Humanitarianism and Sweden

19 Feb

This is another one on Sweden – a country at the centre of self-defeating altruism. According to a journalist talking to Fox News, the Swedish government hides migrant crime statistics. The claim is that this is done to protect ‘vulnerable migrants’. Protect them from what? The establishment across Europe are afraid that Europeans will want to defend the interests of their families and communities and demand controls over borders. Why? The Swedish establishment has an evangelical commitment to being a ‘humanitarian superpower’. But what are the consequences?

Humanitarianism seems to demand that any danger to the native population is deemed irrelevant – or at least less important than any hypothetical harm done to migrants.

In the name of humanitarianism Sweden had taken 160,000 migrants last year and it has a population of under 10 million. Sweden sees migration as an opportunity to become a superpower – hence the term ‘humanitarian superpower’. Sweden is neither a economic or military superpower. But if the social, demographic and cultural costs are so high then why try to become a ‘superpower’ at all? The fact is that having open borders does not mean that a country is a superpower – it just means that it does not defend its borders.

Humanitarianism will lead to a greater focus on a devotion to abstract values than to concrete reality. The establishment in Sweden does not seem to care who arrives – all that matters is that Sweden adhere to ‘humanitarian’ principles.

The concept is often justified by saying that it welcomes those seeking safety from war but open borders, and a generous welfare system, will inevitably attract economic migrants.

Society and Law and Order

Trying to be ‘humanitarian’, for the sake of itself, does not lead to integration nor does it lead to social harmony. Very few migrants from outside Europe will find employment and these communities often live separate from mainstream Swedish society (no evidence that this is down to ‘racism’ – a common knee-jerk suggestion). This is no recipe for social harmony.

There are police voices in Sweden that complain that they cannot cope. The single-minded commitment to humanitarianism is leading to law and order being overlooked and sacrificed as crime waves happen that overwhelm the police. Police officers who put their head above the parapet will face the inevitable charge of being ‘racist’ when they point out that these are disproportionality linked with migration. There is no point in being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ if your people are less safe as a consequence.

The authorities seems to see that there ought to be some limits to the ‘humanitarian superpower’ concept as they have been making attempts recently to limit numbers – it could turn out that too many will take up the offer and a society will only have a limited capacity; ‘compassion’ does not build homes or create jobs. The nationalist Sweden Democrats are gaining in popularity, and border controls have been put in place on Sweden’s bridge border with Denmark. But being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ would compel a government to manage public opinion. Those at the top can feel good about themselves but the concrete price will be paid by the public.

The policy could lead to people being admitted who could pose a threat to both Swedes and other migrants. There are reports of there being some support, or even membership, of Islamist organisations within some migrant communities. For example, Middle Eastern Christians fleeing persecution could find their persecutors joining them in Sweden – as Sweden gives out permanent residence very easily. If you offer anyone around the world asylum and access to welfare you are deluded if you believe only the victims or the good guys take it up.


A single-minded commitment to an ideology does not often tolerate dissent. Any Swede who questions that wisdom of the policy can expect a visit from ‘anti-fascists’ – despite opposing the cultural and demographically suicidal immigration policy not actually meaning that someone is a fascist. Members of the Sweden Democrats can face being violently assaulted whilst members of the political elite could just shrug their shoulders. Dissenters can be tracked down on-line so this suppression operation is very organised. People are kept in line using fear.


Following the principle of humanitarianism blindly can lead to demographic shifts. In Sweden the foreign-born population is growing faster than the Swedish-born population. This means that ethnic Swedes, if trends continue, will become a smaller and smaller proportion of the population of their country. Between 2000 and 2013 the number of those with a foreign background increased by 713,000 and the Swedish number by 50,000. Quite a price to pay for some virtue-signalling.

Humanitarianism can have a dislike of the native population behind it. Swedish politicians have expressed a contempt for Swedes and their culture. Mona Sahlin of the Social Democrats has been quoted as ludicrously saying that Swedes do not have a culture and history whilst migrants do and a former PM has said that Sweden belongs to migrants rather than Swedes. So the migration policy is slowly replacing one population with a preferred one. The ‘humanitarian superpower’ creates a virtue out of self- loathing.

Fiscal problems

Being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ is expensive. Sweden dos not have enough resources to pay for all the ‘refugees’ it is receiving. It has resorted to asking the European Commission for extra funds to cope with the recent surge of migration into Europe.

