100 years of genocide


Today marks the 100 year anniversary of the Ottoman genocide of an estimated 2 million Christian Armenians and Syrians. The anniversary comes at a time when a second genocide is in full swing, once again carried out by monsters targeting civilians based entirely on their faith. 

The issue is highly relevant because politicians tend to have great difficulty separating aggressors from victims, and Sweden is among the worst at lumping the two together and treat them all as a homogenous group. It is shameful and downright stupid, since it denies aid to those who need it, while allowing fortune seekers and trojan horses to cross the borders freely. 

NATO-member Turkey still denies the genocide, and gives its implicit blessing for todays massacres by turning a blind eye to ISIS acitivity in the border region with Syria.

I encourage you to read more at A Demand for Action



Tino Sanandaji: Things are not going well for Sweden


Tino Sanandaji is a Kurdish-Swedish economist with a solid list of credentials including a PhD from University of Chicago. He has made a name for himself in Sweden by doing the unthinkable: Speaking the truth about the devastating financial impact of Sweden’s bizarre mass-immigration experiment. 

Unfortunately, most of his exquisite skewering of the official line on Sweden’s supposedly excellent financial health is in Swedish. That’s why I’m pleased to have been granted permission to translate his latest analysis, which may provide a bit of counterweight to the generally accepted, rose-tinted version being pushed in Europe and elsewhere. 

Things are not going well for Sweden


The Director General of the Employment Office recently warned that welfare funding requires a net immigration of about 100,000 per year going forward. Around the same time the new health budget was released. It is interesting to contrast the Employment Office’s image with how [Swedish Finance Minister] Magdalena Andersson’s own budget describes the Swedish economy.

Firstly, we note that instead of catching up with the native-born, the immigrants have lost further ground in terms of income:

“The position of the foreign-born in the income distribution has worsened between 1995 and 2013 (see Table 2.3). One reason for this is that the immigration structure has changed over time. From being almost totally dominated by labor migration, the refugee and family immigration has come to represent an increasing share of immigration since the 1990s.”

Another piece of exciting news is that migrants’ income mobility has fallen slightly, while other people’s income mobility has increased. Normally, lower incomes tend to have greater potential for income upward mobility. Instead of the higher mobility as the group has integrated immigrants income mobility decreased.

“The results suggest that the movement may have increased marginally for several groups over the period 1995-2013. For foreign-born, however, the mobility slightly lower during the latter part. The shift towards increased refugee immigration during the 2000s has probably contributed to this. The employment rate in this group is lower and the income development worse than average within the group of foreign-born.”

Economists measure the growth in prosperity with GDP per capita. A few months ago I pointed out that [former Finance Minister] Anders Borg had taken the unorthodox decision to simply not recognize the standard measure of GDP per capita in his budget. Data on per capita GDP can not be found in the government report for the period 2006-2014 that the Alliance [the allegedly conservative government coalition previously in power] went to the polls on. Ander Borg must have been ashamed to show that growth in per capita GDP between 2006-2014 was an unimpressive 0.3%. Measured from 2007, the growth was negative. Magdalena Andersson’s budget is to her virtue is not quite as disreputable that Anders Borgs, and GDP per capita is omce again displayed. 

“Per capita GDP is a measure of the economic standard of living that better illustrates how increased production is allocated on a per capita average. Despite some recovery after the financial crisis, GDP per capita was no higher in 2014 than in 2007.”


[Text above: The most common measure of economic growth is GDP growth. However, simple GDP growth over time is no guarantee that the citizens enjoy a higher standard of living. GDP growth also has to be related to the population growth. GDP per capita shows the production divided by the number of citizens and can thus be used to measure economic standard of living. 

The growth of GDP per capita has stagnated. 

Real GDP per capita increased by 1 percent on average per year from 1980 to 2007. In conjunction with the beginning to the financial crisis, when the GDP growth dipped considerably, the GDP per capita also fell (see graph 3.2). Despite some recovery, the GDP per capita was not higher 2014 than 2007, despite a GDP growth of 6 percent. By this measurement, the standard of living has not increased during this period.

Productivity is important for GDP per capita to increase

Long term, the productivity development is the determinant for the GDP growth and thus also GDP per capita. Then productivity is mostly determined by technological advances such as digitalization. The technological development is usually driven by investments, material as well as immaterial. Political decisions may impact the long term productivity levels, for example through taxation, the education system, research and patent laws.

The growth of GDP per capita usually move in tandem with productivity (see graph 3.3). The poor development of GDP per capita since 2007 is thus caused by weak productivity devlopment coupled with strong population growth. The increase in population has not been matched by an increase in hours worked.]

