Swedish vice PM: Fortune seekers equal to holocaust victims

  
Åsa Romson, vice prime minister and leader of extremist party Miljöpartiet

Last week I wrote about the estimated million Africans attempting to cross the mediterranean in search of a better life. There are pockets of unrest, but not all-out war as is the case in Syria. And regardless, it’s questionable if you’re still “fleeing for your life” when you’ve traveled through 3 peaceful countries and choose to get on a rickety boat to reach Europe. At that point you’re an economic immigrant, not a refugee. 

Official Swedish policy doesn’t agree with my assessment. Pretty much everything counts as grounds for asylum these days including poverty (77% approval rate of all asylum applications), which is incredibly costly and has thus forced the Swedes to make dramatic cuts to the foreign aid to the REAL refugees of war. 

To summarize: Sweden is decreasing support for the people literally dying in miserable refugee camps in the desert, to take in an ever-increasing number of economic fortune seeker from non-warring places that merely wants to get a free ride on Sweden’s generous welfare system. This makes Sweden a “humanitarian superpower,” according to the ruling class.

Their problem with the current system is twofold: The inflow of fortune seekers is too slow (!), and the boats crossing the mediterranean occasionally sink. Both problems are solved by letting the poor people apply for asylum at the embassies and consulates around the world. Then they can simply fly directly to Sweden and settle into their cozy new life the same day their application is approved. This is called “Opening legal ways into Europe,” in political Newspeak.

Sweden has less than 10 million citizens. There are literally billions of poor people in the world. It’s like a rowboat that seats 3 being commandeered out to save everyone aboard a cruise ship with 5000 passengers.

Despite the mainstream media and some political parties beating this “legal ways” drum relentlessly, there is resistance. Fortunately, there seems to be just enough people that recognize how absurd the idea is to prevent it from becoming reality. So far. 

As the topic surfaced in a live TV political debate last night, the vice prime minister from extremist green party Miljöpartiet, which advocates entirely open borders, made a remarkable statement

“We are turning the mediterranean into a new Auschwitz!”

Say what? Is she really comparing the infamous Nazi death machine to Africans that voluntarily hop on boats in the hope of getting a better standard of living? I mean… Really?

Yup. When pressed by the media after the debate, she stubbornly refused to back off her statement

Somehow, it feels like not much needs to be added when a person in all seriousness is arguing that the two are perfectly comparable and on par with one another. Nor is anything need to be said about what kind of person would use the holocaust as an argument to support their own hubris and misguided humanitarianism.

Not surprisingly, the Jewish communities in Sweden don’t share the vice prime ministers sentiment. 

Advertisements

Conservative Swedes uprising

  

There is a grassroots revolution brewing among the conservative Swedes, and it may hit the flashpoint in the immediate future. The result could be a dramatic game changer in Sweden, with repercussions being felt in the other Nordic countries for a long time to come. 

But first, a recap of events. In the September 2014 election, the conservative Alliance led by the Moderates (M) that had ruled 2006 through 2014 lost power. This loss was in no small part thanks to former PM Reinfeldt’s determination to abandon traditional conservative values and openly embrace immigration literally at the expense of everything else

  

Fredrik Reinfeldt 

As a result, hundreds of thousands former conservative voters were more or less forced to the nationalist party Sweden Democrats (SD) as they were they only ones left fending for decreased immigration and a return to fiscal sense. Unfortunately, the party came with unpleasant baggage such as white supremacist roots and current Machiavellian leadership. Thus, many traditionally conservatives stayed put hoping for the best when new M leader Anna Kinberg Batra took the helm. This hope was soon turned into moot; she’s basically a spineless carbon copy of Reinfeldt.

  
Anna Kinberg Batra

But the “conservative” parties’ incompentence pales in comparison to the epic fiasco that is the current prime minister. As the “conservatives” lost power, socialist Stefan Löfven formed a weak coalition government with green populist party Miljöpartiet (MP) that had never before been in government. It was a disaster from day 1, but things didn’t come to a head until the first budget was to be presented. 

  
Current socialist-green government

Nationalist party SD, which was now the third largest party, made it clear well ahead of time that they would topple any budget that ignored their demand for decreased immigration. A reasonable request considering Sweden has only 2% of the EU population, yet receives almost 20% of the total inflow of refugees. They even went so far as to issue an open letter to new prime minister Löfven that they would support his budget should he just cut immigration by half. This would still make Sweden the most generous country in Scandinavia, and the state tax coffer would get a breather. No sale. 

