"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

The multicultural society

(This article is a résumé discussion on culture and multiculturalism and the various aspects of these concepts, which I have stipulated in previous articles on my blog in Swedish (sorry for that). As usual square brackets "[…]" within quotes distinguish my own comments. Some of the interior links below are dead, as is evident from the text. But eventually they will come to life as more and more of my articles are translated to English)

Let us begin by defining the term "culture" so that we in the further discussion will know what we're talking about (a discussion using undefined concepts is a complete waste of time and will only lead to meaningless rhetoric). The Swedish Wikipedia writes among other things the following (normally I prefer the English Wikipedia but in this case I think the article in Swedish is better, or at least more comprehensive):

Culture (from the Latin word cultura which has its origin in colere, meaning "to cultivate"), is a term with several significations… However, the word "culture" is generally used in three basic interpretations:

— Refined taste in the arts and humanities, also known as high culture.
— An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief and behavior based on the human capacity for symbolic thought and social learning.
— The amount of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group [or a group of people, an ethnic group or a country].

The relevant interpretation in our context is the last one, in which a group of people or a country or a part of a country has a culture, consisting of a set of shared memories, attitudes, values etc.

 

The Oikophobia syndrome

I have, in a number of blog articles, expressed my astonishment and concern over how the Swedish culture seems to be more and more neglected. If the cultural elite, who is in head of this development, were to decide, every ethnic Swede should walk around with hanging head, ashamed of the Swedish culture, Swedish cooking with its ripe Grevé-cheeses, its egg- and anchovy sandwiches, its Princess pastries, the Swedish midsummer, the beautiful West Coast archipelago (and any other Swedish archipelago — so no one gets insulted) and Evert Taube and Lasse Dahlqvist (two poets and song writers, who have written beautiful, classical songs about the Swedish summer and our northern nature) etc, etc. So far, not all Swedes have adopted this bleak outlook on their own country and culture, but the cultural elite is doing its very best to influence and implement its world view through newspapers, debates, television, radio etc, which are being almost completely dominated by its members.

Hatred and contempt for one's own culture and one's own country has a name — oikophobia. There are historians who mean that the oikophobia syndrome of the intellectual "elite" is rooted in its embarrassment over Europe's history — the crusades, slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism etc. It is a form of self-castigation. In the oikophobia syndrome is also included defamation of Christianity (which is considered to be the root of all evil done by the Europeans) and an elevation of Islam beyond all logic and common sense, and contrary to all historical facts.

However, it is not quite as simple as the cultural elite appears to believe it to be. To really understand, you can't just limit yourself to criticizing Sweden, or Europe or the West. You have to look at the whole thing in a world-historical perspective, and also Islam must be studied as critically as one examines the West.

When it comes to the crusades, Islam has constantly been propagated by means of coercion and violence. If we "should be ashamed" of our crusades, Islam should be equally ashamed of the Islamic equivalence of the crusades, which I would like to call "the Red Crescent jihads" or the "crescades". Also, there were some underlying causes for at least the first crusade. The Muslims, who had conquered Jerusalem, were in the process of destroying Christian churches and sites in the city. The First Crusade set out to put a stop to this. Therefore, I believe that the First Crusade, in a sense, was justified. That it later degenerated in many ways is another and tragic story. In any case, Europe has no more to be ashamed of when it comes to religious expansion through violence, than has the Muslims. Evil pops up in all situations. Every human being has the capacity for both good and evil deeds. But there is a crucial difference between "Islamic violence" and so-called "Christian violence". Muslims are in the Quran explicitly commanded to spread their faith through violence and war (if no other way is possible), while violence is one hundred percent incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the New Testament!!! The Muslims, who force other people to become Muslims, and who behead those who refuse, are just doing what their Prophet explicitly commands them to do, while the Christians who spread their faith through violence, commit a terrible sin against their own Lord and Savior (that's why I wrote so-called "Christian violence").

As regards slavery, all peoples of all times, both Africans, Europeans, Arabs and Asians, have had slaves. The Arab world has in addition had far more slaves than Europe and America combined. The black slaves in the Arab world have moreover been treated much worse than in the West (which in no way excuses the methods that slaves were dealt with in the U.S. etc). The reader may consider for a moment why there are so few black people in the Arab countries (here, I do not hint at Islam in general, but at the Arabs). I have been in many Arab countries and I cannot remember seeing any black African people at all (now I have not been to all the Arab countries, but I have visited many of them). In North- and South America the black populations constitute a highly significant feature of the street scene. These are descendants of the 9-12 million black slaves shipped over the Atlantic Ocean. Where, today, are the descendants to the 12-18 million black Africans, who became slaves in Arabia? According to the CIA website the proportion of blacks Africans in countries like Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc constitute 0% (don't trust me on this, check yourself)! The reason for this is that nearly all black African male slaves were castrated. That is the reason why we see so few black Africans in North Africa and the Middle East. I wish to return to this very interesting topic when I've finished reading the book Le genocide voile (Genocide behind the veil) by the French-Senegalese anthropologist Tidiane N'Diaye (this book is an in-depth study of the Arabian slave trade in Africa and how cruel these slaves were treated). So here again, the Europeans have no more to be ashamed of than other people. Moreover, it was Europe who first made slavery illegal, because in the end (the early 1800s) they realized that slavery was incompatible with the Biblical view of humanity. Had they really taken their Christian faith seriously, they would have recognized this 1700 years earlier (which actually the British did — in 1103 the Westminster Church Council under leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury condemned slavery and 1569 a British court decided that slavery was illegal according to British law). In some countries the slavery in the Muslim world remained until the 1980s and is still there today (though its officially forbidden) in countries such as Sudan.

Regarding anti-Semitism, it is quite true that Europe has much to be ashamed of. However, anti-Semitism is completely incompatible with the Bible and the Christian faith (it's sufficient to know that Jesus was Jewish and that the disciples were Jewish to realize the impossibility of Christian anti-Semitism). The Holocaust stands in a class by itself, and had definitely nothing to do with the Christian faith (Hitler was not a Christian, on the contrary, he had only contempt for the Christian faith, which he regarded as cowardly and pitiable — he was much more sympathetic towards Islam, which in his opinion was a warlike, strong, aggressive religion, fit for Men). Unlike the Bible, the Quran and Islam's other holy writings are full of attacks on, and incitements to violence against the Jewish people. But yes, regarding anti-Semitism, Europe certainly has something to feel disgraced about! Fathomless disgrace! But, as I recently pointed out, there is evil everywhere. I'm not saying that white Europeans are better than other folks. One need only think of the unjust Opium War in China (where the British and the French flooded China with opium, which destroyed countless Chinese people's lives) and Belgium's unimaginably cruel treatment of Blacks in the Congo, to realize this. But I argue strongly that Christianity, according to the teachings of Jesus (and who else has the right to define Christianity?), stands for love and goodness in a way that no other religion or ideology does. That is why I became a Christian when I was 36 years old.

Sweden also revealed abysses of anti-Semitism during the Second World War and the decades before and accepted, before the war, reluctantly a handful of adult Jewish refugees (plus a few hundred Jewish children), when we could have saved hundreds of thousands (compare this with how many Muslims Sweden welcomes today). But aside from the Holocaust (because of its extent), Jews have been treated at least as severe in the Muslim world as in Europe. In some Muslim countries (e.g. Morocco), Jews have for limited periods benefited a pretty good life. But so also in Europe. Overall, however, the Jews were horribly oppressed in the Muslim world, where pogroms in which thousands of Jews lost their lives, were a daily schedule for long periods (as well as in Moorish Spain, which is often and wrongly portrayed as a prime example of peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Jews). So yes, Europe should be ashamed of its anti-Semitism (which even today rears its ugly head). But so also the Muslim countries, where anti-Semitism today is much, much worse than in Europe. Hitler's Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the latter is trying to prove that there is a Jewish conspiracy aiming to take over the world) are among the best selling books in the Muslim world today.

Regarding colonialism — all countries who have been powerful enough, have conquered other countries and created empires (Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc). You can think what you like about this, but this is a fact. So I cannot see that we have more to be ashamed of, than do other people. The Arabs laid the entire North Africa and Eastern Mediterranean under their territory. Although the sun never set during Queen Victoria's colonial rule (i.e. it stretched around the Globe), there have been other empires that also dominated huge areas; Alexander the Great's empire and Attila's empire etc. That not all countries had empires and colonies is probably rather due to a lack of ability than a lack of desire. Sweden had, by the way, in the 1600- and 1700s its own little empire around the Baltic Sea.

Thus historically, the Europeans have not been more atrocious than other people. Evil exists everywhere. But some religions and ideologies and cultures bring out the best in people, while other religions and ideologies bring out the worst. The humanity that Christianity conveys has slowly but surely, despite much opposition from dictators, slave owners and greedy capitalists, led to the various declarations of human rights, which today constitutes the moral basis for the West's democracies and their laws. In the Islamic world, the word human dignity is interpreted in a completely different way than in the West. The conditions in this part of our planet manifests the consequences of the Islamic view on humanity. The intellectual elite's contempt for its own culture is not justified, and is furthermore inconsistent. If so, they should logically also despise all other cultures (sometimes I call the Intellectual elite the "Goodness choir" because of their obvious attempt to outdo everyone else regarding who is most good and most compassionate — the problem is that their compassion for suffering people seems to be more words than actions).

 

Must the multiculturalism idea imply contempt for one's own culture?

Perhaps the multicultural idea is linked to Europe's bad conscience due to what I discuss above. By allowing people from other parts of the world to come here and get access to our financial abundance and by treating them not only good, but even better than our own residents (it seems after all to be the ambition of the cultural elite, even if they haven't reached all the way — yet), this makes you feel that you're paying back a debt. But if so, the Muslims should compensate all those who suffered and were oppressed in the name of Islam (apart from the 12 to 18 million or more black slaves that the Arabs gathered in Africa, they should also compensate the survivors of the more than one million Europeans who were kidnapped by North African Arabic slave traders when they raided the southern European coastline, and Turkey should make amends for the Armenian genocide etc). And the African tribes that captured and sold slaves to the white and Arab slave traders (and themselves becoming filthy rich) should compensate the tribes that they kidnapped the slaves from. Such consideration is probably and unfortunately not in the minds of the followers of Islam, where self-criticism hardly counts as a virtue. Yes frankly, self-criticism (and asking for forgiveness) is almost unthinkable in the orthodox Muslim culture. In a culture of shame, to admit that you have been wrong, is the ultimate, unbearable humiliation (please read my article on the Difference between Islam and the Western World for more details). When it comes to the Compassion/Goodness choir, its members would probably prefer to die the most horrific death than to admit that Islam (or Africans) are in debt to other countries and peoples. The Compassion choir's aggrandizement of Islam as being the superior religion, is perplexing. Had the Compassion choir been correct, crowds of people would flee from Europe to Muslim countries, in order to try to obtain a better life in freedom and security. Now it's just the opposite. Jesus said (Luke 6:44), "For every tree is known by his own fruit". By the fruit of Islam, (i.e. the societies ruled by Islam — Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran etc) Islam is thus known.