The world economic crisis is of course an important reason for the weak growth. But contrary to the often repeated claim that Sweden has the strongest economy in Europe, or even of all comparable countries, growth per capita below the OECD average. Half of the OECD countries grew faster per capita than Sweden.

Seven years of negative GDP growth is unparalleled in the Swedish post-war period. Likewise, there is no eight-year period with lower GDP growth than 2006-2014. It is a fascinating sign of our times that [former Prime Minister] Reinfeldt and Borg were allowed to portray the worst period in living memory as some sort of golden era of growth. After all, checking this is not more complicated than clicking on a table on the SCB website and see how real GDP inflation-adjusted prices has evolved.


An important explanation for the negative growth in GDP per capita is a disastrous development of productivity. The Spring budget states: “Productivity growth in business (calendar-adjusted) averaged 0.2 percent per year from 2007 to 2014.”

Again, there is no seven-year period with such weak productivity growth in the Swedish post-war period. Like the GDP per capita, overall productivity has been weaker in Sweden than the OECD average. The explanation for the per capita GDP being even worse than productivity per hour worked is that the recent population growth has not led to a proportional increase in hours worked:

“The weak growth in GDP per capita since 2007 thus depends on productivity has been weak, while population growth has been strong. Population growth has not been matched by an equal increase in the number of hours worked. “

Meanwhile, some good news in the budget is that refugee migration costs, er, investment in welfare funding continues to soar. Costs for initial reception of asylum seekers are recognized in the budget posts “Migration” and “Integration and Equality”. These asylum-related items increased from a historical level of around just under 10 billion per year to an estimated 49 billion in 2018.

By the way, don’t let yourselves be fooled by the name of the line “Integration and Equality”. Only about one percent of the cost are actually gender-related expenditures, while the rest consists of expenditure items such as municipal compensation and that in everyday language called “welfare”. A novelty in the budget is that the government intends to change the name of the category of “Equality and newly arrived immigrants establishment”.


Post 8: Migration

Post 13: Integration and Equality

In Magdalena Andersson’s budget proposal six months ago, the estimated costs of asylum reception between the years 2015-2018 was set to 153 billion SEK. In the spring budget, costs have been revised upwards and is now estimated to end up at 172 billion from 2015 to 2018.

While on the topic, we may note the just-concluded intense defense funding negotiations. Fredrik Reinfeldt often pointed out that we live in a more uncertain environment than we have in a long time, and consequently underfunded the Swedish defense. Now the defense appropriations have increased by 10.2 billion over five years, ie about 2 billion per year. The upward revision alone for the costs of asylum reception the past six months is twice as large as the increase in funding for the repository to 2020.

The past few years have been the worst Sweden experienced in the postwar period in term of productivity and growth of GDP per capita. This has coincided with the fastest immigration in Sweden’s history. This does not prove itself to record immigration caused the poor economic development, post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is possible to indirectly deduce that immigration is probably only a contributing explanation for the poor growth. Other explanations include the crisis in the business environment, weak export growth and a restrictive monetary policy related to unhealthy signs in the housing market. Time will tell whether a more expansionary monetary policy and the recovery of economic activity will lift GDP growth again.

It is also important to know how bad things have actually turned in Sweden. One reason is that variations on the myth that Sweden has the strongest economy in Europe is used to argue that the immigration policy can’t have any negative economic consequences.

One example is the member of parliament Fredrik Schulte of New Moderates [formerly the ruling party led by Fredrik Reinfeldt]. In an article four months ago he wrote: “Sweden has since 2006 had the strongest economic growth among comparable countries. Excepting commodity-driven economies such as Norway and Australia, we’ve had among the strongest growth rate and the highest productivity. Similarly, we have among the highest employment growth (and the highest employment rate in the EU), had a significant reduction of societal exclusion, increased resources for the welfare and as one of few countries have reduced our debt. Sweden has not only performed better than comparable countries, but is also a richer and more prosperous country than we were eight years ago – also in relation to the population increase. Whether this is independent of, thanks to, or in spite of immigration is the subject of discussion, but there is no doubt that Sweden is one of the world’s most welcoming countries, and also the most successful.”

The image of reality as the New Moderates are using to defend its immigration policy is mostly untethered fantasy. For example, Shulte speaking of “high productivity” among comparable countries despite the pathetically low productivity increase of 0.2% and below the OECD average.

The Employment Office report is similarly based on the idea that integration is significantly improved. The Employment Office withholds that the increase in employment in the already modest 2 percent, in practice corresponds with more people simply being put into labor market policy measures. The Employment Office are not talking about and perhaps are not even aware of the already soaring income gap between immigrants and native-born. Welfare and public services are financed with real revenue and taxes, not more politically created measures to occupy people.

