:

1. Europe's birthrate among its ethnically European citizens has fallen far below the replacement rate (2.1 births per woman).

2. Europe provides an extremely generous network of social services to those who live there (citizens and legal residents and even illegal aliens).

3. Advanced in medical science are extending the human life span.

4. Europe's left-wing socialist employment laws make it risky and expensive to hire new workers so businesses try to get along with as few workers as possible.

5. Europe's high taxes and strict regulation put further curbs on the growth of its economy.

The result of these factors is that the percentage of European citizens and residents who are receiving benefits from their governments versus those paying taxes in to their governments is growing every year. An ever smaller pool of workers is being taxed to support an ever larger number of people who contribute nothing economically to their society.

Very soon most of the nations in Europe will reach the point where they can no longer afford to maintain the comfortable socialist welfare states which they have constructed for themselves. Unless Europeans begin to reproduce again in numbers significantly higher than the replacement rate Europe will soon find itself faced with two choices.

1. Allow much higher rates of immigration because even with the already high rate of immigration into Europe there aren't enough working people to sustain the European economy at its current rate of social welfare spending.

2. Abandon the welfare state and return Europe to a laissez-faire system in which everyone is expected to provide for himself and the only social safety net is that provided by private charity.

Europeans have consistently proven themselves to be completely unwilling to abandon the welfare state. Even the smallest hint of any reform which would mean fewer benefits is met with massive outpourings of public anger. Even the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French was provoked mainly by a fear on the part of the French population that allowing easier access to the French economy by Eastern Europeans would have the net effect of lowering the level of government services available to Frenchmen.

An unwillingness to give up welfare state benefits means that Europe must accept greater and greater numbers of immigrants. But because of those generous benefits and socialist employment laws 40% of the immigrants wind up on the dole rather than gainfully employed. This serves to increase the number of immigrants which will be needed to sustain the economy.

The immigrants seeking to come to Europe are overwhelmingly Muslims from North Africa, Turkey, Pakistan and the Muslim part of Central Europe. They have no desire to assimilate into European society and the Europeans have no desire to see them assimilate. These Muslims are being radicalized by Saudi supplied clerics (their number 2 export after crude oil) in Islamic centers and mosques, often supported by grants from the European governments. These Muslim immigrants view their residence in Europe as colonization which will lead to ultimate domination. To them the welfare payments they receive are a form of the jizra (the tax which non-Muslims owe to Muslims for the privilege of living in an Islamic nation without converting - to them Europe is already Muslim).

The average European man and woman in the street does not like the Muslims and wishes to be rid of them. However they remain steadfastly against any diminution of the welfare state. At the root of the problem is that fact that the average European will not even face the fact that the welfare state is unsustainable. They cannot force themselves to face the fact that the 35 hour workweek and the three months of paid vacation every year and the free health care and the subsidised housing and the early retirement age with a pension amounting to around 80% of their working salary are ridiculous extravagances which even a nation as economically strong as the United States could not continue to pay for for long.

To the average European the welfare state is how things are, how they always should have been and, above all, how they must remain. But they're really tired of all those hateful Muslims. So tired in fact that there have already been some outbreaks of anti-Muslim violence (as reactions to Muslim violence). So Europe's choices are to keep the welfare state and allow mass immigration until the continent explodes or stop immigration and wait until the demographic time-bomb triggers an economic implosion with the following misery and unrest until a totalitarian state modeled after either Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia rises from the ashes.