The policy will lead to more demand for housing; it is simple more people will mean more housing is needed. A shortage in housing is one factor in why the nationalist Sweden Democrats are increasing in popularity. When you have a housing crisis you do not then rapidly increase the demand – or at least you wouldn’t if you dealt with reality. In its attempt to be a humanitarian superpower the government is prepared to allow pressing supply issues to get worse. This would mean that either Swedes or migrants will have to be homed or be homeless and the it would seem likely that the government would prioritise the latter. For many European government it is not real compassion to help their own people.

When integration fails taxes could have to increase to pay for it. Non-integration creates more demand on welfare and this is expensive. If there is a small number of tax payers compared to those whom claim benefits then the amount that each one pays would need to increase. When you add to the population that does not work then a greater burden is placed on those that do, and Sweden’s open immigration policy does this. A recent report found that it takes on average 9 years for half the migrants to find work. Being an humanitarian superpower will put a big burden on a welfare system.


Sweden should be seen as an example of how not to manage immigration. The feel-good factor of being a humanitarian superpower has a high price and that price is paid for by ordinary people. Britain, and other countries, should definitely not use Sweden as a model.



‘Anti-fascism’ and UKIP

13 Feb

The leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, is standing in the by-election in Stoke Central. Of course, the ‘anti-fascists’, operating under one of their front organisations Hope Not Hate, are out in force. Some of their comments and justifications illustrate what ‘anti-fascism’ is.

I will focus on a couple of short sentiments here that are very revealing.

”There is no evidence behind your [UKIP] policies, you’re racist bigots, and you’re not welcome on our streets.”

First of all, evidence. To address first point, this person has not given any reason as to why UKIP are racist (I have not seen any valid justifications anywhere). This is normal for ‘anti-fascists’ – ‘racist’ and other buzzwords will be used without any justification as to why the word is appropriate in that situation. These buzzwords are completely inter-changeable. It is does not matter which one you use along as you use them. Some of them can recite all of them – the stream of words only being interrupted alternately by expletives.

The use of the term ‘racist’ will, according to these ‘anti-fascists’, justify any degree of intimidation and violence that is necessary to make their opponents too scared to operate.

They tend to use words that they do not understand. For example, ‘bigot’. A bigot is someone who does not tolerate the right of anyone else to express a different opinion. ‘Anti-fascists’ actively and openly suppress anyone who disagrees with them so therefore ‘anti-fascists’ are bigots by definition. ‘Anti-fascists’ will openly endorse bigotry without knowing that they are endorsing bigotry. They are therefore lacking in self-awareness.

The term ”..our streets”. They declare the streets to be their property. If you are going to do anything political then you need their approval. Of course there is nothing in statute that has handed ownership if the streets to organisations such as Hope Not Hate. Their sense of self-entitlement means that they believe that they can just have anything they want in the same sense that a toddler might claim the toy of another child and declare it theirs (and cry when it is taken back).

Another phrase that was thrown up in the article is also very interesting.

”We’re here on behalf of the human race”.

First of all, I fail to see how UKIP are somehow in opposition to the ‘human race’. Secondly, who are these ‘anti-fascists’ to declare themselves the representatives and defenders of the ‘human race’? Was the ‘human race’ consulted as to whom they are now represented by? This demonstrates the sense of grandiose that exists within the ‘anti-fascists’. They would have grown up in privileged suburbs and would have had their self-esteem grown to the extent that they believe their views and hopes are the views and hopes of all of mankind – whether mankind knows it or not.

It would be fascinating to see some objective academic research into the psychology and development of these individuals.

Gender-Neutral Language and the British Medical Association.

13 Feb

Gender-neutral language is an example of Political Correct avoidance of reality – all in the name of stopping someone getting offended. The example at the centre of this article is the announcement by the British Medical Association that the term ‘expectant mothers’ ought to be replaced by the term ‘pregnant persons’ – basically implying that men can be pregnant.

The justification is that implying that only women can get pregnant will offend the transgender people. I am not aware of how many transgender people will get offended but why should avoiding offence override biological facts? There is a basis here that lies within post-modern linguistics. Basically, echoing thinkers such as Foucault and neo-Marxists, reality itself it constructed by reality. If you change the language then you change peoples’ perception of reality. But this is a deluded view.