Löfven refused to even meet with SD. He put his socialist budget out there. And as promised, SD voted it down. The shock, anger and surprise was almost comical. “Whaaa..? They didn’t cave? They actually did what they said they would do? How DARE they..!?”  

Löfven reacted like a child who just lost the game. He issued a snap election, where the stupid voters were supposed to give him the majority needed to single-handedly push through his budget. So there!

Except… The voters kept piling into the SD camp. From 12.9% in the September election, they were already polling around 15% in early december. Since the snap election wasn’t to be held until March 2015, there was a very real chance they’d be closer to 20%, and that would REALLY mess things up.

So Löfven called on his traditional enemies in the conservative Alliance and struck a deal instead of holding the promised snap election. In the infamous December Agreement, they basically recreated the old Italian Acerbo law of 1923, granting a minority government freedom from opposition. This is what Mussolini’s fascist party used to grab power and create a dictatorship despite being a minority. Conservative think tank Heimdal summed it up best: This is civil treason!

Since then, the “conservative” parties have sat on their hands while the lefties have made full use of their freedom. Progressive tax hikes on fuel, abolished deductions, drastic increases in welfare entitlements, and of course increased foreign aid to Hamas (“Palestine”)… The party is just getting started, and the “conservatives” have agreed to stay passive and perhaps shake their fists a little for the look of things until 2018.

Meanwhile, more and more displays are flashing red in the Swedish economy as well as the societal fabric itself. The Swedish currency is in free fall, the housing market is so inflated the slightest vibration can make the bubble pop, and the current as well as future obligations of literally hundreds of thousands unemployable immigrants are painting a stark picture. 

But the rudder is firmly tied down. The anti-democratic December Agreement succeeded in shutting out SD from any influence whatsoever. The Alliance is bound by it’s promise to do nothing. And Löfvens Socialdemocrat party is so weak it is entirely dependent on extreme left fringe party Vänsterpartiet (V) which has been granted the role of kingmaker despite only having a few percent of the vote. Which allows the extreme left to make whatever demands it sees fit. 

This situation is of course utterly absurd. 

It defies reason WHY the “conservatives” would rather let all this happen than just sit down with SD. Because they could, at any given time, shake off the shackles of the December Agreement and declare their own government with passive support by SD. The conservative voters want to see reduced immigration. And they certainly want to see an end to the leftist madness now taking place, so it’s hardly a stretch to see this obvious solution happening. Except, of course, the party leadership with M in particular stubbornly refusing to even consider the option.

But now there’s a grassroots revolution taking place within M. More and more voting districts have openly declared their rebellion against the bizarre December Agreement, and the local leaders are on a full-on collision course with the top brass in Stockholm. Being a spineless amoeba, Kinberg Batra continues to downplay the rebellion and do the depressingly familiar politician-dance around the issue, but the cat is out of the bag. 

So what we have is a fork in the road in front of us. Either the grassroots manage to set their foot down hard enough that the top brass changes course and revert back to old-school conservatism. This may mean a shift in government, where the lefties are unceremoniously kicked out and a real conservative government passively supported by SD can begin to roll back the madness. Failing that, at least there will be real opposition again to stop further overtaxation and moronic foreign policies

The other possibility is that the top brass stomps out the grassroots. Mass expulsions of key members in the rebellious voting districts would quench the uprising, but it would also mean mass exodus of regular voters. All the remaining traditional conservatives who has thus far clung on to their old parties in the hope for common sense to resurface, would leave en masse to join the only champion for sense left standing. If the party leaders in Stockholm choose this route I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect SD to clock in over 30% as the single biggest party in the 2018 election. 

Personally, I fear Sweden will choose the latter option. This means three more years of financial mayhem, followed by a tremendous amount of power being handed to a group of opportunists whom I personally wouldn’t trust one iota. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

Sweden’s solution to mediterranean deaths

  

This scene is from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. A summer’s breeze compared to what is now coming from Africa.

Imagine a Danish person who is unhappy with his current life. Then he hears about Canada being this swell place to live. So he sets out in a rowboat from the Danish coast to start a new life. To everyone’s surprise, he doesn’t get very far before he runs into trouble. 

