"Multi-culturalism is a new word, much bandied about these days by opinion-formers in the political and business elites. It is not really about cultural diversity, still less land rights, and least of all individual freedom. Rather, it is a form of social engineering that seeks to level down and standardize all cultures, trampling on regional and ethnic loyalties which are not determined by market or state." -Dr. Aidan Rankin

Velhametsä has moved


Why I am not a Liberal


Why I am not a Liberal

Note: I am using 'stereotypical' liberal opinions, which I reflect on here, and I'm well aware that these are by no means the opinions of all people who call themselves liberal. Here is simply a random collection of view points, which I've perceived to be fundamental to and dircetly connected to liberal thinking and which I disagree with from a meta-political and philosophical point of view. This is an absolutely biased analysis from an absolutely biased point of view, reader discretion is advised.

I am not going to go over specific examples or into extensive detail on individual topics such as gender equality, for example. I will apply a much more macro-level - meta-political - approach to the matter at hand.

One of the biggest bones I've got to pick with the 'liberal world view' is its illusionary detachment from the past, from the accumulated experience pf human existance, a break with humanity itself. I don't know about others, but I definately sense that the feeling or attitude that we've somehow managed to escape the past and that all has changed or is about to change, very soon, is inherent in liberal thinking. That what will follow is a brave, new world. I think this attitude may be derived from a lack of understanding, on an emotional level, of the past. Or perhaps its the otherway around, that this ideological break has lead to the inability to grasp the past of mankind, but I definately think there is a causal connection here. In any case, for these aforementioned changes to occur, for this new age to actually materialize as a heaven on earth, also humanity must change profoundly against its own nature. It seems, that liberals 'have faith' in humanity.

Liberals are more of the atheist inclination and should therefore perceive, that knowledge > faith. May be this faith exists exactly because the liberal finds the past incomprehensible, not in the way that he cannot cognitively understand what has occured, but that he doesn't understand the mankind that brought these events about. I will try to illustrate my point by example: no less than 50 years ago, pretty much everyone in our not-yet-so progressive societies could have been classified as 'racist' by present liberal thought. Now, by racist I don't mean discrimination and violence solely, but rather the prevailing ethnocentrism, the commitment to what liberals like refer to as "social structures", such as ethnicity, race, religious community, and so on. This kind of communal commitment and the set of morals derived from such a commitment are quite foreign to the individualist liberal perspective, and such 'racism' is as utterly foreign to liberal ideology as it is demonized as a concept by it. Now with this example, allow me to continue my argument. How then is the liberal to be able to find himself in the mankind of previous generations and thus link up with the immense, near-infinite human experience? The liberal wishes to see the human experience dismantled, the deconstruction of the human tradition, its removal from the present and future, viewing history as some distant, foreign country.

By making this artificial break with the past, the liberal fools himself into thinking, that he can cheat human nature, indeed escape it, because it represents such a foreign and incomprehensible entity from the view of the 'socially progressive' liberal, it represents something unwanted. A typical example of this attitude is the condemnation of historical events, such as the holocaust, the massacre of the native Americans across the continent, slavery, colonizations, imperialism and so on. While from a moral perspective such events could indeed quite justifiably be condemned, it is the invasion of politics into history, and the moralizing twist this politics gives to history, that makes these condemnations seem more like attempts to find forgiveness and salvation, for humankind. The past is literally condemned in hope that by condemnation ("confession"), a break can be made with the past and a fresh beginning is at hand (the "sins of man" have been forgiven). "We are a different world, a different mankind now" is the statement of this politicized history. Truly, it is the Messianic-historical self-flagellation, often manifested as White Liberal Guilt, that will absolve our sins.

Curiously, although liberals usually see themselves as pragmatic and and their beliefs as justified by science, taking pride in their 'scientific' approach to the world, they choose to ignore the natural laws, laws of human nature, that apply to us all. It is as if the liberal sees himself above and beyond such primitive restrictions imposed on by biology, evolution, genetics, and such. Homo economicus, the rational man. When discussing such matters as group identity, gender roles, religion, value systems, and so on, the liberal is quick to point out that these are in fact nothing but social constructs, invisible borders that govern our behaviour. And I'm sure they are right about this. Some go as far as admitting, that such constructs, from the perspective of human cultural evolution, are indeed present through-out the historical human experience, and could be described as being part of 'human nature'. Yet, for some odd reason, the liberal and the new and improved Homo economicus is beyond the reach of these laws of human nature, as if we would have suddenly, thanks to a couple of horrific, 'lesson-teaching' world wars, evolved beyond such primal paradigms.