As I always declare (and probably have to point out when I write about these topics), I am not a racist and I am not xenophobic. Several of my very best friends are immigrants. I appreciate the culture, music, food etc of other countries and am very interested in other peoples' history. I usually spend a couple of months each winter in Lisbon in Portugal. I have probably seen more of the world than most other people. I have visited over 80 countries on all continents except Antarctica. My discussions of our contempt for our own culture has neither with other countries' cultures, nor with immigration per se to do (it is a Swedish domestic affair). A country may well receive immigrants without putting a closure to their own culture. What I criticize is thus that a large fraction of the intellectual elite (elite …..hmmm) looks down and is ashamed of its own culture. You can be aware of and appreciate your own country without looking down on other countries and cultures. Yes, it might even be necessary to appreciate your own culture to be able to enjoy and respect other cultures — just like you have to have a certain sense of self esteem (i.e. to like yourself) to be able to appreciate other people. Every human being must have an identity (and this includes personality, culture, family etc), from which he relates to other people and cultures. Nothing cannot relate to something. And furthermore, nothing cannot relate to nothing.

I think it is important in this context to clarify the difference between nationalism and patriotism. I am not a nationalist. Nazism was a nationalistic movement (Hitler's party was called the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party — NSDAP). According to its perception, the Germans (Arians) were superior to all other peoples and were therefore entitled to use them as slaves and take their countries away from them (which among other things was motivated by the theory of evolution — "the survival of the fittest").

The word patriotism derives from the Greek word for "love of your country and loyalty towards it". Wikipedia writes, "A patriot, is a person who loves his country and eagerly promotes its interests with subordination of his own". To love your own country and promote the country's interests does not suggest that you thereby oppress and despise other countries. "Why should we not appreciate our own country?", is a very legitimate question. And in what way would a patriot be dangerous? To whom? Well, possibly to someone who wants to conquer a country. He would then of course meet resistance from patriots. Just recently, I heard a discussion on the radio, where it was suggested that patriotism was just another word for racism. As if the love of your own country automatically transforms you into despising other ethnic groups. This is a typical example of how to give a false impression in the debate by redefining (or not defining at all) the words. To equate patriotism and racism is on par with saying, that if a man loves his wife he invariably has to hate all other women.

The word racism is now being used well beyond its original meaning, and signifies today roughly somebody who is evil and stupid. Racism, strictly defined, means that you hate or dislike or look down on, or discriminate against, people, merely because they belong to a different race (genetic group), and not for any other reason. Hitler's hatred of the Jewish people was racism. It did not matter how well integrated, or how valuable to Germany a Jew was. Only because he was genetically a Jew, he must be wiped out (even if he was a Nobel Laureate in Physics and even if his family had been Christians for the last 200 years and even if he had fought bravely for Germany during WW1). That I, for example, think that criminal immigrants should be expelled, has nothing to do with racism (the Compassion choir frequently refers to a person, who is being critical of the Swedish immigration policy, as a racist). It is not because they are immigrants, or because they belong to a particular ethnic group, that I dislike them and don't want them to stay in my country, but solely because they are detestable criminals!

100 years ago, perhaps only 50 years ago, the Compassion choir and the politicians who today try to wipe out the Swedish culture, would have been considered traitors of their own country (which in my eyes, they are). In the 19th century such people would have been sentenced to deportation and loss of their Swedish citizenship. Today, they count as heroes and representatives of everything that is good. Although one might wonder who gives them this hero nomination. It's probably primarily themselves. The Compassion choir and the cultural elite (or the cultural dregs, as I call them when I am in a particularly bad mood) form a union of mutual admiration, and since they have almost complete control over the media, the debate becomes a vicious circle of mutual glorification.

A significant example among many others, in terms of contempt for one's own culture, was when Mona Sahlin (Social Democratic politician and a former nominee for Prime Minister) was interviewed in the Swedish Turkish Youth Association's newspaper Euro Turk (sorry, but in Swedish). On the question "What is Swedish culture?", she replied:

I have often been asked that question but I cannot think of what Swedish culture is, says Mona Sahlin. I think it is what makes so many Swedes envious of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer's Eve and such "ridiculous" things. What I would like to bring into the Swedish culture is rather the important values of democracy, tolerance and respect for girls' conditions and rights. I wish that all who live in Sweden would feel that it is this that is everyone's culture.

By all means, what Mona Sahlin is saying is important. Many immigrant communities have a strong family cohesion that most Swedish families lack. And she is also accurate when saying that these immigrant groups have "a culture, an identity, a history" that binds them together. At the same time she is very contradictory, when she expresses contempt towards her own culture (Midsummer's Eve and those "ridiculous things"). That she then points out that we have tolerance, especially towards "the girls' rights", is not so much about culture as it is about politics. To argue that Swedish culture only includes political positions are in my eyes extremely insulting to Sweden as a country and to the Swedes as a people. It is precisely because too many Swedes deny their own culture and history, i.e. that they are not bound together by their "culture, identity and history", that they do not have the same cohesion as many immigrant groups, and many people in other countries. The lack of unity of ethnic Swede's families is to be blamed on Mona Sahlin (and her ilk). The intellectuals and politicians in our country have for years tried to manipulate the Swedish people to break up all family bonds and make people live in a cultural vacuum, and even tried to influence them to despise their own culture and their own history (in the Labor Movement's perspective, human history began with the labor movement — all before that was only darkness, until Marx saw the light…). Thankfully, they have been far from successful! Ordinary people appreciate after all still Sweden and Swedish culture. An even the Midsummer Feast.

Besides, if Sweden has no culture worth talking about, well then it is our culture not to have a culture worth talking about (it means so to say that having no culture worth talking about describes a "common approach" that defines our culture). In this case, we have indeed a unique culture that is unrivalled (if we should be proud of it or not is another story). But this is not the case. Of course there is a Swedish culture and Swedish identity that is particularly worthy of mention. That customs and traditions may differ between different parts of the country is altogether natural (this is equally true for the Turkish culture). And after all, there are more that unites than divides. Speaking with Swedes living abroad is very interesting. It seems that the longer you're away, and the more different the country is in where you reside, the more you appreciate your own country and feel Swedish. But then, when you come back home again, you soon forget all the niceties you earlier said about Sweden.

The cultural elite, with their stunted intellects, has the malice to simultaneously speak enthusiastically about other peoples and their amazing cultures and identities and glamorous history (compare Sahlin and the Turks). And thereby they expose their muddy thoughts. Stupidity is as always inconceivably inconsistent.

 

Certainly there is a Swedish culture

(Vilhelm Moberg, in my humble opinion one of Sweden's truly great writers, especially when it comes to moral and courage, gave during WW2 his views on the Swedish culture in a short essay, entitled "Svensk strävan" — "Swedish quest". This little pamphlet was distributed among Swedish military officers during WW2.)

One common argument against what I write above, is that cultures are constantly changing. There is, according to this argument, therefore today no genuine Swedish culture as such, but the culture we have is the result of many dynamic factors; immigration, external influences when it comes to music, ideas and food and much, much more, and what was once called Swedish almost doesn't matter (if there has even been anything that could be regarded as typical Swedish). It is therefore quite natural that it is as it is. "Tell me what genuine Swedish culture implies!" is a very common objection.

In Aftonbladet (the largest Swedish tableau daily paper — left-wing) on 23 August 2011, you could read the following comment, in this spirit, to an editorial:

The problem is that you're dreaming yourselves back to…. Such as: "Vi på Saltkråkan"-days (Sea crow Island, a popular Swedish TV-series from the 1960's, which was about a city family on summer vacation in the beautiful Stockholm Archipelago). You have created your own idea of Sweden, based on nostalgic memories, movies and cookie jars decorated with Carl Larsson's (one of Sweden's most famous and beloved artists) Sundborn-designs. The Sweden you want to return to never existed…

I think Carl Larsson would feel quite saddened was he told that what he depicted in his paintings never existed. Certainly, many of his works were designed and stylized and perhaps exaggerated, but the genius often hyperbole and symbolize to convey great truths. As for Sea crow Island, it is hard to understand what the writer intends. Have people never lived in the Stockholm archipelago? Or been on vacation there (I have)? Have people never been sitting on a rocky islet in the twilight and enjoyed the stillness and the spirit of fellowship and love, and then remembered these encounters for life? Have never romping, laughing children rowed with the rowboat along the shoreline, angled and swum, experiencing one amazing adventure after another? It is so incredibly stupid to write, "The Sweden you want to return to never existed…". Hasn't it? I have strong memories of this Sweden. It doesn't mean that everything was first-rate and everyone was happy and that nothing needed to change. But still; many people remember a different and more idyllic Sweden than what we have today. "Sea crow Island" had millions of viewers. Why? Because they recognized themselves. When they watched this TV-series, they recognized themselves and their background in many different dimensions, on many different levels. Now, the cultural elite would scarcely have watched this type of program. They were certainly fully engaged in Swedish Television's commendation program to the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea (who killed 1/4 of the population), or to the wisest of all wise people; China's and our own little cutie, Mao Zedong (one of history's worst and most notorious mass murderers). I have, incidentally, still strong memories of all Swedish students (many of them friends of mine), who in the 1970s ran around waving "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" and chanted the empty platitudes (at best) of which the book is filled. It was then that my misanthropy (against which I daily struggle — it's not compatible with my Christian faith) was planted.

Recently I saw a program about the Russian trumpet virtuoso Sergei Nakariakov, who began as a child prodigy and today ranks as one of the world's foremost on his instrument. He now lives in Paris, and in the program he and his father told how every year they travel back to their hometown Gorky. Even if it is poor and primitive compared to Paris, they always long to go back there; to the river, the landscape, the trees, the colors, the smells, the sounds and everything else that remind them of their origin. Homesickness is an incredibly powerful force that stems from us having a large part of our identity in strong memories of our childhood and youth. That is when and how our personalities are formed, what is to become our "self". It is not for no reason one speaks of "our roots". The members of the Compassion choir are free to sing what they like. But the truth will still be there, whatever they sing!

I would like to ask Mona Sahlin, "If now the Turks have their own "culture, identity and history" (Sahlin told us so in her speech, quoted above), why would the Swedes be the only people on earth who do not have their own "culture, identity and history" (Sahlin certainly ascribes not only Turks but also all other peoples, except the Swedes, their own "culture, identity and history")? It does not feel particularly well thought out, or even likely. It is true that cultures change. The causes for culture changes are to be found partly within the culture itself. New streams of thought, new inventions etc pave the way for reasoning, and even customs and traditions to slowly change. Even when the Swedish culture was pretty enclosed, it changed, albeit relatively slowly, for such reasons. Additionally, a culture is influenced (more or less) by external factors, i.e. other cultures and countries. There is for example no doubt that today's Swedish culture is heavily influenced by the culture of the USA. All this is perfectly normal. But this is not what we see in Sweden today. A culture developing and changing is not the same thing as a culture being dismantled by the very same people who carries it. I usually talk about my egg- and anchovies sandwiches (when did you last see this typical Swedish, and previously extremely popular sandwich, in a pastry shop?). Of course this is mainly in jest, even if there is some seriousness behind. What really bothers me is when Mona Sahlin talks about our midsummer traditions as something corny and ridiculous. I am sure Mona Sahlin is watching the History Channel and the National Geographic, showing traditional dances and parties of some Indian tribe in the Amazons (I watched one of these very interesting programs the other day). I find it hard to believe that she, in front of her kids, calls this "corny and ridiculous". She probably thinks it is extremely interesting and exciting and fascinating to share in a different culture and its expressions. But why is the Amazon native culture exciting and interesting, while the Swedish culture is "corny" and dull or even non-existent? What if Mona Sahlin could explain this to us mere mortals, who do not dwell on her intellectual level.