Apparently this move by the BMA is also necessary to celebrate ‘Diversity’. Reality and facts must be discarded if it is inconsistent with the Cult of Diversity. You do not question Diversity; you should just accept that it is the greatest thing ever.

There are clear biological facts here. It is a biological fact that only a woman get pregnant since men do not have wombs. Therefore if someone is pregnant they are a woman, and since a woman who has a child is a mother, the term ‘expectant mother’ is entirely consistent with biological reality.

The BMA point to cases of transgender men whom can get pregnant. These transgender men were, of course, born women which means that they have wombs. So they are, biologically speaking, women who have received testosterone. So the term ‘expectant mother’ is not wrong, and gender-neutral language is inconsistent with reality.

How can someone deny that biological sex does not exist? Some transgender activists claim that biological sex simplify the issue and should not be used. But it is simple. If they have a womb they are biologically a woman; if someone has testicles and penis and can produce sperm they are biologically a man. Simply put, gender-neutral language denies reality.

Discrimination is used as an argument. Basically, the BMA claim that gender-neutral language in this case will protect against discrimination. But what has this got to do with discrimination? Biology is a fact, and if biological gender is discrimination, then biology is discrimination. Biology is as it is, so if it is discrimination, then discrimination is just an inevitable part of life. But gender-neutral language expresses a need for reality to adapt to feelings.

Gender-neutral should be seen as a means of trying to avoid acknowledging truths that people can find uncomfortable,

Why Overseas Students Ought to Count as Migrants

2 Dec

Overseas students ought to be included in the immigration figures. There are no clear delineations between an economic migrant and a student visa holder and these students are inextricably linked with the social and public service pressures linked to immigration numbers.

Osborne as argued that overseas students should not be classified as migrants. There are various arguments from him and other supporters of his position.

Duration of Stay

He has said students tend to study and then go home, and that someone should not be counted as migrant if they do not settle.

But it has pointed out that students do not necessarily leave after they study. MigrationWatch has claimed that Home Office research has found that 20% of those who come on a student visa will have legally stayed 5 years and many will stay on permanently because they may get a job or get married. This means that student count towards net migration, and so it would be absurd to not count them as migrants.

But someone who comes in as a migrant will not necessarily study but may work on the black economy instead as bogus students exploit the system. Economic migrants may see the student visa as just a means of getting into the country.

Migrationwatch points to a report by the National Audit Office that found significant abuse of the Points Based System. It estimated that, despite that a student visa has conditions that ban a holder from working, that in the first year of the system about 50,000 were actually after work rather than study. Taking student visa holders as migrants will take a lot of economic migrants out of the immigration figures.

It would also be pointed out that Britain will not know who is leaving because we do not have effective exit controls. It is argued that if it is known that there is a good chance of staying with impunity then it will encourage bogus students.

Migration Target

In order to convince the electorate that they are serious about border controls the Tories made a pledge to reduce net immigration below 100,000 – a pledge that they have spectacularly failed at; net migration has reached 336,000 this year. Migration is currently at record levels.

Students account for the biggest proportion of migration and so, if they were removed from the migration figures, this would make a difference in producing a figure much closer to the 100,00 target. Figures are very headline friendly.

But some people would rightfully brand this figure manipulation (The Telegraph). After all, the figures will come down but the number of actual migrants would not. The figures would not reflect reality but would look more pleasing. Governments are always prepared to insult the intelligence of the electorate.

Surplus Target

It has been suggested by the OBR that Osborne would need to increase migration, or keep it above 180,000, in order to meet his target to achieve a budget surplus by 2020, and the number of student migrants would be a major contribution to this. They expect 1.1 millions migrant between now and then. The Tory government would be prepared to increase migration because business enjoys the cheap labour that it provides and means that it would not have to employ British people. Governments are prepared to lie to people if it benefit themselves and those whom donate to their party.

A former special advisor to Theresa May has said that the government is trying to increase actual immigration in order to increase the workforce and generate more tax receipts. This would reduce the deficit as % of GDP . But the government insists that it wants to reduce immigration because it will increase employment opportunities for British nationals and will increase productivity.