Arguing that “we will be more people working,” or that Sweden will “have more taxpayers” by population growth does not increase wealth. The reason is taught at secondary school level: The wealth of nations is not determined by the size of their population, but by its average productivity. Sweden has in recent years experienced a large increase in population, a phenomenon that many developing countries are well familiar with. Instead of focusing on increasing productivity, the Alliance put its efforts into increasing the population; something they pretended was synonymous with “growth”. Having Bangladesh and Nigeria as role models in economic policy did not, however, make Sweden a richer country.

As I said, recent years have been the worst Sweden ever experienced in the postwar period in terms of growth in prosperity and productivity. This did not stand in the way of the concocted image of the Reinfeldt years as some sort of golden age of economic growth. Instead of examining the rulers’ claims, the journalists helped to uncritically spread the Alliance fantasies all the way into the 2014 election. For example, as far as I know, not a single journalist asked Anders Borg why the state budget no longer used the standard measure of GDP per capita.

Magdalena Andersson however, has no interest in hiding Reinfeldt and Borg’s fiasco, which meant that the Treasury has again started to report GDP per capita. Nevertheless, there are still many who stubbornly cling to the image that things are going well for Sweden. Anyone with skills sufficient enough to click on a link to SCB or OECD have long been able to reveal that it is not true that Sweden would have the best growth and strongest economy. Yet the myth was repeated as a mantra in an echo chamber, because everyone else also repeated it. “It is known” that Dothrakis would have said.

Many journalists and politicians seem to sincerely believe that recent years has been characterized by rapid growth in GDP per capita and productivity. One possible explanation is that the Swedish government finances fared better than many continental countries after the 1990s crisis, primarily due to the consolidation of public finances. It is possible journalists confuse the public debt with what had happened to the economy at large. Another explanation may be that those in leadership positions tend to be high earners and have seen their incomes grow. All this is somewhat humorous and would be easy to mock. That these delusions survived in the debate also shows that many rulers themselves are ill informed and do not know what they are doing. Sweden has embarked on a radical migration experiment that no other developed state has ever done, and it appears they have done so blindly.

Tino Sanandaji

Editor’s notes in [brackets]. Also note that these numbers and much more is publicly available at ekonomifakta.se and scb.se for verification for anyone interested to read more.

“Terrorists are people too”


The headline above is the verbatim headline of today’s editorial in Aftonbladet, one of Sweden’s major national newspapers. 

I could stop right there. But let’s take a look at the arguments presented. The Swedish article is based heavily on the ideas of French prefect Pierre N’Gahane, originally from Congo. 

According to N’Gahane, the main reason for young muslims “going Jihad” is that they’re utter failures at life. Not having a father figure coupled with failures at petty crime make them vulnerable for recruitment to ISIS. Of course, poverty and social handicaps can be a contributing factor, but is not the main reason. Neither is religion (!) apparently. 

Thus, the proper way to combat Jihadism is by assembling civil society to divert young men just starting out down the dark path, similar to how families can join forces to break impressionable youth away from loon cults. And in all fairness, this probably works in many cases. Half-hearted Jihadists-to-be mostly looking for attention just may pull back from the chasm if shown ample compassion and support.

The problem is when the soft approach is presented as the ONLY solution, as is being done here. It’s all silk gloves, with no iron fist to back it up when the soft approach has failed. Furthermore, recent acts of terror doesn’t jive with any of this. The Boston marathon bombing, the most lethal terrorist attack since 9/11, was carried out by a scholarship medical student with a bright future as a brain surgeon ahead of him for example. I doubt a “Jihadist defection hotline” would have done much good there.

“We must make these people a better offer than the Jihadists can.”

This article, being fed to a sizable percentage of the Swedish population, talks exclusively about the benefits of providing support and making a better offer than ISIS. It also praises the merits of giving preferential treatment to “reintegrated” ISIS fighters returning from the Syrian battlefields. Which is of course morally unpalatable (replace “fanatical ISIS butchers” with “fanatical Nazi SS butchers” and try it on for size) and directly counterproductive, since it merely makes a stint of ISIS-service a shrewd fast-track strategy for skipping to the front of the line for jobs and housing upon return.

Imagine being a member of the Christian minority having fled the massacres of Syria, made it to Sweden, and then seeing your brother’s killer not only being let back into the country, but getting rewarded for services rendered. This has been real in Sweden since 2013.

Giving radical islamists a blanket excuse with only pampering as the appropriate response is just as dumb as those who declare islam a “death cult” arguing they should all be executed for safety’s sake. All 1,6 billion of them. Yes, these fine specimens pop up occasionally in both the Twitter-flow and the comments inbox. Delete/Block. Kapow.