Additionally, the Swedish culture involves much more than midsummer. We have much to be proud of in Sweden. Sweden is foremost an incredibly beautiful country, something that many tourists point out. This may have nothing to do with culture, but is important because it provides a setting for Swedish culture — the mesmerizing bright summer nights, the cuckoo bird on an early summer's morning, the dark forests of Tiveden and everything else that the Swedes have in their blood — all this affects the Swedish mentality and is thus part of the Swedish culture and identity and has therefore been sung by poets like Dan Andersson, Evert Taube a.o.. Stockholm is, in my humble opinion, one of the world's most beautiful capitals (and has also won international awards for this several times). But we have much more. There would be few countries with a few million people, which has made so many groundbreaking inventions; safety match, ball bearing, steam turbine, propeller etc, etc, and which is one of the world's largest developer and manufacturer of quality trucks (Volvo and Saab), and also a major manufacturer of passenger cars, and which also develops and manufactures aircrafts, both commercial aircraft and fighter jets, world class. This is unique. Saab's turboprop model 340 for 34 passengers, which was built in the 1980s- and 1990s, for example, was the best-selling plane in the world in its size class. And the fourth generation fighter jet, SAAB JAS Gripen, has been chosen by South Africa, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Thailand and recently Brazil in competition with the most modern US and European fighters. Switzerland is also a potential Gripen customer. Should we be ashamed of this? Turkey, with its 74 million inhabitants, develops (as with other Muslim countries) neither cars nor airplanes on their own. Still, we Swedes should be ashamed for not being Turks, according to Mona Sahlin. And what about the Turkish genocide of over 1 million Armenians, Syrians etc during the First World War? Is this also a part of Turkey's charming culture?

Even though the Swedish cultural elite does not acknowledge any Swedish culture, people in other countries do. Earlier, when we had a high moral (and also morale) in our country (before the cultural elite started destroying Sweden in the 1970s), Swedes were known abroad for being laborious, honest, loyal, reliable, and additionally skilled. This was a result of the Swedish Lutheran culture, where such features (so despised by the cultural elite) were emphasized. I've been to many countries and I have often encountered this attitude towards Swedes. Some older Americans still have an extremely high opinion of Swedes (I worked for three years in the 1980s on a cruise ship with nearly exclusively American passengers — so I know what I am talking about — many times I heard the passengers say how much they appreciated Swedish quality and reliability), but in many countries, unfortunately, the reputation of the Swedes have waned precariously (based on bad experiences). At holiday resorts in southern Europe and North Africa Swedish women are called "whores" (perhaps not entirely undeserved, although a gross generalization). Austria has no high opinion of Swedish youth considering their behavior during the ski seasons (booze, fights etc). A Swedish high school certificate was previously considered being at an extremely high level, perhaps not even surpassed by any other country. Today, a Swedish high school certificate stands for nothing at all. Today I have renamed the student's white cap (which they get at their exam) to the "18-year cap", because all it proves is that the wearer has turned 18. Upon high school graduations (in Sweden called "Studentexamen") stand, in almost every class, cap-clad students who have failed in all subjects, singing about the "brilliant future" which is theirs (from a famous Swedish graduation song). Yesterday's Swedish culture has definitely made a deep dive. But that does not mean that there is no, nor has been, any Swedish culture.

A human being's personality consists of many components and influences. Who you are depends on the people you meet (parents, relatives, perhaps a fantastic teacher who brought you a life interest or a really good childhood friend), books you've read, music you've heard, movies you've seen, smells, sensations and much, much more. Great love experiences can be life changing. Throughout life, your personality changes as a result of your life experiences. Everything you encounter shapes your individuality. Hopefully one becomes wiser with age.

Man's personality is much like a country's culture. The personality constitutes the identity of a person in the same way that culture is a country's identity. That a person's personality is influenced by various factors and is slowly changing, does not mean that the person has no personality. Rather, these changes are an inevitable part of being a person. But if a person has a personality (although this is influenced by other people, and change), why cannot a country have a culture (although this is influenced by other cultures, and change)? An individual without a personality is an empty shell. In the same way, a country without a culture is a dead, embalmed corpse.

What we witness in Sweden today is not a culture that is slowly and naturally changing in interaction with new ideas and other cultures. That would be completely normal. What we witness today is a culture that is being disassembled by the establishment. By its own bearers. Voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally! We are slowly turning into a nation ashamed of our history, our inventions, our cultural expressions, our ancestors, our food etc, etc. This is not normal, and should be regarded as something unique in human history. A people who despises their own culture and their own country, does not deserve to have their own culture or their own country. They deserve to be another people's slaves. Which they will probably also become. A people who despise their own country will moreover raise the wrath of God. This is my absolute conviction.

To be ashamed of our own country is to be ashamed of the ancestors who through hard work built this country and established our prosperity. A prosperity that made it possible for us to receive refugees from other nations and donate large amounts of money to poor countries. If we now have everything to be ashamed of (according to Sahlin) and the Turks have everything to be proud of, why, then, do we have it so much better in Sweden, in terms of welfare, freedom, democracy etc? So much in fact that hordes of Turks etc move to our country (often at great sacrifice) — while almost no Swedes emigrate to Turkey? I do not think that the Turkish youths, who read the interview with Mona Sahlin (quoted above) were particularly impressed. I am pretty sure that many of them were extremely surprised to hear a woman, running for the post of prime minister (as Sahlin was when the interview was made), express such contempt for her own country. Many, I'm sure, were disgusted by her servility. Young people tend to see through things, and crawling won't win them over (believe me, I've been a teacher for 30 years). Young people see straight thru the naked Emperor (more about the Emperor later on).

 

Immigrants cannot integrate into a cultural vacuum

Tino Sanandaji, 31-year old Swedish Kurd, MBA and PhD, wrote in his blog an interesting article on 12 July 2011. He believes that the establishment deep down realizes that the multicultural society has failed and that its henchmen represent what he calls the anti-anti-multiculturalism. I.e., they are not really in favor of multiculturalism, which they know doesn't work, but they are against the representatives of anti-multiculturalism. They regard these (who are against a multicultural society) as evil, and since they consider themselves to be good, they take a stand against what in their eyes is evil. Thus, they become anti-anti-multiculturalists. It's no longer about defending an ideology that you believe in, it's about a back-lash, a reflex, against those who criticize multiculturalism.

Let me give you a selection from Sanandaji's article:

In this context, I define culture as the informal rules that exist in society; informal institutions, etiquette, traditions, norms and values. Unlike the superficial cultural expressions as to what food you eat and what music you listen to. If multiculturalism was all about what people eat and how they dress, there would be no problem at all.

The rules that are embedded in a culture are largely designed to reduce transaction costs in a society. If you have different rules for different people, society cannot function smoothly. Multiculturalism is an attempt to recreate the Ottoman Empire, with different rules for separate ethnic groups and institutionalized segregation. The fanatical advocates for multiculturalism may not have this in mind, but it is the consequence of their ill-conceived social experiment.

I argue that people most damaged by multiculturalism are the immigrants [I myself have pointed this out time and again — Krister's comment], many of whom are unable to integrate [unless helped along the way by the society — Krister's comment]. They do not learn all the implicit and subtle rules that govern the life in Sweden, they don't feel welcome and are unable to add a Swedish identity to the one they already have. Instead, they become bitter and react by embracing America's ghetto culture as a way to mark the distance to mainstream society.

The multicultural thought is a lie. It is a lie from the left-wing and left-liberals who promise the immigrants that they can migrate to Sweden and retain all of their traditions and norms and behaviors from Afghanistan and Albania, at no cost to the immigrants themselves. The personal consequences of not being able to integrate is mass unemployment, low income, a crime prone environment and social isolation [plus they must be provided for by the Swedish taxpayers — Krister's comment].

I suggest that the solution to the apparent failure of the multicultural policy is that the Swedes repossess the cultural self-confidence that is necessary to integrate immigrants. As an immigrant, it is impossible to integrate into nothing… [bold types added by Krister]

The last sentence is very interesting and significant. Here Sanandaji really hits the nail on the head.

Sometimes atheists tend to lament over Christians bringing up their children to the Christian faith (this is called brainwashing). Children shall be free to choose when they become adults, and not being imposed on any particular worldview or religion when they are still children (at the same time the atheists regards it as perfectly permissible to influence their children to be atheists — then it's called enlightenment, not brainwashing). Recently, a female acquaintance told me of a friend who is studying to become a primary school teacher at the Teachers' College in Gothenburg. Today the teaching there is to an alarmingly high degree about the gender perspective (this seems almost to be more important than the actual subject knowledge), and some of the college teachers declare that you cannot call a child he or she. You should instead say "hen" (a mixture composed from 'han' =he and 'hon'=she), to emphasize that gender is a social construction (I'm not kidding, but I fully understand if you don't believe me). Then, when the child gets older and can decide if it wants to be a he or a she, the individual in question is assigned a sex (the sex that the individual hen-self decides upon). In this concept it is of course included that the boys (sorry, what am I saying? — I mean those hen:s with willies — for surely you can't deny that they have a willy) in kindergarten must be dressed in pink dresses and play with dolls while the girls (i.e. the hen:s without willies) play with cars (whether they want or not — oppression in the name of Good, which I call "goodvil").

Apart from it all sounding completely brain-dead (are the workers, the drones and the queen in a bee hive also a social construction? — and who in that case determined it to be so? — not only murder bees but also Christian, right-wing, extremist bees seem to be flying around). Children should thus be allowed to grow up in a philosophical and generic vacuum and immigrants should immigrate to a cultural vacuum. All this, so that everyone shall be able to choose and nobody shall feel offended or oppressed (but why would anyone be offended or oppressed by the truth, e.g. that there are genders or that the country they arrive in has a culture?). If so, logically, we shouldn't impose on Swedish children a language. What right do we have to decide that they should speak Swedish? You should therefore lock them up in an absolutely quiet room (without books, television etc) until they turn 18. They will then never have heard any spoken language, nor can they themselves speak, read or write. And now we ask them which language they want to learn. But how can we ask them such a question or any other question, if they do not understand or are able to express themselves in any language? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to argue for such a system. A child being treated in this way would probably have to spend the rest of his (sorry, I mean hen's) life in a mental institution.

