Lake Atitlan, Guatemala
Politics, Sweden 

Immigration and forced compassion

Forced compassion is a popular theme in Sweden last few decades. The state's funds are squandered away on humanitarian projects without the citizens' say, so politicians can compete in who is the most well liked in the world. Or perhaps it is with the citizens' approval, since politicians are not voted out of office. In any case it is a great mystery to me, and is probably a mix of white guilt and common Swedish self-loathing.

The typical Swede is a very nice person. He is helpful and really feels empathy with the images of the poor he is fed through the TV. Everywhere you look in Swedish media there is a needy cause, and it usually involves children. So the Swede naturally wants to make a difference in the world. Nothing wrong with wanting to be good, but why has it to include me, personally? I believe I am decent too, but I have no need for this exercise in easing my conscience.

This general do-good feeling has been hijacked by the politicians to conduct a massive social engineering project, where Sweden is to become a multicultural country. It is reinforced by calling anyone who objects a racist.

Take a country like Iraq, which is now harmed tremendously because of ISIS. While the Swedish government welcomes the masses of refugees from Iraq with open arms, no citizen dares to ask if this is really a good idea. Together with all other Swedes I am forced to have compassion for them and offer my country to them. Why should I? There are better ways to help these people.

Taxpayer funded immigration

Immigration for humanitarian reasons together with foreign aid, could be said to be non-essential to a country. It is done to show compassion with foreigners in distress. Sweden has no shortage of local labor, and no colonies in the world, so we have no need for immigration. Since aid of this kind is non-essential for Sweden's own prosperity, I wonder why the general population is forced to pay for it through taxation?

Conservatively estimated, immigration costs 100 billion SEK per year, and the government spends another 20 billion SEK on foreign aid. That is 12,000 SEK per year that is taken out of each of the 10 million citizen's pockets. We are in essence forced to show compassion, by giving away the equivalent of one month's salary per year. How is this compassion, when we have to do it by penalty of imprisonment?

I would argue that the real benefit to Sweden's international standing is minute. The receiving countries and peoples are unlikely to donate anything at all if Sweden ever is struck by misfortune. This extreme level of support gives us some respect in the world, but when we are measured as a country, for all the reasons that have importance; international trade, tourism, investments, etc, the level of foreign aid is a non factor.

So we can honestly say that the only purpose of foreign aid is to make us feel good about ourselves, that we are making a difference in the world, nothing more. It has no economic benefit to Sweden as a nation, it only serves as a "feel good" factor to the citizens. I suggest that this pride would be several times stronger if each individual instead voluntarily gave up his money through donations. Those who wish to do so, could donate 1000 SEK per month to a worthy cause and feel that they really made a difference. Those who think that the current massive immigration is a disaster for Sweden, could withhold their support. The whole immigration and foreign aid program should be funded by voluntary donations, so the people of Sweden can have a direct vote on its importance.

Im no royalist, but I would say that the King of Sweden does more to our international good-will than all money spent on immigration and foreign aid, and he does it for 0.1% of the cost.

Fund mismanagement

So how is the 12,000 SEK of forced compassion money, that I am black-mailed to contribute every year, used to help the needy of the world? With the astronomical budget of 120 billion SEK you would assume it is carefully planned to relieve as much global misery as possible. After all, this is more than is spent on our health and education combined, and Swedes certainly know how bad those institutions have become over the years, so I'm sure the lowered standards have come for a really good reason.

The shocking truth is that the Swedish government uses this money in the worst way possible. Instead of implementing programs in the sufferers' home countries (or in case of refugees from wars, in a neighboring country), they choose to let practically every asylum seeker who has the fortune (i.e. money and connections) to travel to Sweden stay here and become a citizen. So instead of helping 10 poor people in Iraq avoid starvation, Sweden proudly uses the same amount of money to pamper only one well connected Iraqi "refugee" at our border, who of course won't settle for anything less than having a Swedish standard of living. This really makes my blood boil, and I believe this period in Sweden's history will later be referred to as the "Big moral scandal".