By tearing down the old manifestations of these human traits, known as social constructs (such as religion, ethnic identity, gender roles, traditional family values, etc), the liberal thinks he is getting rid of the traits themselves! Humans have an inbuilt need to divide people into in-groups and out-groups, us and them to put it bluntly. If we deconstruct the social construct that is "us" (at the moment for example "English", "White", "Western", etc), the liberal reasons, we get rid of that primal expression of human nature. In actual fact the liberal is simply repeating the same human pattern. New manifestations of human nature and collective behaviour, brought on by liberal ideology, will replace the old value systems and other social constructs, but the liberal would pretend (or perhaps genuinly think) that these new manifestations don't exist, that their own value system and ideological divide into us and them isn't simply another cycle, rise and fall, of a certain "human culture", if you will. Because of this false pretense, the new social constructs are deprived of their communal, symbolic, even ritualistic, functions as providers of social cohesion, as the pillars of society. It deprives the culture of a common or communal mental and spiritual existance. The hollowness of such a value system is not something I feel attracted to. I feel that liberalism is fundamentally dishonest and 'denialist'. The liberal might desribe it with the euphemism of "optimism", as he has faith in human solidarity, social progess and a humanity itself. The Holy Trinity.

This is why I am not a liberal.

Today I went to get the paper. Because its friday, Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's largest daily, comes with its weekly 'tabloid', called Nyt-liite, a journalistic publication concentrating mostly on popular culture. In today's edition, a parliamentary candidate for the Green party, Jukka Relander, in response to Jussi Halla-aho and other critics of multicultural society , said:

"But liberal culture is not a multicultural culture, it is a cultureless culture."

Which it obviously isn't, but its nice to pretend. This sentence illustrates perfectly the schitzophrenia of liberalism.

Jussi Halla-aho runs for Parliament


Jussi Halla-aho has made the decision to make a move into politics, something he persisted earlier he would not do. However, in an announcement made on his website on the 20th of June, he declared that he would be running as an independent candidate for the True Finns in the Helsinki voting district.

For those who are not acquainted with Mr. Halla-aho and his opinions should know that he is a fine writer with iron logic and a vicious sense of humour, the latter which he usually directs at the multicultist click with a vengeance. Until now, he has been satisfied with writing articles and publishing them on his website, but no more. I have been reading his writings and following his development as an internet persona for over a year now, and he has managed to gather a significant number of loyal fans during this relatively short period. Many have also experienced an awakening of sorts after finding his site, and his writings and the logic he displays in the has enabled many of us, who are critical of a multicultural society, to put our thoughts into a more coherent form. Now, the man is moving into politics, something he has been asked to do for quite some time by his eager readers.

It will be most exciting to see how he fares. He has all the potential to receive the necessary amount of votes to become a member of the Finnish parliament, but he needs to get his message out effectively. Finland, relatively unscathed by the multicultural experiment in comparison with the rest of Europe, has an insignificant opposition in the matter. As an individual, Halla-aho can accomplish little directly even as a member of parliament, but if he becomes popular enough, he can scare the major parties into adjusting their policies in fear of losing voters. Finns seem to be quite sceptical about multicultural society. In a survey 76% were of the opinion that there are enough or too many immigrants in the country, yet the issue is not on the agenda of any major political party. Why is this? It is because it is not seen as a major issue, people don't vote according to immigration policies. As a member of parliament, Halla-aho could change all that by showing the threat that Europe faces, Finland included. If and when immigration & integration policies become important for the average voter, even the major parties are going to have to take a more visible stand, and the current silent agreement will come to an end.

Many are counting on Halla-aho to be successful, myself included. It would be a break-through from a nationalist point of view as well as from the point of view of anyone, who wishes to preserve the welfare state, who wishes to preserve the security us citizens enjoy, and to preserve the trust that exists in society. Trust of officials, trust of government, trust of the next door neighbour. Trust within society between individuals and communities is absolutely necessary for a safe, secure and united society. Such trust derives from a sense of 'us', a feeling that the complete stranger on the bus, although you know nothing about him, shares your values, culture and sense of justice, and therefore it is safe to be around him. This organic social contract, that exists in culturally homogenous populations, is breaking down in all over Europe. As I mentioned earlier, Finland has so far been only lightly touched by the effects of multiculturalism in comparison, but that is why the time to act is NOW, in order to keep things that way. "Someone should do something" is a complaint often voiced. Mr. Halla-aho is doing us all a favour by being that often-mentioned someone doing something.