But seriously, is it really that difficult to grasp that extremism can’t be coddled into submission?

Swedish discrimination


I have mentioned the lopsided hate-crime laws in Sweden before. Simply put, a group of immigrants can give an ethnical Swede a severe beat-down while declaring: “We are kicking your ass because you’re white!” and it is NOT a hate-crime. 

Likewise, when two minority groups commit obvious hate crimes against each other, it is not classified as such as it contradicts the basic premise of non-whites always being the victims. If one minority group was to shoulder the role of aggressors in one case, it would lead to the possibility of having the same apply in another scenario where the victim was white. And we can’t have that. Thus, It is ONLY when a white person does or says anything that the law applies.

Today I’d like to share a little anecdote on the booming business of the Swedish discrimination industry, which work along the same general strokes as the hate-crime laws. There are a million and one way for Swedes to discriminate against immigrants, but the reverse simply does not exist. 

To enforce all this, there is a Discrimination Ombudsman. This is a government branch that operates outside the confines of the traditional justice system, yet has far-reaching authority to fine and sue private citizens for any and all perceived discrimination. The services are free to the “victims,” but the citizens trying to defend themselves must pay for all legal costs out of pocket. 

Simply put, it’s can’t-lose proposition for the “victims” — whenever they can conjure up “discrimination”, they simply file a claim with the DO. If the ombudsman succeeds, they get awarded with a fat, tax-free settlement, and if they lose, it doesn’t cost a dime. Then you just have to find something new to get upset about, and take another free spin at the wheel of fortune again. 

One such case was recently decided in court, where a doctor was fined 75 000 SEK for discrimination, because the patient refused to shake his hand.

We’ll walk through the situation from the start. A woman was scheduled for a non-emergency exam. The husband demanded to be present in the room, as was a translator since they didn’t speak Swedish. The male doctor extended his hand upon arrival. The woman glanced at her husband who shook his head, and the woman refused to shake the doctors hand.

Refusing an extended hand is a sign of grave disrespect in the western world, and the doctor politely informed the woman that it was common practice for a doctor and his patient to shake hands before an exam. No sale.

If the husband wouldn’t even allow his wife to shake the hand of the doctor, it seemed unlikely that he would be able to perform the exam. And since it was a non-emergency, the doctor left the room to reschedule the patient with a female doctor to avoid further culture clashes. 

To a sensible person, this would appear like the doctor kept a cool head and defused a potentially troublesome situation. But to DO and the court, this was an act of outrageous discrimination! Not only did he try to shake a muslim woman’s hand, he delayed a non-emergency procedure by rescheduling with a female doctor! Double whammy!

From the court ruling:

“According to the District Court, a doctor is just such a position where thorough care can be expected. It can also be expected that patients in contact with the health care system is met with respect and in a non-discriminatory manner, regardless of religious background.”

Somehow, it feels like not much more needs to be added.

Sacrificing 1000 to save 1


It is often said that politics is the art of setting priorities and allocating common resources. Since the tax coffer is no bottomless well, it is the politician’s duty to ascertain that resources, including foreign aid, are distributed to benefit the maximum amount of people. In Sweden, the politicians are working in the other direction.

Sweden prides itself on being a “Humanitarian Superpower” and has provided generous aid to third world countries for decades. But now that the immigration floodgates have been opened, the skyrocketing cost of harboring hundreds of thousands of new arrivals within Swedens borders are forcing the government to divert money from the actual foreign aid. 

While the specifics are yet to be determined, the government estimates that a fifth of the foreign aid money will now go to offset the domestic costs. Not surprisingly, several foreign aid organizations are protesting loudly about getting de-funded. But hey, it’s the same money being spent, so what’s the big deal if it goes here or there?

Simply put, it’s a matter of how much bang you’re getting for your buck. 

Some foreign aid initiatives are long-term projects for combating poverty (the source of most ills in the developing world,) which may prevent the humanitarian disaster of tomorrow by allowing those countries to build the infrastructure to handle the next drought or similar crisis on their own. Water purification and vaccination programs for kids are also common.

But perhaps the most urgent and tangible part of foreign aid are the vast amounts of people huddled in miserable refugee camps surrounding the Syria/Iraq warzone. While the exact per-person costs vary between locations and aid organizations, it usually only costs a few dollars per day to keep these vulnerable people alive and somewhat sheltered. Clean water, a tent, food packets, emergency medical care. Basic stuff. But life-and-death nonetheless for the poor bastards sitting there in the desert with only their clothes on their backs.

But none of this is a priority to Swedish politicians. In fact, there are no second thoughts about literally pulling BILLIONS from these people, and instead maintaining the insanely expensive immigration program for those who had the means to bribe their way through 6-7 countries only to end up in the tiny Nordic country a full continent away. 