Properly used, those 100 billion SEK per year could have permanently ended child death by starvation world wide. Let that sink in for a moment. Sweden could have been known as the country that single-handedly ended child starvation world wide, saving 10 million vulnerable children each year. But we chose not to. Isn't that even worse than countries that spend nothing on foreign aid at all?

Giving away real estate

Another result of massive immigration is the dilution of ownership. In contrast to what the ruling elite tries to make Swedes believe, we are a very homogeneous people with a long history. As with other nation states, the Swedes are the owners of their territory. Collectively we own every square meter of Sweden, and have control over its future. Each generation tries to improve on conditions and make the best it can, and then passes on ownership to the next.

When the population increases by 10% more citizens from foreign lands, then in effect 10% of the ownership is given away to unknown people, who may not share the same values and goals as us. It is one thing to invite people to come and work in a country, but a totally different thing to give them citizenship. Most countries make a clear distinction, but Sweden seem to not.

As an analogy, consider living in your home with your family, when a foreigner in distress knocks on your door and wants to stay the night. Out of compassion you take him in, and this is of course the right thing to do. However in Sweden we let him stay indefinitely, and also give him an equal share of ownership of the house. Is this wise?

Political treason

Unlike any other country in the world, Swedish politicians can openly express anti-nationalistic opinions to ridicule Swedish culture, and amazingly still be popular. The following three people are considered very main-stream in Sweden, but in any other country they would be seen as extremists, and would be forced out of holding public office.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, former prime minister: "The Swedish origins are barbaric, and the rest of development has come from abroad." (Addressing the people of Ronna, 2006).

Mona Sahlin, former chairman of the Social Democrats, Sweden's largest political party, and MP for many years. When asked what Swedish culture is, she replies: "I've been asked this question many times, but can not figure out what Swedish culture really is. I think this is why many Swedes are envious of immigrants. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that tie you together. What do we have? The midsummer festival and such corny things." (Euroturk 2002).

Maud Olofsson, leader of one of the major political parties, The Center Party, and MP for many years: ”It really wasn't Swedes who built Sweden. It was people from abroad.”, (Östra Sörmlands Posten, 2007). 

Historical perspective

What has the historical immigration been to Sweden?

The Swedish population has been estimated to 400,000 at the year 1000, and then slowly reaching 1 million the year 1641, and after that doubling in size roughly every 100 years to 2 million 1767, 4 million 1864, and 8 million 1970. During this time Sweden suffered the 14th century Black Death and massive emigration to the United States in the 19th century, due to poverty, which lowered the population substantially.

During the 16th and 17th century, around 20,000 German traders and artisans immigrated to cities in Sweden. During the 17th century some 900 Walloons also arrived, together with 12,000 Finnish farmers who moved to central Sweden. During the entire history of Sweden, excluding the 20th and 21st centuries, the annual population increase from immigration was less than 0.05%, which made Swedes one of the most homogeneous populations in the world. Genetic studies on today's Swedish population show that 85% of them are direct ancestors of the hunter-gatherers who once moved here after the last ice age.

The above facts are important to remember because of the massive historical revisionism that goes on in Sweden today, where the politically correct talk-heads pretend that Sweden has no identity of its own, and no legacy to be proud of. It is generally accepted that Swedes should assimilate to the culture of the immigrants and not the other way around. 100,000 people immigrated to Sweden 2014, which is 20 times higher than historical rates.

The Swedish identity

I am struggling to understand why Swedes as a people became so self-loathing without any real pride in their own country. Why is it a compliment to tell a friend that "you are acting so un-Swedish"? I am not making this up, it is a common saying around here. 

The mystery is why the people who built one of the most prosperous countries in the world feel that they have nothing to be proud of. Perhaps this is a natural evolution once a country gets too wealthy and its citizens to complacent. Add some socialist indoctrination and toxic feminism, and let one generation pass, and everyone soon forgets the hard work that went into creating the living standards and culture that is Sweden.

« ‡ »