I also believe, that if Halla-aho does make it into parliament, he will be the founding stone of a Finnish opposition surrounding the matter of multiculturalism. So far, being the innocent maiden that Finland is, no such opposition exists.

As a side note, it will be interesting too see how successful Halla-aho is, because he is in his entirety an internet phenomena (so far, at least). It will be a most intriguing experiment of how powerful a tool the internet has become.

The impossibility of a multicultural society


BBC News, a bastion of political correctness, has gone out of its way and published the following article:

Does diversity make us unhappy?
By Mark Easton Home editor, BBC News

It is an uncomfortable conclusion from happiness research data perhaps - but multicultural communities tend to be less trusting and less happy.

Research by the Home Office suggests that the more ethnically diverse an area is, the less people are likely to trust each other.

The Commission for Racial Equality has also done work looking at the effect of diversity on well-being.

Interviewed on The Happiness Formula, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips accepts that people are happier if they are with people like themselves.

"We've done work here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren't other pressures, like to live within a comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness.

"People feel happier if they're with people who are like themselves. But the question is: what does "like themselves" mean?"

Tapestry of life
To an extent, new immigrants are always seen as outsiders and threatening. It is not necessarily a matter of ethnicity.

The arrival of the Huguenots or the Jews into Britain brought significant social tensions which have largely disappeared.

Cultural difference eventually became woven into the tapestry of British life.

Globalisation has brought new challenges - a diversity of culture and ethnicity never seen before.
There have been fierce arguments as to whether social well-being is enhanced by celebrating difference or encouraging integration, even assimilation.

Trevor Phillips believes the debate has become dangerously confused.
"Our multiculturalism which started out as a straightforward recognition of diversity became a sort of system which prized racial and ethnic difference above all other values and there lies the problem."

So, if we want happy, stable communities, where should the balance lie between diversity and integration?

Trevor Phillips believes getting it right is vital: "We need to respect people's ethnicity but also give them, at some point in the week, an opportunity to meet and want to be with people with whom they have something in common that isn't defined by their ethnicity."

"If we can find a moment, an idea, an activity which takes us out of our ethnicity and connects us to other people of different ethnicities and if only for an hour in a week then I think we can crack this problem."
Social science is also trying to help make sense of the challenges.

Building bridges
In the jargon, they refer to the factors that bind similar people together in groups as "bonding social capital".

But it is argued that happy societies also need what they call "bridging social capital" - strong links between different groups.

"A society that has only bonding social capital and no bridging social capital looks like Beirut or Belfast or Bosnia, that is tight communities but isolated from one another."

So says Harvard professor Robert Putnam, author of "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community".

He argues that working out how to grow bridging capital is the great challenge for Western society.

"This is the crux of the problem. The kind of social capital that is most important for the success of a modern, pluralist, multicultural democracy - the bridging social capital - is the kind that's hardest to build.

"Therefore we've got to go about the task of creating new opportunities for people to make connections to people different from them.
When bonding social capital drowns bridging social capital, conflict is inevitable.

Shared values
Trevor Phillips believes we saw it all too clearly in the disturbances in the Lozells area of Birmingham in the Summer of 2005.

A tight-knit Asian community came into conflict with a tight-knit black community because, Phillips argues, the ethnicity that binds each community together is stronger than the links between them.

"You have two communities who more or less faced each other across a single road. They are communities which have high levels of internal bonding.

"But actually there wasn't and is very little bridging between these two communities and I think this is a perfect demonstration of what happens when people who are very different, look very different and think they are very different never touch, never interact."

What is required is a sense of identity that overarches creed, culture or ethnic background.

Nation states take different views on how this might best be achieved. The French model is to have a strict definition of Frenchness that, for instance, prohibits religious head-scarves in schools.

In the UK, citizenship ceremonies for new arrivals and lessons in schools are built around the ideas of shared values including an understanding of and respect for our democratic institutions.

Among those values is a tolerance of diversity and cultural difference.
But it is, perhaps, in sport that the efforts to build bridging social capital are most obvious.

Whether it be two football teams from different local communities breaking down barriers or an Olympic squad reflecting the multi-racial reality of modern Western society, competitive sport is seen as an important tool in binding together diverse nations and making people happy.