Now, imagine a world where Canada has an absolute responsibility to come and rescue the Dane, no matter how much closer to European shore he is than North American. And after he is brought safely to Canada, he is owed automatic permanent asylum as well as his entire extended family, which is also entitled to lifetime welfare on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime. If Canada refuses any of the above, it is proof that Canada is a fascist country.

Welcome to Leftist logic 101; we have merely substituted the Mediterranean with the Atlantic.

The past few weeks have been filled with debate about the deaths of migrants crossing over from Africa in search of a better life. Since the coast guard off the European countries are obligated to rescue ships in danger, the smugglers pack people onto unsafe wrecks and send them off to be rescued. Inevitably, some sink before the coast guard reaches them. It’s tragic. But is it Europe’s fault?

Yes and no. For the no-side, you have to accept some personal responsibility when you deliberately endanger yourself. The Dane trying to reach Canada in a rowboat is obviously an idiot. When you hit your thumb with the hammer, not even a lawyer would sue the manufacturer. 

Some argue that these are desperate people fleeing war. Yes, there’s a few pockets of unrest in Africa. Nobody can argue the need to run when bullets are flying around you. But when the person has reached safe haven in a peaceful country and yet continues to travel, the argument no longer holds water. For example, the number of people fleeing Gambia is on the rise. So they cross the border to Senegal, a democratic country at relative peace. But instead of stopping there, they choose to travel through Senegal, Mauritania, Algeria, and then get on a dinky boat to reach Europe. Are they still fleeing for their lives at that point?

  

Starving refugees?

For the yes-side of the European fault discussion, we have the honey pot aspect. Here is where Sweden plays a major role. Two years ago it became official policy that anyone claiming to be Syrian or Eritrean was owed automatic permanent residency with all welfare perks that come with it. ID is not required; you merely have to make the claim and present a semi-plausible story. It would be hard to come up with a better incentive to the world’s poor seeking a better life. All you have to do is get to Swedish soil, and you’re set for life at a with a standard of living previously unimagined. 

  

Contrast this with Australia’s approach. “No Way: You will not make Australia home” is the policy wherein they simply refuse anybody to set foot on Australian soil. Instead, anyone attempting to migrate gets transferred to Nauru or Manus island. Those who have legit cause for seeking asylum get their due process, while the fortune seekers are unceremoneously turned away.

The number of confirmed deaths on the mediterranean has quadrupled since 2008. This year is predicted to be a record-breaker, with an estimated million migrants waiting to cross on the African side. The first few months of 2015 has already clocked in 30 times (!) the deaths of the same period in 2014. Meanwhile, as far as I’ve been able to find by Googling the news, Australia has decreased the death toll into single digits — primarily by people sabotaging their own boats in the hope of avoiding being escorted away.

So Europe has a problem, and the Australian approach holds great appeal for solving that problem. That means increased coast guard presence in the mediterranian to turn back boats to Africa, while removing the incentives for attempting the journey to begin with. Makes perfect sense to 28 of the 29 EU members.

But of course, the world’s Humanitarian Superpower don’t want anything to do with that approach. “Sweden shall fight for establishing legal ways into Europe!” said prime minister Löfven in the parliament EU committee. In other words, the Swedish government want to open up for asylum application at the embassies and consulates around the world. 

Now, combine this with that Sweden now considers poverty a de facto grounds for asylum. Bascially anybody worse off than a Swede in any way is to be let in, period. This can be clearly seen in the percentage of approved applications for asylum; from hovering in the 20-30% approval range in previous years, to suddenly hitting a whopping 77% percent. Ponder this for a second. The criteria for being granted asylum is now so watered down that more than three out of four that make it to Sweden are granted asylum.

To summarize: The rest of Europe wants to shut the door and remove the incentives for risking life and limb to cross the mediterranean. Meanwhile, Sweden wants to open up for everybody in the whole world to apply for asylum, based on their generous criteria where almost everybody gets approved.

There is an estimated 2,5 billion people living in poverty in the world. India alone has a few hundred million living in absolute squalor. Perhaps Löfven should use India as a test balloon and start an airlift of, say 100 Boeing 747s at 500 each per day. That’s 50 000 poor but happy Indians arriving at Arlanda airport every day to be absorbed by the country of less than 10 million. 

Let’s give it a month. If everything works out, he can go global with this inspiring initiative to end the world’s ills by bringing them all to Sweden.

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.