I strongly recommend reading Merit Wagers excellent blog for numerous real-life examples of how the Swedish asylum system is being abused, and the massive costs for sustaining these brazen frauds. But one category that I find most galling is the “unaccompanied child refugees”.

These are a special category of refugees with much higher chance of getting asylum. Since they’re minors, they also get much higher class housing with 24/7 assistants waiting on them. Naturally, the cost for this category is considerably higher than regular asylum seekers. The normal cost is between 3000 and 6000 SEK ($350-700) per day per child, but in some circumstances it can skyrocket upwards 15 000 SEK ($1750) per day. But these are kids we’re talking about, right? Like these:


Present day refugee children.


Or these. During World War II, some 70 000 Finnish children were sent to Sweden to escape the horrors of war.

Who could possibly argue against taking in these helpless children? Wellllll… There are a few problems here. First off, almost nobody has ID upon arrival, so nobody really has any idea who the person really is or how old he (usually a male) really is. And unlike the other Nordic countries, Sweden stubbornly refuses to age-test. So anyone hoping to get fast-tracked to a granted visa can claim to be a minor, and due to fear of being called a racist, nobody calls them on it. The results are sometimes downright comical.


Here is a 14-year old little boy running at a school in Kristianstad. You can read the full article in the local newspaper here, where the reporter is just marveling over how fast he is!


Here is another 14-year old child, interviewed by state-owned radio P4.


This is the prime minister (second from right) visiting a home for refugee children


More helpless little tykes.


…But at least some are given a teddy bear to comfort themselves.

All jest aside, this is of course absurd. The other Nordic countries also saw the rise in “children” knocking on their doors, and did the sensible thing: had their doctors run a simple age test by measuring bones and/or checking teeth. In Denmark, 3 out of 4 “children” arriving the first months of 2012 turned out to be adults. Norway got the same results; 3 out of 4. Finland “only” turned out to have 65% frauds, but still took the cake by having a 29-year old posing as a minor.

As a result, there has since been a sharp decrease in “children” arriving to the other Nordic countries. Only Sweden, which stubbornly refuses to age-test, is seeing a continued rise. The graph below is somewhat outdated; it only shows Sweden up until 2013. The prediction for 2015 is a whopping 6000. 


But hey, the poor bastards in the refugee camps can comfort themselves knowing that the Humanitarian Superpower is doing its part to make this a better world.

The Pacifist Defense


FI party leader, ex-communist and public drunkard Gudrun Schyman

According to Swedish political party FI, the Feminist Initiative, the best way for Sweden to safeguard itself against aggressive neighbor Russia is to dismantle the last few batallions that still remain of the defense. Instead, Sweden should “go pacifist” and focus on combating racism and domestic violence. This, the party argues, will solve the problem of Russian jets practicing bombing runs on Swedish targets and repeated visits by Russian submarines in the waters of Stockholm.

If the preceding paragraph made you go “Huh?”, let me assure you that you’re not alone. I have written about loon party FI before, with their certifiably insane party program (all men to be sent to indoctrination camps, sex ed for preschoolers and much, much more) and their creative explanation for international terrorism (they’re MEN, damnit!

Honestly, it’s starting to feel like poking fun at a retard. But this particular retard happens to have seats in many local governments (including Stockholm) and has a good chance of gaining seats in parliament next election. FI has been actively promoted by music artists like Pharrell and Robyn, and just this week received an adoring and largely uncritical promotional piece by BBC. And they just won’t shut up nor come to their senses, so I have no choice but to once again put the spotlight on the baffling results of when a group of Swedish feminists put their heads together.

Without further ado, here is party leader Gudrun Schyman and her inner circle dealing with the national defense:

“The core of our security policy is about creating security for the people. But today there is a growing perception that security is all about which nation or group that can scrounge up the greatest military force. But safety is never achieved by ramping up systemic violence. Instead, this is achieved by countering these systems of violence, protect battered people and deal with the causes of violence.

Weapons and militarism is rarely a solution to a conflict, and armed conflicts between nations are not the biggest security threat either in Sweden or globally. Militarism is nourished by masculinity norms and have the same mechanisms as the other structural violence against people. Violence is about exercising power, and this is something that boys and men are taught goes with being both patriotic and being a masculine man.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), men’s domestic violence claim more deaths each year than all the world’s armed conflicts together or any epidemic ever made and this is a serious security issue. In Sweden, 17-20 women are killed annually on average by a man in a close or formerly close relationship.

At the same time we have a global structural racism, where a white minority since the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism continues to broadcast the notion that white people are the norm for humanity. A structural global racism than today in the expression of hate crimes, violence and murder and goes hand in hand with a global order in which countries in the West believe they have the right to cause havoc with military means in countries in the East and South.