While the article highlights many problems and points out what has been obvious to see for many of us, it makes pitiful attempts to provide solutions typical of the new left. It basically says, that because a multicultural society is a society of diversity, diverse customs, diverse norms, diverse values, it is splintered. The problem will be tackled by creating an identity that "overarches creed, culture or ethnic background", effectively eliminating 'multicultural society'.

The positive thing about this article is the fact, that the topic is being discussed by 'respectable' media, in their own way of course. But if the BBC can get away with it, so should the rest of us.

Paris on fire, again.


Rioters have taken to the streets of Paris once more, reminding us of the massive rioting that took place only last fall.

The BBC reports:

Paris suburb sees fresh rioting

The mayor's house is now under police guard following the riotingAbout 100 youths wielding baseball bats have fought French police in a Paris suburb, in the worst such violence since widespread riots in November.

The youths threw stones and petrol bombs at police in the town of Montfermeil overnight. They also hurled stones at the local mayor's home.

Seven officers were hurt in the clashes, which lasted several hours.
Police say the trouble began after the arrest on Monday of a young man suspected of assaulting a bus driver.

Three youths were arrested in the clashes, which left part of Montfermeil littered with broken glass and burnt rubbish, the French news agency AFP reported.

The home of Montfermeil's centre-right mayor, Xavier Lemoine, was stoned after he banned youths from gathering in big groups in the town centre last month.

The suburb lies next to Clichy-sous-Bois, the suburb which saw the first flare-up of rioting in November.

In the wave of riots last year, almost 9,000 cars were torched and 3,000 people arrested across France.

The message sent by the rioters is clear: these suburbs are ours, your French laws are no good here, this is Muslim country. Any increased police activity in the Muslim ghettos of France is met with rioting and violent resistance, and many of those suburbs are already de facto under Sharia law. Its not just police activity, but any presence of any form of the French state is not tolerated, including emergency services such as fire-fighters and ambulances. Every time the police or emergency services attempt to do their job, they are attacked by mobs weilding petrol bombs and baseball bats, and many of these so-called 'parts of France' are foreign colonies, where the authority of the French government is weak or nonexistant. These riots are not as much about social, ethnic, cultural or racial equality, as it is interpreted by the liberal media, but about power and control.

It might sound far-fetched, but is it really? Same trends can be noticed in Britain, where 40% of Muslims would like to implement Sharia in predominantly Muslim areas, or more recently, in Sweden, where a Muslim organization proposed different laws for Muslims and non-Muslims.

An excerpt from Paul Belien's excellent piece for the American Conservative, commenting on the rioting of the fall of 2005:

On Thursday night, Oct. 27, two teenagers, Ziad Benna (17) and Banou Traoré (15), fled into an electrical power substation in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. They were hiding from police who had entered the suburb to investigate a robbery. Why the boys fled and climbed over the three-meter fence of the power station is unclear. The result, however, was something every moderately intelligent schoolboy could have foreseen: they got electrocuted.

When the fire brigade arrived to retrieve their bodies, something happened that every moderately intelligent French politician could have foreseen. Neighborhood gangs attacked the firemen and police officers and went on a rampage, setting fire to dozens of cars. The same thing happened during the following nights, when schools, shops, and restaurants were also set ablaze. At first the media did not devote much attention to the rioting. These things happen every day in the predominantly immigrant and largely Muslim neighborhoods surrounding every major French city.

Only one week earlier Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy had declared in Le Monde: “Violence in French suburbs is a daily fact of life. Since the beginning of the year stones were thrown at 9,000 police cars and each night 20 to 40 cars are torched.” For some years, vehicle burning has been a favorite way to celebrate New Year’s Eve. If only 30 cars are set ablaze on an ordinary night and just 300 on New Year’s, the French police consider the situation to be “stable.”

France is not exceptional. Police officers and firemen are used to having stones thrown at them in Western Europe’s immigrant neighborhoods as a normal part of their daily routine. This is what Andrew Osborn of the British Sunday newspaper The Observer wrote after visiting Borgerhout, the largely Moroccan suburb of the Flemish city of Antwerp, in December 2002: “Outsiders aren’t welcome. ‘Go home before we beat your f------g white ass,’ is how one group of young men greet The Observer. Passing police cars are bombarded with a barrage of expletives and spittle.”

Here is what Rolf Landgren, a police officer in the Swedish town of Malmö, told Steve Harrigan of Fox News in November 2004: “If we park our car it will be damaged—so we have to go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other vehicle.” Fear of violence has changed the way police, firemen, and emergency workers do their jobs, explained Harrigan. There are some neighborhoods Swedish ambulance drivers will not go to without a police escort.