It is probably more likely that children need to grow up in a specific context. There they learn a particular language (or possibly several languages), they become part of a certain culture and embrace their parents' worldview. In a real democracy, while growing up, they will be exposed to different outlooks, belief systems, political systems etc (this assumes that the school and the media do not represent a single view only, which unfortunately is the case in Sweden) and can themselves, as they get older, choose what they want to believe in. To be able to function, people need a context where they can feel at home and where they are safe. This creates an identity. A man without identity is a very dangerous man. Or a very sick human being.

Centerpartiet (the Center Party — a liberal political party), which has been very active in creating the multicultural society, recognizes, albeit indirectly, that Sweden's immigration- and integration politics have failed. Their upcoming party conference in Åre on 22 Sept 2011 has been entitled "The New Settlement country of Sweden". They will during this conference relate to issues such as deciding on the party's renewal of its integration policy, and are now not alien to the thought that the American system of segregated areas, like Chinatown and Little Habana, can be positive for our country. The Center Party's party secretary says in an article in Dagens Nyheter (the largest daily newspaper in Sweden — liberal) 23 August 2011:

It is an approach that all segregation, like people choosing to stay together, should not be seen as something negative, says party secretary Michael Arthursson.

One has thus abandoned the idea that immigrants should integrate. Instead, it is now envisioned that they should live in segregated areas (i.e. ghettos), where they live by their own culture. It may sound good, but we see today how even a big country like the U.S. has enormous problems with the ghetto culture (gangs controlling and terrorizing entire neighborhoods etc). In a small country like Sweden, a ghettoized society would have even worse consequences (we can already see the prelude of what is to come in the Somalia towns and Little Iraqs that are already established in our country — such as Rosengård (a suburb in the southern Swedish city Malmö, where a large majority are immigrants, and certain suburbs of Stockholm and Gothenburg). I will revert to this shortly.

I can by the way mention that Swedish Television recently (January 2014) had a scoop (at least according to themselves). They had called some real estate agencies and told them that they wanted to buy an apartment or a house. The reporter, pretending to be a potential customer, then asked the agent if there were many immigrants in the area that was proposed, and the agent replied truthfully, yes or no. The telephone conversations were of course recorded and played back in the program. During these play backs the reporters groaned and sighed and rolled their eyes to show how good and compassionate they were themselves and how evil and racist the estate agents were. So according to the intellectual elite (dregs) in Sweden, you are racist if you want to live among your own people. This is quite funny, because almost all of the journalists and intellectuals live in areas with very few immigrants (and if there are any immigrants in the neighborhood, they are plasma physicists from China or similar and not illiterate Somalis). The intellectuals live in their solated safe-havens on Södermalm in Stockholm and similar areas and not in ghettos like Rosengård, Bergsjön or Husby. It is also interesting to note that the Center Party in 2011, as quoted in the last paragraph, suggested exactly this solution (people living with their own kind), which was condemned in the TV program 2014. Where were all the digging reporters during the Center Party conference mentioned above? As I use to say, ideology makes people brain dead, as it makes them accept internal contradictory opinions, as long as those opinions are accepted by the intellectual elite. And as soon as you accept contradictions, your whole logic collapses.

 

A functioning society requires a common set of values

"But", someone might ask, "why can't different cultures with different views on morality, religion, freedom of speech etc, live together?" The simplest answer is that there are no historical examples to prove that this has succeeded — ever. In the U.S., for example, the different groups do not live together but maybe meet at work or some official functions, but their private lives are spent entirely in their own cultural sphere. This type of society is called a plural society — click here for a more detailed discussion (go to the middle part that contains an interview with Professor Jonathan Friedman — this article is not yet translated)! It can work if the immigrant group is made up of a negligible minority (like Muslims in the U.S. — 0,8% of the population). But as soon as a group constitutes a substantial part of the population, its members will demand influence and power, and problems arise. Some years ago I received a mail from one of my readers who wrote:

The conflict in Yugoslavia was not due to religion or culture, it was about money, just as the crucial point of your arguments seems to be about money. Differences in culture is not a problem if you share the same values. I do not think you would regard Orthodox Jews as a major problem. So what do we do with immigration from Muslim countries? Do you want to deny them asylum with reference to their statistically low morale?

First, he accuses me wrongly of discussing immigration mainly from an economic perspective. Certainly I am adding economical aspects — as well. If immigration costs Swedish tax payers more than health care and defense put together (by some estimates this could actually be the case), we must consider whether this is really reasonable. Primarily however, it is not economic considerations that make me critical of Sweden's immigration policy, it is simply that I believe that the multicultural society will end up in a disaster for our country (and Europe). At worst, we are within 30-50 years (or maybe another few decades) before a cruel civil war will take place throughout Europe, with tens of millions dead (when Islam tries to seize power). This is my absolute conviction!

The writer also asserts that the conflict in Yugoslavia had nothing to do with culture and religion, and that it was solely caused by economical factors (a typical leftist social anthropological perspective). I believe this to be totally wrong. The Serbs had for centuries been at the front line against Islam. They do not like Muslims (and the same goes for the populations of Bulgaria and Romania) and are afraid of Islam. The Serb's (and the Balkan's) history shows that this fear is highly justified. They have repeatedly been close to being conquered by Islam. When the Ottoman Turkish Empire invaded the Balkans in the 1500s, they began to take Christian slaves from the local populations in the Balkans (and among them were of course Serbs) and convert them to Islam to be soldiers in the Ottoman army. The Turks also committed whole-scale atrocities against Christian populations, who resisted Ottoman rule and refused to convert to Islam. During WW2 Himmler created two SS-battalions with Muslims (as I mentioned above, Islam was highly regarded by the Nazis). Those battalions committed numerous atrocities against Jews, Serbs etc. In Poland they took part in the crushing of the Warsaw uprising, in which hundreds of thousands of Poles were killed. After the war they were accused of committing war crimes. In Bosnia-Herzegovina there has always been a Serb minority. During WW2 the Muslims there committed several massacres on the Serb minority. The Serbs have never forgotten how they were treated and threatened by the Muslims during the years. I do not in any way defend their ethnic cleansings during the civil war, but the cause of these were definitely not economic. It was revenge!

The most interesting part of the mail is the wording, "Differences in culture is not a problem if you share the same values". I completely agree with the wording "if you share the same values". The problem is that Islam and the European culture do not share the same values. These two cultures are light years apart. They have almost nothing in common. As Muslims and Swedes do not share the same values, it is impossible for Muslims to integrate into our country (as long as they remain faithful Muslims — furthermore, for a believing Muslim it is forbidden to become integrated in a non-Muslim country). That is why I am against immigration of large groups of Muslims into our country. We can use the billions those immigrants cost to help people in their own regions. We could then help many, many more, which surely would be a good thing. Plus, we will not have the tremendous conflicts that Muslim immigration will ultimately lead to.

Regarding how expensive it is to help people here in Sweden, let me give you just an example; 2012 Sweden received about 2,600 unaccompanied child refugees, who mostly are over 18 but pretend to be children to easier become residents. They cost SEK 2,000/day (about 306 USD) or more during al least their first two years here. A cautious estimate shows that for what these "children" cost, we could help 1.2 million real children in India (school fee, school uniform, water and a nourishing meal every day). And then you say, "But one good thing doesn't necessarily exclude another good thing". Your are wrong, it does! We have a limited amount of money in the State budget, and for every Swedish crown (SEK) you pay for this, there will be one crown less to pay for that. Such is the truth. We live in a real world. Wishful thinking only works in fairy-tales.

My answer to the question "So what do we do with immigration from Muslim countries? Would you deny them asylum in reference to their low morale?" is "Yes, absolutely (except in very, very exceptional cases)! These groups we should and can help in their own local regions."

 

Sweden sells out the equality concept so as not to offend certain groups of immigrants

On 30 May 2011 you could read an article in Svenska Dagbladet (an independent conservative daily newspaper) titled "Sweden does not need to yield" written by Johanne Hildebrandt, author and war reporter. She writes a.o.;

A few years ago a woman in Baghdad tore off the shawl I was wearing so as not to offend anybody.

"You don't need to wear it", she said angrily.

Islamists had begun to force women to cover their hair and dress traditionally, but why should I, by pure comfort, yield to demands that I really didn't have to follow?

I think about this when I read Ricki Neuman's report about the death of multiculturalism (Svenska Dagbladet 18 May). At a school in Stromsund they placed a high screen in the middle of the class room to separate male and female students.

In a brochure from the State Youth Board it states that: "You just don't have to buy the current Swedish version of equality. Instead it's better to try and find your own version based on group and culture." 70,000 Swedish students are living in honor cultures where they have no right to decide how to dress or with whom to socialize or marry. Fifteen year olds are sent abroad to be married, and if they refuse, they risk being murdered.

How could this country that the British The Guardian once called "the most successful society the world has ever known" begin to cut back on the principles that once were so important?

In the Middle East, people die in the struggle for democracy. In Saudi Arabia women who want to drive a car are being arrested. In Afghanistan raped women are jailed because sex is a crime, and little girls are killed because they go to school. People sacrifice themselves to get what we take for granted.

Hildebrand asks in the article why the rights of foreign-born Swedes are being ignored? This is exactly spot on! The multicultural society of the Compassion choir is in fact a racist society where all immigrants are declared idiots, unable to adapt to Sweden. Therefore Sweden must adapt to them. The only question is how a country simultaneously could be adapted to all the different groups of immigrants who come here and who have diametrically divergent ways to relate to many important issues. It is logically impossible. The result is that we instead adapt to the most aggressive and vociferous and largest immigrant group, i.e. Islam. Multiculturalism, in the version of the Compassion choir, therefore becomes not multiculturalism but biculturalism, i.e. two cultures are given space on the public arena while other cultures are neglected (they may be looked upon as charming splashes of color, but with no real influence). Multiculturalism has thus become Islamic and Swedish cultures and nothing else. And because the Islamic and Swedish cultures are one hundred percent incompatible, one of them must give way. That's why the Swedish culture is in retreat (that Islam should withdraw is out of the question — the word compromise does not exist in the vocabulary of Islam).

That the State Youth Board is telling immigrants that they "don't have to buy the current Swedish version of equality" is staggering. A governmental authority! Obviously immigrants must accept the Swedish version of equality if they want to stay in Sweden. They must adapt to Sweden and to Swedish law if they want to stay here! Otherwise they are free to take advantage of another of Sweden's liberties, namely the liberty to move somewhere else (i.e. where they came from). That the State Youth Board urges immigrants to define equality in their own terms is almost incomprehensible. Equality is indeed a sacred cow in our country, and woe to those who in any way criticize the Swedish view on equality (Swedish politicians again and again criticize countries, that have different views on equality, abortion etc, in a very frank and denouncing manner — except for Muslim countries, which seem to be raised above any form of critical scrutiny). And then suddenly, a Swedish government agency proclaims that some immigrant groups in our country do not have to accept the term equality in the same way as the Swedes do (both culturally and legislatively). Is this not professional misconduct? I would even call it treason! Will the next step be to allow the Muslims to define their own abortion legislation (which by the way is very close to the Christian standpoint — I am talking about Christianity based on the Bible (and there can be none other)?!