We need an innovative security policy that puts the focus on the causes of violence and its context if we are going to meet it with better policy and targeted interventions. UN urges its member states to dramatically reduce their military budgets and instead give priority to efforts to combat the global problem of security violence in close relationships. In response to hate crimes against afro-Swedes, Jews and Muslims te UN is sharply critical of Sweden, with a call to strengthen the work against hate crime.”

And that’s how Sweden can thumb its nose at those silly Russians on the other side of the narrow Baltic sea and settle back in absolute safety. 

Any questions?

Former PM Reinfeldt campaigning for archenemy SD


Fredrik Reinfeldt started out reasonably well when he took the helm of Moderaterna, the conservative party that has acted as a bulwark against the worst excesses of the loony left over the decades. Indeed, he dusted off the cobwebs and brought the old core values of fiscal responsibility, tough-on-crime and business friendliness into the new age by reshaping Moderaterna into “New Moderaterna” (don’t laugh, it actually worked a little despite the name.)

He won the election in 2006, formed a government in an alliance with three small, semi-conservative parties (giving it the imaginative name “The Alliance”) and did pretty well for a while. Overall taxes went down, the rampant abuse of welfare entitlements was hemmed in, and nobody can have missed that Sweden weathered the eurocrisis with flying colors thanks to strict fiscal discipline.

Then he started going off the rails soon after the election in 2010. 

The Sweden Democrats, SD, was a tiny, marginal party that managed to squeak themselves past the 4% mark and make it into parliament for the first time. 

Now, SD is a party sprung from the shady depths of the tiny but definitely existing white supremacy-movement. But what led them from the extremist fringes and into parliament is partly a cleaning-up process by the new leader Jimmie Åkesson where the dregs were unceremoniously kicked out, but mostly because people started questioning why Swedish immigration policy was so much more generous than the neighboring countries. 

Simply put, it became a protest vote because none of the established parties would even discuss that perhaps it was time to dial things back a little to manageable levels. And at just over five percent, SD had zero practical impact on anything except making noise. It could have been as simple as letting it be the wakeup call for the “real” parties to get their act together and listen to the voters. Had the conservative parties with Reinfeldt’s Moderaterna in the lead simply adjusted the refugee inflow to the levels of the other Nordic countries, it is my belief that SD would have faded out into the periphery once again.

But Reinfeldt chose to do the polar opposite. 

Leading up to the 2010 election he made a big deal of portraying this liliputian party as the Enemy To Be Defeated, giving them a lot of free publicity. It’s like a 120 lb pitbull posturing before a 50 lb poodle; it just makes people curius about the poodle. He went on the record to state that he loathed them to the point where he refused to “touch them with pliers,” an expression equivalent to the famous 10-foot pole.

Despite Åkessons continued expulsions of unsavory elements and imposing an official zero-tolerance policy against racism, the party continued to be harassed by the leftist radicals with vandalism and beatings. In the aftermath of one such attack Reinfeldt went on the record condoning political violence against SD.

“I oppose all forms of violence and threats,” He started out, in what one would expect to the be the boilerplate condemnation all politicians utter when a colleague is targeted. Then came the “But”. Reinfeldt went on to accuse SD of being “devisive,” “only serving their own interests” and “feigning vulnerability”. “[Because of their politics] …they should not be surprised when things like this happen,” he said about the case where extreme leftists from Antifa (AFA) had invaded a SD candidates home, beat him and carved a swastika into his forehead. 

This is a truly remarkable position for the leader of a democratic country. The implied blessing to physically harm anyone active in SD continues to this day, where a number of local politicans have been subjected to everything from slashed tires to torched houses. 


Nima Gholam Ali Pour

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is one of them. He is a local SD politician in Malmö, and has been beat up twice for the explicit reason that he is politically involved. Yes, he is of foreign descent. So is a significant percentage of the current SD voters. But that doesn’t matter to the members of the “antiracist” Antifa movement. 

Let’s just pause there for a second and ponder a very simple scene: A group of masked young white Swedes are kicking a dark-skinned man laying on the ground. But this is not a hate crime. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The masked white Swedes are doing a good and noble thing for the antifascist cause, because the dark-skinned man on the ground is a contemptible racist. 

Yes. In Sweden, this perverse line of reasoning doesn’t only make sense, it’s mainstream. Or at least, up to a point. Then the levee breaks, common sense rushes in, and SD gains another sympathy vote as a backlash against the absurd justification for political violence. But I digress. 