The following dispatch is from neighboring Denmark, where this October rioters burned down a kindergarten in Århus. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten witnessed how the fire brigade did not dare to enter the area. Private firefighters were sent in under armored police protection: “Falck, a private emergency service, sent a group of fire engines under police escort to the Kjærslund nursery. A window had been shattered at the back of the house, and the fire had been blazing, apparently caused by gasoline poured onto the floor and lit. Falck stopped on Viby Square, a couple of kilometers from the site of the arson attack, waiting for the police to turn up so they could be escorted to the nursery.”

What Europe is witnessing is the wholesale disintegration of society, the splintering of nations. Native Europeans have been far too slow in realizing the danger in introducing large numbers of culturally distant people into their societies. All models have faced failure, from the French model, which is heavy on integration, to the Swedish model of Multiculturalism. Integration can only work when the subject of integration has something to integrate into. A Moroccan in Beligum lives in a neighbourhood inhabited mostly by other Moroccans or North Africans. At what point is he meant to integrate into Belgian society? Many defend the riots by saying that they are a French tradition of sorts, which would imply that the rioters have most certainly digested the core principles of French culture. Well, riots may be more common in France, but what about Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Britain, Denmark? The riots all display the same basic elements: segregated Muslim neighbourhoods inhabited by angry Muslim youths (or "French"/"Danish"/"Swedish"/"German" youth as newspeak of today dictates), an incident involving the authorities and a violent reaction to the arrival of the authorities.

This same attitude is reflected in the Cartoon row: although Danish law dictates, that the press is free and as such it can publish pictures of Mohammed, the Muslims, who were angered by this, wanted to have Danes respect Islamic law, wanting to impose it upon Europe.

The future looks bleak in terms of social harmony in many major European countries. The worst part is, that so many are still trying to realize the fact that they've made massive mistakes and errors of judgement. The truth is slow to penetrate their ideological armour, and for Europe the clock is ticking.

How can this problem be solved? It is an extremely difficult question. The problem with this 'multicultural project' is that it is very difficult to reverse. Many nations in Europe can still avert the disaster, many must deal with it in their own manner. But so far, little action has been taken and relatively little attention has been paid to a problem, that will determine the future of Europe.

According to the south-Swedish newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad, Sverigedemokraterna is popular among youth, or, as the researcher suggets, it might just be a sign of teenage rebellion. Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Every other ninth-grader does not know what party they would vote for in the parliamentary elections, or if they would vote at all, shows the extensive opinion research. At the same time the Sweden Democrats are enjoying great support. They became the most popular party among ninth-graders in Landskrona. However, the results should be interpreted carefully, say researchers."

"...However, of those who do know who they would vote for, many have chosen the Sweden Democrats. They would be the 3rd biggest party in North-Western Skåne, after the Moderates and Social Democrats. In Landskrona, however, they had the most votes out of all the parties with 16 per cent."

However, Jens Rydgren, a sociologist from the Stockholm university, does not think that this necessarily means those who chose the Sweden Democrats now would do so four years from now.

"-You have to interpret these results very carefully. When presented with a poll such as this one, which does not affect anything and the students being of that age, it could be a form of protest. They know which is seen as the 'naughty' choice."

Jens Rydgren thinks that no conclusions can be made before the reasons behind the votes and how they were cast are clear. It must be known what the results represent, he says, before reaching any kind of conclusion.

"In Ängelholm the Sweden Democrats received six per cent of the votes and seven per cent in Helsingborg. Among all ninth-graders that took part in the poll in Sweden, 12 570 persons in total, the support for the Sweden Democrats is at six per cent."

The study also shows, that politically activity in general is low among Swedish teenagers. The article also included this little gem: "If you ask Enes Ferhatovic, Diana Muriqi, Suada Racic och Sejla Kurtovic at Gustav Adolfskolan in Landskrona, the Social Democrats are the most popular party." You don't say?

Here are the results in diagram form. The lighter bars show the results for North-Western Skåne and the darker bars are the results for the whole country.

With over half of all ninth-graders being undecided or uninterested, and with such high support among the Sweden Democrats, it has become evident, that people are getting sick and tired of the current political establishment (this includes the media) and the direction the country is headed. It may have been a protest vote, a slap in the face for Persson and his cronies, or it may have been just for 'laughs'. The latter, however, seems unlikely to me. The Sweden Democrats had the best showing in Landskrona, is there a reason for it?