To not fully demand from immigrants that they must adapt to our standards and laws, is roughly the same thing as severely spoiling a child. Especially children with weak characters are likely to become corrupted as they get pampered, and parents risk to damage their entire future. In the same way we corrupt many immigrants by not making demands on them. When no demands are made, they will firstly be tempted to allow themselves to be provided for by Swedish taxpayers, and secondly they will have great difficulties becoming a part of the Swedish society (which makes it difficult for them to get a job — I am talking about real jobs, that are not paid for by the Swedish government). Social benefits do not lead to a life in luxury, which may also inspire some immigrants to try to improve their finances with criminal activity (and statistics show that this is exactly what happens — here I am talking about those groups that do not integrate, i.e. mainly Muslims and East European gypsies).

Assume that we, instead of our unconceivable piteous permissiveness, would make it clear to the immigrated youths, who are burning cars and parents who murder their children (because they disobey) etc, that anyone who acts in this way will have their Swedish citizenship annulled (if they already have got one) and expelled for life after serving their sentences (and all pensions and allowances to be withdrawn with immediate effect for those who have never paid a single tax penny to the Swedish State), and that this will be consistently applied to 100 percent. Many hard-working immigrants would clap and cheer — they have no sympathetic feelings for those immigrants who misbehave. Many of the misbehaving immigrants would then say, "Why did you not tell us this from the start? Then we would have avoided all this hassle. Tell me what you want me to do!" And then they would adapt to the Swedish culture. The leniency of the Swedish society when it comes to criminal and in other manners misbehaving immigrants is detrimental for Sweden and for the immigrants themselves. In the same way as the permissiveness of the Swedish school regarding bullies is very damaging, both to the well-behaved students as for the bullies themselves. Where stupidity prevails, all are losers.

 

Different kinds of multiculturalism

One can distinguish between two kinds of multicultural societies:

1. A country which is formed artificially, and where the country's land area, when formed, includes various ethnic groups (e.g. Yugoslavia with Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc).

2. A more or less mono-cultural country that receives immigrants (like Sweden).

In case 1 it is natural with quotas, where different ethnic groups are assigned specific rights and specific legislation and where parliamentary seats are in proportion to the different sizes of the groups. Unfortunately there is no example of a type 1 country that has worked in the long run (the reader may perhaps be able to come up with something?). A country like this might be kept together with a harsh legislation, as in Yugoslavia and Singapore, but as soon as the governmental power weakens, the country will start falling apart. When the Communist dictatorship in Yugoslavia fell, all inhibitory forces disappeared and all suppressed tensions came to the surface (based on how the Serbs had been treated by the Muslims during WW2 and before as described above), and the country fell apart in an extremely cruel civil war. Exactly the same trend have been seen in Lebanon. We also see how Christian Arabs now leave Iraq and the Palestinian territories in multitudes.

In case 2 it is unnatural with quotas, specific legislation etc. In this case it's self-evident that immigrants adapt to the country in question. "When in Rome, be a Roman candle", as the saying goes. Then you can cook your own food and dress in your own style (within limits) and other things. And when the immigrants eventually receive their new citizenship, they are free to work for changes within the framework of democracy, just like any other citizen,.

 

Down with it all!

To change the subject a little bit, it's interesting to see how the leftist Compassion choir does everything in their power to disparage and ultimately destroy the family. Now of course, they haven't had much success in their achievements, but they try. And they try hard! Several polls recently done show that an overwhelming proportion of young people have a much more positive attitude towards lasting families than many older people have.

In their eagerness to destroy the family, the Compassion choir has used the strategy to broaden the family concept and parenting so substantially that these concepts become completely empty and meaningless. So far we have same-sex marriages, artificial inseminations of lesbians and single women, and gay adoptions. So far, it is mandatory for those who change sex from female to male gender to be sterilized, as it has been perceived unnatural that a man (former woman) then can give birth. But already the destructive forces are at work to remove also this taboo. There will soon be a parliamentary vote on the issue and it seems that even KD (the Christian Democratic party) has changed attitude and once again will howl with the wolves. In some other countries there is no need for sterilization when you have a female-to-male surgery. During the Pride Week in Stockholm, which recently came to pass, one of the main speakers was a man (?) from the U.S. who was previously a woman, and who is now pregnant. To me this is an outrage, an abomination. It makes me feel sick just thinking about it. And I'm not in the least ashamed for feeling sick. Poor child! But on the other hand, in the eyes of the Compassion choir children is a right, on the same level as the right to have an aquarium or a cat. Children in today's Sweden exist to satisfy the needs of adults — they have been reduced from fellow human beings with uncompromising values, into toys for irresponsible adults (one could perhaps call this "platonic pedophilia" — as compared to platonic love).

It is interesting to note how marriage as an institution 15 years ago was despised by the politically correct establishment. And church weddings, well they were seen upon as the worst thing you could ever engage in. You couldn't sink lower than that. And today, all of a sudden, a church wedding has become the most important thing in the eyes of the Compassion choir. It (the choir) is prepared to go to the utmost extremes, even force and legislation, to get all churches and denominations to approve same-sex marriages. How could suddenly a church wedding go from being an antiquated relic from the Dark Ages, to become one of the most important human rights issues? Well, it is very simple. Because they could not forbid people to marry, they could do the next best thing, to turn the concept of marriage into being completely without meaning. Ultimately we perceive polygamy not very far away in the future (it has already been discussed by some leftist movements and even by one of the parties in the Swedish Parliament). Then the next step will certainly be to introduce marriages between humans and animals (I'm not kidding). And why not? If evolution is the only explanation to Man, then he is just an animal and nothing else. And why couldn't one animal marry another animal? The question is of course how to know whether a dog says "I do" during the wedding ceremony. "Wuff-wuff" can be interpreted in many ways.

While the Compassion choir tries to break down the family, it also seeks to break down any form of absolute morality. Everything is permitted, except the belief that there are rights and wrongs. Then the bloody fangs of the Compassion choir are exposed. And like I said, they are now in the process of breaking down Sweden as a country and as a cultural context. Evil can only break down. It can never build up. Behind the polished Colgate smiles of the Compassion choir you catch a glimpse of the Devil's deadly grin.

While we still find ourselves well outside the subject, it may be interesting to consider how it can be that the left and the left-liberals (i.e. the driving parts of the cultural elite/Compassion choir and many other groups) identify themselves so strongly with Islam. From a pure ideological point of view, those two ideologies have hardly anything at all in common. According to Marxism, Islam represents a "feudal relic" that will disappear as soon as the masses are enlightened. In the eyes of Islam, the left is a collection of infidel dogs, who, when Islam comes into power, will have the choice to kneel in front of Allah, or be beheaded. How then, can they cooperate? In many protest marches against Israel, the Left and the Muslims walk side by side as bosom friends. I believe the explanation to this is very simple. Both groups realize that they cannot take over the World through a regular war. The enormous military resources of the superpowers preclude such a thing (at least in the foreseeable future). This is why their goal is to create chaos. They are hoping that the entire Western world will collapse like a house of cards (the economy crashing, iniquity shall abound, police forces unable to keep order etc). Out of this chaos with burning cities, mobs murdering indiscriminately, and governments without any real power, the Phoenix bird will rise from the ashes (if we assume that not 50,000 — but 5 million — thugs had been involved in the London riots recently, well then perhaps the entire society had collapsed). The new world will then be born. Paradise is here, either in the form of the global Caliphate or the left-anarchic utopia. This is their hope and belief. But what is born out of violence and evil will be perverted from the beginning, and will lead to even more violence and evil, and it also carries within itself the seed to its own destruction. "What violence might create, is cruel and short-lived. In the distant desert, like a whirlwind, it dies', writes Esaias Tegnér in his poem 'The Eternal".

But assume, that after all, the world could be brought into such a chaos (which at a guess isn't very likely). Then Islam and Communism would immediately turn against each other and try to seize power (much like after the Russian Revolution, when different left- and socialist groups fought against each other and where finally the Bolsheviks won because they were the most ruthless and cruel group. Although I do not believe in such a scenario, I still think that within these groups there is some kind of, perhaps unconscious, desire to tear everything down, in the hope that by so doing they will achieve their goals. That's why they want to butcher the Swedish culture, family, marriage, the right of parents to influence the children etc, i.e. all factors acting as stabilizers and preservatives. The Compassion choir's (and the useful idiots figuring as their tail) enthusiasm for a multicultural society originates perhaps simply in the hope that this will contribute to the dissolution of the Western culture, the nation-state and the whole West, and thus accelerate the arrival of Paradise. I suspect the Compassion choir will be immensely disappointed when and if their Utopia presents itself.

In the book MAO; the unknown story (see my bibliography — link in left frame) is given the following quotation from Chairman Mao's (who caused the death of perhaps 100 million people or more) diary: "The country must be destroyed and then re-formed… This applies to the country, to the nation, and to mankind… The destruction of the universe is the same… People like me long for its devastating destruction, because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed (page 15)". And that is exactly how evil works. Human suffering does not matter. Destroy, degrade, devastate, that is what those psychopathic monsters want. At best, they might hope that a better world shall rise from the ashes of the old world. When it comes to evil, sadistic people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Arafat, suffering and chaos were perhaps an end by itself, where they could enjoy their power over life and death.

 

Beyond multiculti

On the excellent Swedish TV channel Axess (which is completely ad-free and shows amazingly interesting programs about culture, politics, science, music etc coupled with a surprising lack of political correctness — how can this be possible?) a program called "Beyond multiculti" was televised on 8 June 2011 at 10 p.m. in which they discussed various aspects of the multicultural society. Among the speakers were many immigrants. I will reproduce a small selection from the program (including some of my own comments). Citations are in bold letters:

To let fleeing Somalis into the country is one thing, to let Somalia in is another thing.

What's suggested here is that it is reasonable to accept refugees, but we shall not have Somali enclaves in Sweden.

In Skolledaren (the School Leader), a magazine that caters to principals and other school leaders, you could in no. 1, 2010 read an article entitled "Lawlessness in the densely populated immigration areas in Gothenburg [the second largest city in Sweden]". A few clips from the article:

In the middle of the areas, marked by criminality, lie schools. The School Leader has spoken with principals in the immigrant-dominated million program areas [areas where the society has invested countless millions to build apartment houses, schools etc for people with low income], what they can do to preserve the schools as sanctuaries.

In Gothenburg there are areas where not even Hells Angels or Bandidos dare to enter. But it is not the police they fear. Gårdsten, Lövgärdet, Hjällbo, Bergsjön and Biskopsgården are poor areas with their own million-programs. They are dominated and controlled by a number of large families with backgrounds from the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Iran, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Syria and Somalia.
Not those who once came to Sweden to open corner shops, import businesses or restaurants. Or who were wrecked in unemployment, homesickness and alienation. We are talking about their children, the second or third generation "immigrants".
In these areas we find an escalating development of car fires, stone-throwing at fire fighters and police, gunshots, knife attacks, assaults and murders. Firearms are used and available in all groups.
When major clans form pacts against criminal MC-gangs, very large amounts go to weapons, and suppliers are not lacking.
A parallel society has been established outside society, where blood ties are strong and where there are completely different, unwritten laws besides the actual legislation.
Such is the situation described by police officers, social workers and field workers involved in these areas.