Reinfeldt was furious after SD managed to get into parliament. Despite his numerous aggressive speeches and grandstanding to show off his hate of SD, the stupid voters still voted them in. The nerve! It’s time to punish the voters for being so disobedient! And what better way to do that than opening the floodgates for largely unemployable immigrants from MENA? Ha-HA! Take THAT, voters!

In early 2011, Reinfeldt struck a deal with green party MP that dramaticially lowered the bar for being granted asylum and residence, and in effect abolished the need for new arrivals to be able to support their extended families when bringing them over. Uncle and Grandma was now not only rubberstamped in, they also went straight on the government dole. 

The traditional conservatives, the core of Moderaterna, were alarmed and puzzled. How does this rhyme with the normal pragmatic and cautious way? What is the game plan here? And things went downhill from there. In 2013, Sweden announced to the world that anyone claiming to be from Syria was to be granted permanent asylum, no IDs required. The migration bureau doubled and tripled in size, hiking the forecasts again and again. Housing grew increasingly scarce leading to ghettos, social tensions in the ghettos hit the boiling point with rioting. Guns, drugs, and crime on levels previously unheard of in the sleepy little country up north were starting to make world headlines. What was going on?

As election 2014 drew near, Reinfeldt held a historic speech. In many M-voters heads, this was the time in the spotlight when he had the chance to redeem himself by unveiling the unknown game plan for this puzzling behavior. How would Sweden gain from taking in ten times as many uneducated asylum-seekers as the European average? How DID these skyrocketing expenses jive with the traditional fiscal discipline?

Answer: It doesn’t, and they didn’t. Reinfeldt admitted that the immigration was enormously expensive. “We won’t be able to afford anything except immigration in the years ahead!” he said. But he urged people to “open their hearts” anyway, for humanitarian reasons. 

Not surprisingly, this didn’t sit well with conservatives who not only shoulder among the heaviest tax burdens in the world, but also see an alarming increase of foreigners going straight onto a lifetime on the government dole. Making matters worse is the knowledge that the vast majority are in fact NOT refugees, as defined by UNHCR, but rather poor people merely seeking a better standard of living. 

Rather than salvaging the situation, Reinfeldt decisively set fire to the tree he was sitting in. A few weeks later he lost the election in a spectacular fashion, where a good chunk of the core voters jumped ship to the only party that pushed for a return to sane immigration. 


2010 results in pale grey. Note how the big drop in M went straight to SD. Almost every third SD-voter came from M in 2014.

All the other parties had jumped on the SD-condemnation bandwagon, and were now painted into a corner where they HAD to keep singing the praises of unlimited immigration from MENA. Since they had accused SD for being racist and fascist for wanting to harmonize with the rest of Europe, they couldn’t just turn on a dime and propose the same thing themselves. Mainstream media, with it’s heavy left-slant would have crucified any politician daring to leave the corner as well.

Meanwhile, the welfare system crumbled and social tensions continued to build. SD grew from 5,7% in 2010 to 12,9% in Sept. 2014, and are now polling just south of the 20% range. Clearly, something is very much broken in Sweden. It shouldn’t even be possible for a small party to come out of nowhere and in a few years get to the point where it’s only a matter of months before they unseat Moderaterna as the second biggest party.

And here’s the kicker: Most of SDs meteoric rise stems not from their own work, but because all the other parties have locked themselves into an untenable position that grants SD a fantastic monopoly on common sense. It’s like if you went to a job interview, and every other applicant in the waiting room were chugging vodka straight from the bottle. You’d have to make an effort NOT to get the job!

At this point, all but the most idealistic lefties agree that the country is buckling under the pressure. There ARE no more apartments. The hospitals CAN’T handle more patients. The schools CAN’T absorb more kids being dropped into class without warning and without speaking a word of Swedish. The country has ran out of runway and spent the buffers; the crash is imminent, and almost everyone sees it.

But the other seven parties insist that there should be another 600 000 people coming between now and 2019. Backing down is racist, and the politician breathing a word about abandoning the “humanitarian” line is toast. So we must stay the course, all the way down into the bedrock. 

And so, almost every month is a new record for SD, being the only option for anyone capable of fifth grade math or better. I doubt the vast majority of all those new SD-voters jumped ship because of any particular love for the party; it’s a simple process of elimination where the choice is to cast a blank vote, or vote for SD. 

Personally, I think ALL politicians are scum. I distrust anyone who seeks office, for the simple reason that the desire to grab power (and being manipulative enough to outmaneuver the other ten aspiring candidates) is disqualifying right then and there. Belonging to a political party means you have to buy into a package deal where you may not support more than 80% and perhaps 5% runs counter to what you know to be true in your heart. But even though I would never join a political party of any kind, I would be especially disinclined to join SD. 

