Let me cut straight to the core here, so we can clear away the simplified narrative and talk about what this is actually about.
This has nothing to do with a "right-wing shift".
When you try to frame it as such, you're finding a way to talk around a real problem.
When you call ordinary concerns "right-wing politics", you move focus away from the issue and onto those asking the questions.
That's not analysis, that's deflection. At worst, it's a way to manipulate you.
The only reason it can even be framed as a question of "right-wing shift" is that in practice, it's almost only the parties on the right who have recognised the problem's existence and speak openly about it - regardless of the quality of their solutions, many of which are poor.
That doesn't make the problem right-wing. It simply means the rest of the political spectrum has either stayed silent or refused to engage with it.
When one side consistently fails to acknowledge a real problem, those who put words to it will automatically be perceived as "fringe" - not because they're extreme, but because they stand alone with the recognition.
The matter is actually quite simple -
The welfare state doesn't function just because there are hands for the work. It functions because we have high trust in each other, because most people follow the rules, because law stands above religion, and because conflicts are resolved peacefully through shared institutions.
Here's what matters -
That it's this way - that isn't something that arises on its own. It's something built up over long time.
When you say welfare is DEPENDENT on foreign labour, you're also really saying the system has already become fragile.
Because dependency (like diversity) isn't strength - it's a warning sign.
You cannot bring people in without simultaneously bringing their norms, values and loyalties. And not all cultures fit into a society built on freedom, equality, secular law and low violence.
To say this aloud, or to sense it without being able to put words to your intuition, isn't hatred. And isn't particularly related to being right-wing.
It's ordinary common sense.
Especially when it comes to Islam, eyes, ears, nose and mouth are often shut. Not because the problems don't exist, but because they're uncomfortable to talk about.
But we must - because Islam isn't only private faith. It's also rules for society, family, gender and law that collide with the way our society is structured.
When a demography carrying this worldview grows significantly in number over time - as has happened in Europe over the last 3-4 decades - it inevitably changes what exists. Not as a question of will or intention, but as a completely natural consequence of scale.
The demographic changes that have occurred in Europe through sustained immigration during this period are, in tempo and scope, without parallel in modern European history. To point this out isn't a value judgement, but a sober observation.
And it's what EVERYONE - except the most detached from reality - clearly senses.
That something entirely unprecedented has been underway.
When you then ignore it, as Brian and friends attempt, you do something dangerous -
You place short-term economic gain above society's cohesion.
In the short term you can get more hands. Yes. But in the long term you get more conflicts, more control, more expenses and less trust. As we can see in every society around us where this demography grows.
And that isn't welfare. That's consumption of what has already been built up.
To call resistance to that development a "right-wing shift" is a convenient way to avoid responsibility. It makes it possible to continue without taking a position on the consequences.
It's an immature way to navigate - you reduce complex problems to labels so you don't have to stand accountable for the result yourself.
You cannot import labour without simultaneously importing values, norms and loyalties. And you cannot maintain a Western rule of law if you simultaneously excuse or trivialise the forces that fundamentally oppose its core.
This isn't about right and left.
It's about whether a society will protect the basic rules it itself rests on.
Because history shows one thing again and again.
Societies don't break apart because they lack labour.
They break apart when those who hold power no longer will defend what holds it together.
…
If Brian Mikkelsen can find Danish citizens who generally have something against American, Italian, Brazilian, Polish, Dutch, English, Spanish, Chinese or Australian etc. labour, I'll gladly listen.
It just doesn't exist as any pattern.
What people react to - in Denmark and across all of Europe - isn't nationality, skin colour or passport. It's cultural incompatibility, parallel norms and an experience that the basic rules society rests on are slowly being eroded.
That's why it doesn't hold to speak in broad, imprecise categories like "right-wing shift".
Because it obscures what we're actually talking about.
We're done with the bicycle helmet man's distortions of reality.
If you want to be honest, you must speak concretely - about which values, which norms and which societal forms can function together - and which cannot - without it leading to conflicts, control and dissolution of trust.
Everything else isn't enlightenment.
It's evasion.
https://www.berlingske.dk/politik/brian-mikkelsen-laa-soevnloes-efter-at-have-set-tallene-nu-advarer-han-imod-en-farlig-hoejredrejning