This is not quoted from Sverigedemokraternas [SD — Sweden Democrats = a social conservative, patriotic party, which is critical mainly towards the mass immigration of Muslims to Sweden] monthly newsletter, or from a racist website. It is extracted from a professional magazine for school leaders, and the article is based on how police officers, social workers etc are describing the situation. Skolledaren is normally as politically correct as other media in Sweden, but here they feel compelled to write this, as it's a matter of school safety. And here we see the multicultural society in all its glory (or perhaps gory). And just wait till we have several million Somalis etc in our country! Then you will see the real McCoy. The Compassion choir occassionally recognizes that there are problems with the integration of immigrants (though this is of course only Sweden's and the notoriously racist Swedes fault), but they mean that in a few generations these groups will become well integrated Swedes. Then observe what is written above, "Not those who once came to Sweden to open corner shops, import businesses or restaurants. Or who were wrecked in unemployment, homesickness and alienation. It is their children, the second or third generation 'immigrants'. Thus, the problem is worse after some of the immigrant groups have lived in our country for generations, than when they arrived (perhaps they were not as brazen then as they are today). This clearly demonstrates the total failure of the multicultural society. Somalia has arrived in Sweden. Congratulations!

In Svenska Dagbladet on 25 June 2011 there was an editorial by Per Gudmundson entitled "Crime amongst immigrants should worry all political parties":

"One in five immigrants arrested for crimes". This was trumpeted in Dagbladet, one of Norway's major newspapers (17 June). Statistisk sentralbyrå, Norwegian counterpart to Central Bureau of Statistics, has for the first time made a proper compilation of crime statistics, divided into countries of origin, and it has created a few headlines.

The absolute majority of all crimes are committed by Norwegians. 90 percent of the perpetrators of the crimes committed during the measured period 2001 until 2004, were native Norwegians. There were, however, certain immigrant groups over-represented in the crime statistics that arose interest. 6,1 percent of all Norwegians committed some type of crime during the measurement period. Immigrants from the Nordic countries, Western Europe and North America committed crimes to a lesser degree than that. But 10.4 percent of immigrants from Eastern Europe, 13.6 percent from Asia, 13.8 percent from Central- and South America and 17.8 percent of immigrants from Africa were registered for crimes during the same period. Also the children of immigrants recorded higher criminal activities than the Norwegians, the report unveils. Origin countries with the highest percentage of offenders were Morocco (18.1), Iran (19.4), Somalia (21.8) and Iraq (23.6 percent). On the other side of the spectrum, we find China (5.9) and the Philippines (4.7 percent).

Norway is no stranger to the question of origin and crime. The Oslo police have for years featured rape statistics in that way — and found that all rape attacks by known offenders in the last five years have been committed by immigrants [bold letters added by Krister] — but the new study accordingly covers all registered crimes committed throughout Norway during several years. The outcome thus weighs heavy, and is not dependent on any individual crime occasions or people. You can get an idea of what "every fifth" means in real terms when you consider that in Norway live around 17000 Somalis and 19000 Iraqis. Property crime and violent crime are the categories where the differences are greatest between immigrants and Norwegian descendants. The proportions of convictions are 2.3 times as large in theft offences (18.7 vs. 8.4 per 1000 inhabitants) and 2.1 times as large in violent crimes (9.5 vs. 4.5) [recent statistics for Norway published 2013 shows much worse figures than this].

Neither employment or housing conditions are given much explanatory power to the report. On the other hand, if you take gender and age into account — immigrants are largely young men, just as perpetrators are — between 20 and 45 percent of the over-representation is explained . No other explanations are made by the reporters. But the material is rich, and raises many questions. A common notion — that traumas from civil wars create lawlessness — seems contradicted by the results. Immigrants from Somalia are to a much greater extent registered for crimes than the equally war-affected immigrants from Sri Lanka (9.7%), to take one example [the majority of the Sri Lankans are Buddhists, Hindus or Christians while the Somalis are 100% Muslims — Krister's comment]. Two [Swedish] studies (1996:2 and 2005:17) on crime, made by the National Crime Prevention Council [BRÅ], among people born in Sweden and abroad, have given similar, if not worse, results. In the previous report for example, 26.9 percent of the immigrants from North Africa were for good reasons suspected of crimes during the period, and in the latter report a corresponding 24.1 percent was measured [in Denmark similar figures apply, which I have outlined in previous blogs — Krister's comment].

As always when you put forward politically incorrect opinions, Gudmundson has been scorned and threatened for the above editorial, and accused of running SD's errands [which today is the worst accusation that can med made — it could cost you your job, your friends and your reputation]. On Twitter and in blogs the Compassion choir has celebrated pure orgies in platitudes and ill-considered comments and called the text "twisted and malevolent interpretations". Other remarks have been "The Bourgeoisie display increasing openness with their Islamophobia. Svenska Dagbladet is SD's new mouthpiece", "The Brown Shirts have a new spokesperson" and the like. Not very hopeful. A serious debate on immigration seems to lie far into the future. There appears to be little hope that Sweden will actuate immigration issues right now. Or perhaps there is hope, now that Svenska Dagbladet dares to question the censors of political correctness. The Swede is hopefully much more sane than the Compassion choir and may we hope that the Swedish people finally hear the child's voice that dares to utter the forbidden words, "The Emperor has no clothes on. He is naked."

This alludes to a classical Danish fairy-tale by the famous author H. C. Andersen. Two imposters, who pretend to be skilful tailors, offer the Emperor to buy a very expensive dress that can only be seen by intelligent people, but is invisible to dimwits. They pretend to take measurements of the Emperor and after a while they say that the dress is finished. The Emperor takes off all his clothing and the tailors help him to put on the new dress. All the courtiers tell the Emperor how beautiful his dress is (although the truth is that he is naked).

The fraud is genial as the imposters play on very strong human vices like pride and prestige. No on dares to admit that the Emperor is naked, because that would implicate that you are a dumbhead, for whom the dress is invisible. But when the Emperor finally shows his new dress to his subjects, the fraud doesn't work anymore, because there is a child among the onlookers who shouts, "But the Emperor is naked". A child cannot be controlled as easily as an adult. And a child won't lie (I child can lie to save his own skin but not in this case). I think this fairy-tale is exceedingly relevant in our time. Like the con men in the story, political correctness also plays on feelings like prestige, pride, fright and cowardness.

That said, it seems to be perfectly clear that big problems exist with some groups of immigrants. When almost a quarter of some immigrant groups are convicted of violent crimes, one cannot pretend that it's raining and negligently dismiss it all with "it's not easy coming to a new country…". That all rape attacks by known offenders in the last five years in Norway have been committed by immigrants is remarkable (other articles in the Norwegian press show that all those immigrants are from non-European countries), and to try to put the lid on when it comes to this is to indirectly sympathize with these rapes. Even I could not believe it was as bad as this (I suppose the Swedish National Statistics Board and the National Crime Prevention Council have now been given strict instructions not to unveil that kind of statistics — it would by the way be interesting to know the percentage of immigrant offenders (particularly from North Africa/Middle East) when it comes to gang rapes of young women and girls that you've read about in the last years).

There, honestly, seems to be something seriously wrong with some immigrant groups. Why is the involvement in criminal activities significantly lower than average among Asian immigrants, while the same involvement among immigrants from Muslim countries is almost three times as high? It is a very legitimate question. Do we want these groups, prone to crimes, to reside in our countries? I certainly don't! Sweden is not under any obligation to change and adapt to these immigrants. It is these immigrant groups that have to change, or leave Sweden! And incidentally, how much does it cost Sweden to have a large amount of Somalis sitting in prison (each individual costs hundreds of dollars a day)? This money, I believe, could be used in much better ways. I'd much rather help the 11 million people who now are starving to death in the Horn of Africa, than I invite criminal immigrants to a comfortable prison stay with color-TV and a diet that many Swedish pensioners only can dream of.

Muslims have not fled from Islamic countries to be subjected to the same oppression in Sweden

This I have discussed in numerous articles on my blog. Why does the Compassion choir not act in support of the freedom for immigrant women and —children? Why are they backing virtually only the oppressive mullahs and Muslim men (perhaps they do not intend this, but this is what they actually do)? Admittedly the Compassion choir reacts when an honor killing occurs in our country, but why do they let the repression continue in silence year after year, without doing anything? Or even saying anything? And why can't they admit that there is a connection between Islam and honor killings? As I see it the submissiveness, when it comes to the oppression of Muslim women and children living in Sweden, is disgraceful. It is a betrayal of the immigrants. I believe that it stems from cowardice. It has definitely nothing to do with compassion. In my eyes Swedes are among the (or perhaps the) greatest cowards on the entire planet Earth!

Sweden has not been in war for 200 years and has had only small minorities in the past. Sweden's history explains why we do not have a language to communicate about immigration and multiculturalism.

I think there is a lot in this. Sweden was until the 1960s a homogenous society. The former, legendary, Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander wrote in his book Valfrihetens samhälle ("A Society with freedom of choice", Tiden 1962):

We Swedes live after all in an infinitely much luckier situation. Our country's population is homogeneous, not only regarding race but also in many other respects (page 82).

And then suddenly everything changed. The absence of a language that can be used to objectively, and without strong emotions, talk about immigration and related topics definitely makes up at least a partial explanation as to why these topics have become taboo (as it is now criticism of immigration is confused with racial discrimination of immigrants, which could be but true but which is not necessarily true).

The Swedish debate [about immigration and multiculture] does not aim to debate, but to provide security [for those in power].

Through reassuring articles and programs in the media, the power elite tries to show how positive all forms of immigration and groups of immigrants are for our country. And the journalists take willingly part in this. Who would not want to belong to the Compassion choir and be admired for one's supreme goodness?!

Perhaps the debate also seeks to provide a sense of security for the citizens. Through skillfully written articles the cultural elite lull the Swedish people into security. You don't have to worry. Immigration is a pure cash cow for our country and it's only quite a few immigrants who come here and those are definitely not a burden on the public economy, and the vast majority (apart from an insignificant minority) want nothing more than to integrate into Swedish society. And all rumors that some immigrant groups should be more likely than ethnic Swedes to commit crimes are lies from the Sweden Democrats and Christian right-wing extremists. There, there, quiet now, quiet, sleeep, sleeeep….snore….

Speaking about costs, on 23 August 2011 on Radio Sweden's website, you could read the following:

In December last year, the National Employment Service (NES) was handed over the responsibility for foreign nationals coming to Sweden. Since then, NES has received 4,134 persons. Only ten of them have found jobs. — For me it's good that ten have got a job, it would have been worse if none had got any. The important thing is that nine out of ten have a plan and have received a focused effort and are on the track, so I feel confident, says Angela Bermudez Svankvist, director-general of NES.