Simply put, I don’t trust the guys at the top. At all. Some are old-timers from the white supremacy days, others are opportunists seizing the rising tide. I believe there are still snakes hiding under a polished facade, secretly still harboring a pencheant for fondling the SS-dagger hidden in the bottom sock drawer. The survivors of the relentless media scrutiny has merely learned to run silent and run deep, not unlike a Jihadist sleeper cell.

Some show signs of plain old stupidity and poor moral fiber. Mattias Karlsson, the temporary party leader during Åkessons sick leave, reached out to leftist extremists Expo — an organization dedicated to discrediting SD and finding dirt on its members — asking for help to eliminate internal competition within the party. And that’s the top guy running the show as of this writing.

Meanwhile, most local politicians and the vast majority of SD voters are simply your traditional conservatives wishing for an end to the madness with nowhere else to turn. Ethnical Swedes and immigrants alike are literally forced to SD. They didn’t turn their backs on their previous parties; the previous parties turned their backs on them by drinking Reinfeldt’s cool-aid.

So what I’m seeing is a huge mass of regular conservatives with a small clique of scum sitting pretty atop it all. Time and time again, the Swedish media unearths scandals where SD leaders are found writing racist shit online, being caught on tape waving aluminum rods downtown a saturday night preparing for a fight, or even unearthing old pictures with people literally wearing swastika armbands (!) — and it doesn’t matter!! 

No matter WHAT Researchgruppen or any other dirt-digger comes up with, it will not change the basic reason all these hundreds of thousand voters jumped ship. Every time the newspapers run a new scandal, they always have “experts” predicting the imminent demise of the party. And every time, they end up frustrated and baffled that SD continues to grow despite it all. 

I find it highly concerning that the sleek, young leadership of SD gains so much power. The official party program is a perfectly ordinary centrist piece of ho-hum by European standards. The main difference is that they advocate heavy efforts to restore defense (desperately needed), which in turn is paid for by reducing immigration to normal European levels. Nothing to object to there. But I for one would sleep a heckuva lot better if those policies were implemented by a bunch of older conservatives that didn’t have any supremacist roots.

Meanwhile, I find it puzzling in the extreme as to what the other parties are waiting for. SD will be the largest party by next election, and half (or more) of the small parties will be pushed out of parliament and fade into oblivion. So what would these small guys have to lose by listening to the voters and halt to bleeding to SD? In fact, I am convinced any one of them, like the Christ Democrat party KD, could yank itself away from the 4%-abyss and hit double digits in a matter of weeks should they just decide to drop the prestige. 

But so far, the preferred method to combat SDs growth is to yell “Racists!” at every opportunity. This despite the absurdity of claiming 20% of the population woke up one morning and decided to start hating people of color, and in particular because of the stellar results this method has for curbing SDs progress thus far. And let’s not even discuss the logic of accusing the many immigrant SD-voters for being racist against themselves.

Reinfeldt continues to promote SD hard, through his particular method of reverse psychology. Even after he stepped down as PM and party leader of Moderaterna he unleashes nuggets of wisdom so otherworldly that you can hear the membership-counter at SD headquarters rattle merrily in sync with his lips moving.

In December, he reflected on how much open space there was underneath as he flew his private government jet above Sweden. “Endless fields and forests […] There’s more room than one can imagine!” he enthused, arguing the country had virtually limitless capacity to receive ever larger quantities of immigrants. Somehow, I doubt today’s new arrivals from MENA expecting better standard of living would be particularly happy to be handed an axe, a shovel and mule and told to “seek their fortune” in the wild.

Shortly before Christmas, he said: “Sweden belongs to the immigrants — not the Swedes.” One would think that would be clearly out of line, but most Swedes swallowed it. Another quote from the newly elected prime minister in 2006: “The original Swedish culture is merely barbary. All progress has come from outside sources.” (said before a crowd of Syrian immigrants.)

And today he popped up in the news again, arguing that the more people Sweden lets in, the more people will work and benefit society by paying taxes. Even the reporter couldn’t resist pointing out the flaw in that reasoning: While true at 100% employment, it falls flat with the 80% unemployment that some groups are saddled with. 

“The Sweden Democrats argues that one needs to differentiate the immigrants,” the reporter said. “Do you believe that an immigrant engineer in a sector experiencing shortage of skilled labor is more beneficial to the country than an uneducated immigrant trying to get into an already sated job sector?”

Reinfeldt replied that his vision for an open Sweden meant “people of all kinds” could arrive freely, and thus he refused to “divide people in such a manner.”

Imagine that. I hear there’s a shortage of dentists around here. I should go to the local dentistry center and demand to get hired, arguing that it is unjust and immoral to divide people in such a manner. With luck, Reinfeldt will be my first patient.