Here are some excerpts from an article I found it the same paper:

"Beaten, shot and mock-excecuted

Peter, 25, was beaten, mock-excecuted and shot 20 times by a gang of youths. It was only after two hours of terror that he managed to escape. He did not get any compensation from his insurance, the reason: he was intoxicated."
"Peter was on his way home from the bar Gringos in central Landskrona when he was knocked down from behind with a hard object. When he woke up, he was being dragged along a sand path, from Eriksgatan to a place protected from sight under a flight of stairs at Alléskolan. There two more persons appeared. The attackers encouraged each other on by yelling "svennejävel" [=Swedish devil] and repeatedly beat and kicked Peter while he was down on the ground. They even jumped on his back. If he didn't shut up, he would die.
-They ripped off my bealt and my shirt and took all my valuables - ring, necklace, bracelett, mobile phone and wallet.
But he refused to give the code to his bank account to the youth gang. Then one of the robbers sat on Peter, pressed a gun to his neck and said that he would excecute him. Then he fired three or four shots in quick succession.
-"Is this how it will end", I thought. But after a few seconds I realized that it was "only" a gas-powered pistol, for he fired several shots at a time. While it hurt terribly, I felt relieved." "

In the end, Peter was forced to give the code to his bank account, but not before he had no less than 20 lead pellets lodged in his body.

"Peter has had good help from a psychologist to deal with the event, but it will never be quite like before. Both him and his girlfriend are equipped with personal alarms and they plan meticulously how to get home in the evenings - to walk is not an option."

Perhaps it is a coincidence that this event took place in Landskrona, the same place where support for the Sweden Democrats is at its highest among teenagers, but I do not think so. The establishment continues to be unable to address this most serious of issues: the safety of its citizens, that they claim to represent. Already a number of 'Citizen Guards' have been established around Sweden because of the ever-growing violence, the incomptence and lack of trust of the police. The Citizen Guards have been reiceved positively by the vast majority of people, or so one could deduce from the feedback that Kvällsposten received after their article on one of such Guards.

The War Against the Swedes


This is a war that is being waged, and has been waged for many years now, in all major Swedish cities. The truth of this conflict is denied, it is lied about and it is ignored. This war does not exist officially. The majority of the victims of this war are, as in so many wars, innocent civilians. In this case young Swedes.

Petra Åkersson has compiled a sociology report and conducted several interviews with young immigrant robbers. I found it surprising, that the results of this report were published in Dagens Nyheter.

I will not translate the entire article, but I will provide some excerpts, which anyone in touch with the reality of Sweden's present state regarding this 'situation' should not find surprising.

Åkersson comments her interviews:

"It was good that I used a tape recorder in my interviews because the answers I got were so remarkable that I had to listen to them many times in order to grasp properly what had been said. "When we are out in town and robbing we are waging a war, a war against the Swedes", was a frequent argument."

Some twisted ideas about power:

"The interviewees are boys between 15 and 17 years of age and one of them explains to Petra Åkersson what power means to him.

"For me it [power] is when the Swedes lie down on the ground and kiss my feet."

These attitudes are blamed on Swedish racism, which becomes evident when the cashier looks away instead of smiling when serving a customer of foreign background. Åkersson herself thinks that this "frustration" is the result of too many passivating benefits of the welfare state , among other reasons. While I agree with her conclusion, I am not surprised, that this is not seen as an argument against the current immigration policies, which have done more than their share in creating these problems, or "frustration" - and it is the ordinary Swedes who suffer. Young Swedes, who happen to own good mobile phones or look well-off in general, have become the subject of daily racially motivated attacks that rob them of their possessions and their dignity. Had you told some one twenty years ago, that in 2006, this will be a problem, no one would have believed you, at least not the ones insisting on these terrible policies which have made Swedes the subject of ethnic persecution in their own country.

Imagine for one moment, if you will, the following scenario: groups of young Swedes consistently and continuously robbing immigrant youths merely because of their ethnicity, and boasting about this in interviews. This is a commonly known fact for immigrant youths in major population centres. Now, imagine, would the response be the same as it is in this case, nothing?

Perhaps the problem is, that the country does not belong to the Swedes anymore. Anyone who thinks that is a racist. The elite in power does not care anymore for the Swedish people, nor for any other people for that matter. It is time Swedes took their country back.

About Velhametsä

Last posts


General Links

Finnish Links

Portuguese Links

ATOM 0.3