The new arrivals are taken care of by something called the establishment guides. And there have been jobs created, though not for the new arrivals. 151 companies get paid for counseling and education.

I had a good laugh when I read this. Incidentally, Angela Bermudez Svankvist seems to have emerged somewhere from outer space. But I am very glad that she feels confident. Unfortunately I do not feel the same confidence when I hear her frivolous comment to the failure of the labor market policy.

At the end of last year there was talk about the greatest integration reform in 25 years, which would finally, with tax payers' money, sort out the integration problems. As mentioned in the article, NES took over the responsibility for newly arrived "Swedes" (that is the politically correct name for newly arrived immigrants — in my opionion you should not be called Swede until you are a Swedish citizen) in order to get them out on the job market at a faster pace. Out of 4,134 immigrants, NES has thus succeeded in giving 10 persons a real job. Nine out of ten "have a plan and a focused effort". It is not particularly strange that so few have got real jobs. Many Swedes are also unemployed, especially the young people. Shall we give immigrant youths priority over Swedish youths? Personally I do not think this would be righteous, or a wise course to take. Or even a good idea. Those nine out of ten, who have a plan, are in any case under action, but even if they are able to get different kinds of trainee jobs, the community has to pay for it (as stated in the article), i.e. it generates no money and involves only costs to the taxpayers. I do not blame the immigrants for not having any jobs. There simply aren't any jobs to have. There do exist work for people with special qualifications. But neither Somalis (other than in exceptional cases) or similar groups have any special skills that may be of any interest to the Swedish employers looking for qualified personnel. There are probably very few of the Somalis who come here (if any) who can work with nanotechnology or weld titanium steel or write computer programs in C++. Swedish employers, in need of people who can make bricks by hand and carry water and the like, are rather few.

It is very difficult to find clear evidence regarding the actual costs of immigration. But sometimes interesting facts leak through, even though the media seems to do everything they possibly can to withhold these from the Swedish people.

The same day that I read the above-cited article on Radio Sweden's website, it was reported on the Radio that here were 200 000 unemployed refugees in Sweden. I suppose this figure relates to immigrants who have already received residence permits and are therefore authorized to work (and then we have a large number of refugees who are waiting for their residence permits or waiting for deportation — most of whom cost the Swedish tax payers several hundred dollars a day).

In Uppsalatidningen (a weekly local paper in Uppsala with ads and some news) on 23-29 September 2011 there was an article by Tommy Waidelich (economic-political spokesperson for the Social Democrats), entitled "To go from benefits to work should pay". Here we read a.o.:

Over 40 percent of the population aged 20-64 in the socio-economically most disadvantaged housing estates neither work nor study, and is therefore to a very large extent dependent on income support or social benefits.

Included in "the socio-economically most disadvantaged housing estates" are of course immigrant-crowded suburbs like Rosengård in Malmö, Bergsjön in Gothenburg and certain suburbs to Stockholm (I am pretty convinced that immigrant areas are strongly overrepresented among the "socio-economically most disadvantaged housing estates" even though one is extremely careful not to say so in plain language). If about 40 percent of people of working age is entirely dependent on different benefits (those under 20 and over 64 are of course even more dependent on benefits), it is hard to believe that mass immigration to Sweden would create the alleged cash cow (other than for refugee smugglers and private companies making millions in profits on "caring" for immigrants). Rather the opposite. You begin to suspect, when you listen to some of the politicians (even outside the Sweden Democrats), that the consensus of the alleged blessings for our country regarding certain immigrant groups is about to capsize.

An unemployed Swede may have paid large sums of taxes over the years, before he lost his job, and when he is out of work he can, so to speak, regain some of the money he has paid (that's how the unemployment insurance and basically all other insurances are meant to work). And if a young person is unemployed, his/her parents have paid large sums in taxes to the Swedish government, which their child then gets back. The majority of (especially non-European) immigrants have not paid anything at all to the system, and are thus to 100 percent supplied by the Swedish taxpayers. I am not saying that we should not support these immigrants, but we must not deceive the Swedish people into believing that there are no costs associated with immigration. This is why I believe one honestly should account for the costs (with transparency) and then ask the Swedish people for its opinions regarding these costs and to the multicultural society. Politicians are the servants of the citizens, and not their Masters! At least in a democracy, worth the epithet democracy.

One of the speakers in the Axess program meant that in our country there is a contempt for the past, which is the basis for the cultural elite's lack of appreciation of the Swedish culture. I wrote down a few posts from this speech:

Modernity implies that everything gets better — it's better today than yesterday and it was better yesterday than the day before. This way of thinking leads to the deprivation of the culture [because everything was worse in the past, there is no good reason to look back].

The Swedish modernity project is run by journalists who live at Högalid, Södermalm [a popular and fashionable neighborhood for cultural people] in Stockholm.

These journalists, who live in their ghettos (of which Högalid is one), where all think alike when they meet at barbecues and wine tastings and support galas for Ships to Gaza, are the ones who direct the Compassion choir.

Sweden is extreme when it comes to ethical and moral values. According to World Value Survey the Swedes rank rationality [rational thinking] higher than any other people in the World.

I think there is a lot in these comments. If you believe that everything just gets better and that everything can be explained and understood only by means of reason, it is tempting to look down upon the past and forget that we are indebted to the hardworking people who laid the foundation for today's prosperity. We end up with a people without history. Swedes are apparently the most extreme in the whole world when it comes to faith in the abilities of reason (according to the just mentioned analysis by World Value Survey, an organization that examines political and socio-political changes in the countries of the world). But note, having a high regard for reason does not mean that you automatically think rationally, or that the conclusions drawn are correct. For reason and logic to be able to lead us right, it must be combined with truth and transparency, righteousness and morality. One must use reason without bias and be careful to make sure that the presuppositions, on which your chain of reasoning is based, are correct. When the general public uses its common sense to draw conclusions, and these conclusions come out inaccurate, this is, unfortunately, due to the Swedish media largely supplying false presuppositions, i.e. supply erroneous facts to the Swedish people (for example regarding the Middle East conflict, Islam, Christian faith etc, etc). This is what happens when the public adopts the false premises fed to them by the cultural elite (and this is precisely what this elite, or rather scum, aims at).

An interesting observation is that those who most severely criticize our immigration policies are the immigrants themselves. This can partly be due to immigrants not being as politically correct as the Swedes. A Syrian, who has fled to Sweden away from oppression in Muslim countries, may have a less positive (and more realistic) view of Islam than an ordinary Swede, whose knowledge of Islam is based solely on the rosy picture painted by Islam "experts" and others allowed to appear in media (these often come from Södertörn Högskola (Södertörn "University"), a most remarkable institution that is probably worth a separate article — this institution is one of the strongholds of everything that is politically correct in Sweden). Media may also be more likely to favor an immigrant before an ethnic Swede in these matters, partly because the person is an immigrant and must be treated with respect and favor, and partly because an immigrant cannot be suspected of criticizing the immigration for racist reasons.

Modernism generates a lack of history, which in turn generates confusion, because people who know nothing of the past, are deprived of the ability to truly know and understand the present. Without history — the peoples' collective memory, which is part of their identity — they become like a person who has lost his memory, and thus his identity. If a person does not understand history, he will definitely not understand the future. By robbing the Swedes of their history and their culture, the intellectual "elite" creates people who are easy to manipulate. The question remains though, what motivates the cultural elite to destroy its own country? I question that they even perceive this themselves.

 

Am I as a Christian called by God to commit cultural and intellectual suicide?

The Christian faith compels us, who are Christians, to try to reduce the suffering in the world (which is not to be interpreted as the Christians are the only ones who work for a better world — but still, no other religion or ideology emphasizes as much as Christianity the virtues of generosity, compassion, mercy and love). But a country is not, and cannot be, Christian (Christian faith is all about the individual's relationship with his Savior and God). The government's mandate is primarily to take care of its own people. And this includes, among other things, to provide security for its people. The government has no right to force its citizens to cultural and ethnic extinction by admitting ethnic groups, that threaten the country (which is not the same thing as Sweden refusing to aid poor people, and reduce suffering in other countries).

As an individual I can choose to help people in distress (which I do). I may even choose to live penniless by giving away everything I own to poor and suffering people, and devote my life to alleviate their anguish (like Mother Theresa). But society has no right to force me to become penniless by helping others. Certainly, we shall help! But to what extent and to which target group and how to do it practically, must be open for discussion. It is far from certain that we, through our current immigration- and aid policies, help the right people in the right way. The total silence when it comes to how much the tax payers have to pay for our present immigration policy and various misuses of our welfare system by immigrants is remarkable (e.g. immigrants going on holiday to their homelands, that they recently escaped from under supposedly mortal danger, and where these trips are paid for by us tax payers — you may think this is reasonable and you are free to handle your money the way you want, but you are not free to decide how my money should be used). All facts in these matters must be presented and discussed. Only if everything is openly reported, the Swedish people can, through the ballot, show how they want our immigration policy to be. At present, most issues regarding immigration (the negative ones) are obscured. And woe unto those who try to talk about these matters! This way of treating the Swedish people is not democracy!

Jesus' teaching of love is all about how I, as an individual, shall relate to other people. Let us imagine a shipping accident in wintertime in the North Sea, where you would only survive for fifteen minutes in the icy water, and a life boat entirely full of survivors — one more person onboard and it will sink. Now a person comes swimming. Does our Christian faith compel us to take him onboard? The lifeboat will then sink and everyone will die. To be a Christian is not the same thing as being stupid.

One option is of course that one person in the lifeboat changes place with the person in the water, i.e. he sacrifices his life. The commander of the lifeboat, however, has no right to force anyone to become such a victim. On the other hand I can, as an individual, choose to offer the distressed person my place, by jumping into the water (which means that I sacrifice my life for the other person). It could for example be a child in the water, and I, who is old and have lived a long life, feel that the child has a greater right to live than I have. But that is a totally different matter. Nobody can force me, but I can, of free will and love, choose to give my life for another human being.

When in early August 1941 ten randomly selected prisoners in Auschwitz were sentenced to be confined to cells to die of thirst and starvation, in retaliation for an escaped prisoner, one of the ten, Franciszek Gajowniczek, began to cry and shouted: "What will now happen to my wife and children? I will never see them again." The Catholic priest and Franciscan monk Maksymilian Kolbe, who was also a camp prisoner, chose to take Gajowniczek's place (the Germans agreed — for them it didn't matter who died, the prisoners to die were selected randomly). Wikipedia writes about Kolbe:

Kolbe sang hymns for the others, encouraged them and prayed with them. After two weeks there were just Kolbe and three fellow prisoners left alive; they were then killed by lethal injection.

Kolbe thus chose of free will to die a most painful death to save another human being. Kolbe's sacrifice was not in vain — Gajowniczek lived until 1995 and could see his children grow up (he was not a Jew and therefore was not gassed as long as he was able to work). Kolbe was canonized (i.e. became a Catholic Saint) in 1982. What Kolbe did was in true Christian spirit. Out of love he chose to sacrifice his own life to save another person's life. Such choices can we always make. But our politicians cannot, and have no right, to make such choices for us! And, by the way, their own willingness to sacrifice their own standard of living and give to the poor seems to be rather limited. To say the least.

