Monday, November 27, 2017

The Sweden Democrats tell the Truth about Sweden

Turn the English subtitles on and see:

It is important to remember that it wasn’t old-fashioned Swedish social democratic economic policies that did this to Sweden.

Instead, it was the insane Third World mass immigration policies that have imported over a million people into Sweden (whose current population is only about 9.85 million people) who will not assimilate, who create No Go Zones, who have higher per capita rates of crime, and who, if the immigration policies are continued, will drive the country into social and economic collapse, and then civil war, and perhaps even into outright fascism before the mid-21st century.

And the same story is being played out all over the Western world too. Actual relevant politics in the Western world is now divided into:
(1) those who wish to end this insanity immediately, close the borders, and fix this disaster as humanely as possible, and

(2) those sick, deranged human beings – on both the Left and Right – who want to accelerate the civilisational collapse and whose policies will (unknown to them) bring about the far right takeover they supposedly wish to stop.
If actual fascism ever comes to Europe or America, it will be the multicultural Left and multicultural Right who will bear the primary moral responsibility for having brought it about, though their own incompetence, ignorance, stupidity, insanity and delusions.


  1. A social welfare state will always create a drive for immigration from both poorer populations and the capitalist class. It doesn't matter how Nationalist the country is as one can see even face same forces even in Japan. A Direct Employment program should be the only social welfare outside of severe disability.

    1. Have to say I disagree on this one. I would say that its more an issue of culture than of benefits/welfare. If communities and cultures are segregated, (a direct result of cultural relativism) then there will always be problems, with or without a welfare state. I don't think its a case of more Nationalism as much as more integration and less overiding of the rule of law e.g. Sharia courts etc. Even if a welfare state did increase immigration to some degree, is it necessary to construct jobs (leading to the old problem of "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us") and force people who will not work efficiently or reliably? I would say a better option is via integration and laws enforcing such.


  2. Mass migrations as a result of climate change, water shortages and other resource wars, disease, wars of choice, population growth in the societies least able to absorb it, a rise in failed states, etc. have been predicted for decades.

    Norway appears to have a much more sane approach than Sweden (emigres must adopt Norway's values; it's ridiculous that true refugees should be permitted to cross many countries to choose the most generous landing spot; allowing such advantages those who are most ruthless or who have the most money and funds smugglers most of all; it helps many more people and is much more efficient to help people closer to their point of origin; smart phones and social media combined with high birth rates will mean an endless and rising number who will risk the trip).

    The endless number of people who want to be funded by the most advanced societies cannot be yet another excuse to dismantle social welfare protections for citizens.

    Jonathan Haidt makes the excellent point that a liberal democracy can function with a fair amount of diversity. But diversity simply does not work without shared values and a common sense of belonging to a larger (in the familiar words of Benedict Anderson) "imagined community".

  3. A number of the comments here seem to accept mass migration as something unavoidable; an act of God akin to the changing of the tides. I disagree. Mass immigration is a choice. Host nations can choose to accept it or not - as demonstrated by the various reactions in Europe to recent unprecedented levels of migration (Sweden/Germany on the one hand, Eastern Europe on the other). China has the fastest economic growth rate in the world, but accepts relatively tiny numbers of migrants or refugees.

    We are constantly told about the benefits associated with growth and the mass immigration driving it, but I will go so far as to say that virtually all of these alleged benefits are mirages. If there are some scant benefits, they are surely far outweighed by the social, environmental and economic (yes, economic) damage being done to Western nations through immigration.

    Those who benefit from mass immigration are simply the global corporations whose profits are bolstered by bigger populations in corporate friendly countries. And - to a lesser extent - some of the migrants themselves. But as recent events show, some migrants and even their children are happy to be ‘in’ a Western nation but never become ‘of’ it. In such cases, state integration programs are unlikely to be effective, no matter how well intentioned.

    If we, as genuine socialists, want to create better societies for future generations we must recognise mass immigration for the weapon of division that it is. The old Trot maxim that the bosses use racism to divide the working class is bullshit. The ‘bosses’ use mass immigration to keep the working class divided, drive down labour costs and boost sales all at once.

  4. China has an internal refugee issue pretty much on par with Europe. Compare shanghai to come rural parts of China and it's almost as different as nyc is to south American rural communities.

  5. Sure, I accept that. The dislocation caused by so many people moving internally will be a problem for China to manage. But - sensibly - China does not compound its challenges by importing millions of culturally alien people from other parts of the world. Europe and all Western nations could do likewise. Mass immigration is a matter of choice; it’s not inevitable.