Whether the Swedish people wants to make great sacrifices to help other people is something that the Swedish people have to decide. The politicians have no right to decide that for example pensioners, who have difficulty making ends meet, shall receive reduced pensions so that we shall be able to pay SEK 720,000/year ($110,000) for each unaccompanied refugee child (who by the way are generally not children but young men aged 18 or well above), who comes here (this is what it costs, until after several years they can be transferred to their own homes — where they normally still will be provided for by the Swedish people). Professional politicians receive salaries and pensions that ordinary people can only dream of. Even if an ex-minister should have his pension reduced to one-third, he/she would still be benefited with considerably more than most ordinary people. I seem to remember that a Swedish prime minister's pension is SEK 93,000/month (more than $14,000). It is easy to be generous with other people's money, when you yourself are hardly affected.

It should be apparent that my concerns regarding multiculturalism is not primarily about economics. The kind of multicultural society that is developing in our society will, as I see it, end up in disaster. Not because people of different cultures are settling in our country. But because people with values that are one hundred percent incompatible with the Swedish culture, settle down here. And not in negligible numbers, but in large numbers. I wish I could feel the same confidence about the future as our politicians (except for the Sweden Democrats) seem to do. But alas, I can't. The ignorance and naivety of Swedish politicians when it comes to Islam, fills me with fear for the future.

Christian love does not mean that you should actively take part in your own extinction. Christian love means to share your abundance, of your own free will. To try to create a better world. I cannot see that Sweden's failed immigration policy helps to create a better world in proportion to what it all costs. The same money, if spent correctly, could help perhaps 10 times as many people as we help today (and probably many, many more than that, and those who are in most need of help). On the other hand, Sweden's immigration policy offers splendid times for companies that run homes for unaccompanied refugee children, making hundreds of millions in profit (something that several newspapers have written about). The same goes for those immigrants who have become experts in exploiting the Swedish welfare system, plus all the interpreters (which is a bleak and almost incredible story by itself, worthy of its own article). And to this we can add thousands of lawyers, therapists, psychologists etc, etc, who all make great money on the refugee industry. And we must not forget all the organizations that smuggle refugees and those gifted authors, who write so called "refugee stories" (where a refugee tells about his background), that will optimize the chance for a refugee to get a permanent residence permit. There are certain "magic words" like "I am homosexual, I was tortured, I have no parents. I come from Syria" etc, which automatically gives you the right to become a resident in Sweden. You just have to utter these words, and POW, that's it! Those words vary from time to time, and the authors of these stories keep track of these changes. For such a "story" the refugee will have to pay about SEK 3,000. I don't say that all stories told by refugees are false. What I am saying is that we should help people who really needs help. Sweden's contemporary immigration policy has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and that is far, far away from the Christian calling to help those who are in most need! The poorest and the weakest! We should not waste our money on economical adventurers.

 

The pendulum swings back and forth when you do not have an explicit target

Even though the political correctness hangs heavy as a blanket of lead over our country, we now see more and more of growing criticism towards the multicultural society. Reality seems to catch up and not even the Compassion choir seems to be able to put a stop to it. It will be interesting to see when, and if, the main trumpets of the political correctness in Sweden will wake up. I am thinking in particular of Swedish Television, Radio Sweden (the governmental TV and Radio Company), Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet (two major newspapers). Who knows, in a few years maybe it's politically correct to be critical to the multicultural society and then the Compassion choir will change its tone and pretend that they always sang like that (they sing, incidentally, always in "Coward minor"). I really hope that this will not involve racism and discrimination against the responsible and upright immigrants, because then we have ended up in the opposite ditch. Unfortunately, the risk is there. Today's senseless immigration policy might well be the breeding ground for tomorrow's racism.

In an article in Svenska Dagbladet on 18 May 2011 entitled "A new Swedish model" Ricki Neuman writes:

First ruled assimilation, and it was expected that the immigrants would identify themselves with the Swedes. Then came multiculturalism with an entirely different message: Be kind of like what you have always been!

And now the pendulum is swinging again: The Swedish is important. We live in the same society. Some values are not negotiable.

For researcher Andreas Johansson Heinö, the new concept has a name, "conditional tolerance", a model based on immigration and multiculturalism being a good thing, but at the same time claiming that diversity has been driven too far — and run over some fundamental values, such as the right to be in charge of your own life. There is a boundary to be guarded.

This does indeed sound hopeful. The problem is that "conditional tolerance" hardly is going to work with Islam. Instead it is Islam that sets the conditions and the ethnic Swedes will have to surrender. You don't believe me? Well, time will tell who is right. The problem is, that if you, who don't believe me, are wrong, this will have dire consequences for our country (and for the whole of Europe). And not only for you but for your children, grandchildren etc. Consequences that I am sure you do not want. Someone once said, "People often speak of their rights to have freedom of choice. And of course you can choose whatever you want to choose (as long as you stay within the limits of the laws of physics). But there is one thing you cannot choose, and that is the consequences of the choices you make." The choices Sweden makes today, will have consequences in the future. And these consequences we cannot opt out. We cannot wish them to go away. Our politicians should bear this in mind. Not even Fredrik Reinfeldt, who is almost god (when you hear him talk it is easy to get that impression — his willingness to listen to other opinions seems to be very close to zero), can deselect the consequences of the decisions made today. There is only on way to escape those consequences (if you don't like them) — to make other decisions today.

 

And the bright future is ours — or…?

I know that some of my readers are highly skeptical of my predictions regarding the future of Europe. The official depiction is that there is neither any Muslim mass immigration going on, nor any concealed Islamization in Europe. All such fears are unfounded and rooted in racism and Islamophobia. Imagine my surprise when TV-schedules for 2 September, 2011, had the following description of a program on Kunskapskanalen ("The Knowledge Channel", a governmental channel which normally is utterly politically correct):

16.00
Religion and politics: Europe or Eurabia?
Will Belgium turn into Belgistan? Commentators, scientists and politicians have recently indicated that the majority of Europe's population will soon be Muslim. We must leave behind the monolithic image of Islam, says the award-winning author and former Ambassador Ingmar Karlsson [often known as "a connoisseur of Islam" and working on getting Turkey into EU and receiving big media space], who emphasizes that today there are several different Muslim identities establishing themselves in Europe. Arranged by the Foreign Policy Association Sweden.

So here it is acknowledged, in the Knowledge Channel itself, that even scientists (and not only the Sweden Democrats) "have indicated that the majority of Europe's population will soon be Muslim". Now it is suddenly admitted, what I have said and written for years (which incidentally is an indisputable demographic fact and nothing that can really be discussed), and instead of denying it they are now lulling us into believing that it's not so dangerous. Now we shall accept that the future of Sweden and Europe is a Muslim one (Eurabia). Because there are "several different Muslim identities in Europe". So then it's of no concern if Islam comes to power in our country. Then we will have true freedom of choice; homosexuals will e.g. be able to choose between stoning and decapitation (there is no variation of Islam that allows for homosexuality). But now I am old and will surely have died before the Muslims become a majority in our country. Otherwise I would move to China or South America — as far away from Islam as I can possibly get.

At the same time, I experience a certain malice when I imagine the members of the Compassion choir living under the rule of Islam. It would almost be worth-while living that long just to see this happen. How will, for example, the Compassion choir deal with the issue of homosexuality — those who now claim to be on the homosexuals' side against e.g. the Christian moralists. What will they say when homosexuals are being stoned? Will they pretend that they, deep down, always felt that way, so as not to lose face? And this Compassion choir, foaming at the mouth whenever anyone dared to come with the least objection to abortion, they will probably have to live in a country where abortion is only permitted when the woman is in mortal danger (this is what applies in Islam). How will they tackle this? Will they say something like "Oohh, now I've seen the light, now I understand that abortion is wrong."? And it would be fun to hear Gudrun Schyman (a former leader of the major leftist party in Sweden, who later turned into an ultra-feminist) proclaim "Death to the family" (which she declared during a speech) and then see what happened. And I'd love to be there when the members of the Humanist society (the atheistic association in Sweden), their eyes blazing with fury as soon as Christianity is mentioned, being converted by force to Islam (I as a Christian can still be a Christian if I submit myself to Islam). Not to mention how much I would enjoy to see Christer Sturmark (chief of staff of the Humanist society) kneeling in the Globen Mosque at Gullmarsplan (a large sports arena in form of a globe, in Stockholm) mumbling prayers to Allah. Not many atheists would probably stand up for their atheism, because the alternative (according to Sharia law, which is binding to every Muslim) is decapitation. It would be very interesting to be able to witness all this. And I would probably feel a little bit of Schadenfreude (yes, I know it's wrong to feel this way, but after all, I'm only human). It would somehow feel like they had had been the cause of their own misfortune, as if there were some justice in this world, after all. Unfortunately, it is not only the Compassion choir that will suffer. The Swedish people will get a taste of hell already in their present lives.

But even if it somehow would be exciting to see all this, I am glad to be spared witnessing the misery. I have enough imagination to weep inside right now when I think about the future of Europe! I do not understand the people who so irresponsibly and indifferently destroy their country, indeed the entire European continent, and draw down hell upon future generations. I understand nothing! What should one call those politicians and intellectuals? Unintentional traitors perhaps? I would of course like to believe that it is not willfully that Europe's politicians and intellectuals obliterate their own culture and civilization, and invite the powers of darkness to rule over Europe. But if it's not deliberate — well then these people must be incredibly stupid or incredibly blinded or incredibly ignorant by the smoke screens of ideology. Or be under the influence of dark spiritual forces.

Some young Germans discussed politics in a pub in Bielefeld, Germany, in 1932. One of them said,
— In about 13 years from now the majority of the German cities will be razed to the ground, almost all industries in Germany will be wiped out and 8 million Germans (including several million children and young people) will have died because of Hitler's politics. In total, Hitler will cause 50 million deaths and unimaginable suffering for the population of Europe.
The others scoffed at him.
— You must be totally out of your mind! Don't you understand that it will never be like that. Adolf Hitler is the savior of Germany. He has put an end to unemployment, he is building highways and all German workers have received statuary holiday thanks to Hitler. Pensions have gone up and we have food on the table. And all experts and all media support him.
They all looked cheerfully and encouragingly at each other and nodded. Except the one who had said the first words. He stood up and went slowly away, very sad. He understood that the disaster was inevitable. Point of no return was already passed. The destruction of Europe and the death of so many people was inevitable.

Even as late as 1939, when Hitler had invaded Poland, certain Swedish newspapers called (e.g. Örebrokuriren, a local left-wing newspaper) Churchill a warmonger, as he refused to bow down to Hitler, after Hitler had conquered Poland.

And the darkness of Mordor settled slowly over Europe, and the evil Empire lasted for thousands of years.

Back to page with current comments