Critics have criticised the OBR for not including the cost of providing for extra migrants through public services – at the same time of making cuts. That if someone is working age that they will therefore work, and if they work, that they will pay net tax. Assumptions that are false. They may not work and they may earn too little to pay tax. Also overseas students from outside the EU won’t be able to work, as condition of the visa.

It is true that there are many students who bring money in to support themselves and then contribute that into the local economy. But students also use public services and contribute substantially to housing demand, particularly the private renting sector. These are demands linked to immigration, impact the local population and so ought to be included in the immigration figures.


Vice-Chancellors will put pressure on the government to take students off the migration figures. Students, if they are genuine, will pay the full cost of their tuition (if they are non-EU), and so the more non-EU students that go to British universities then the more money that British universities will make. It would be good if universities were well-funded and were world-class but vice-Chancellors are not as interested in the interests of wider society as someone with less professional and sectional interests.

But if students were part of the migrant figures, controlled and only the best and brightest were selected then there would be no reason why universities would harmed. Bogus students do not benefit universities. The government and the universities are terrified that students won’t want to come – but surely along as you offer quality and that is known then there would demand. But if you are too open then the system will be open to abuse.



Integration: What Direction?

2 Dec

There is wider argument that indigenous Europeans ought to integrate into Muslim migrant culture rather than the other way round. The latest is that Christmas celebrations ought to become Islam-friendly from a Norwegian Islam expert.

Lars Gule has suggested that if Norwegians did not drink then Muslim migrants will integrate. He claims that these migrants won’t take part in Norwegian events if drinking is involved. He says that Muslims would go into a bar if it was not for the fact that it served alcohol. So Norwegians should phase out a millennia-old Northern European drinking culture so that Muslims can go into bars and feel integrated? But then maybe Muslims do not want to go into bars or maybe they would order a non-alcoholic drink if they went in.

But then indigenous Europeans should not have to be alienated from our own traditions. Traditions have value for what they are and are not of less worth than Islam even of the followers of that religion may not agree.

But if a Norwegian wants to drink alcohol at a Christmas celebration like their ancestors in their own country then that ought to be a right. You couldn’t imagine Dubai or Saudi Arabia encouraging drinking to make Western expatriates feel at home.

If a migrant does not want to drink then they could just socialise with work colleagues or peers and have a soft drink. No tolerance tends to be demanded from migrants.

An individual Norwegian does not bear responsibility for the fact that someone from 1000s of miles away has decided to come and live in their country and so shouldn’t have to change their observance of traditions.

There is also the fact that the indigenous population would have already done the migrants a favour by admitting them in and letting them work or supporting them on benefits. Changing the national culture would be a further favour without demanding anything in return, and would be completely out of proportion and there is no reason why such as responsibility ought to exist.

Gules claims that drinking is not a norm in the countries that these migrants come from. But how is this relevant? These migrants are no longer in their country and so different norms apply.

But how far would you have to go make them feel at home? Should you encourage Norwegians to pray 5 times a day and attend a mosque? Shall Eid become a national holiday? Islamists around the world will be delighted to see European societies willing to give in and become Islamic. They will see a precedent being set and will push until it falls over completely.

European traditions and national identities have value and ought to be maintained and fought for if necessary.

Will Leaving EU Increase Terrorist Risk?

2 Dec

Being inside the EU won’t guarantee effective co-operation and it is possible for countries outside the EU to co-operate with countries inside the it on intelligence and the fight against terrorism.


Hugh Orde, the former head of the Northern Ireland police, has claimed that if we left the EU we will be isolated and so won’t cooperate with other countries (The Guardian). But then we are not in a union with the US, Canada or Australia but we co-operate with those countries on security. Leaving the EU will not mean that there will not be cooperation with former EU partners. Countries that are in the EU already face the threat of terrorism.

Collective Strength

Alan Johnson has claimed that collective strength will provide more and security and this strength will be provided by the collective that the EU will provide. But the problem is that the EU tends to fall apart in the middle of a crisis. This has been proven by the migrant crisis. EU members differ from each other, and will be affected differently and so solutions will be different, and thus provided the scope for disagreement. But then collective strength will be possible amongst countries not currently in a embryonic super-state.

Richard Tice, a Euro-sceptic businessman, has pointed out that security is provided by the armed forces, NATO and the police and none of this is provided by the EU (The Guardian, 21/11/15).

The EU adopted a Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2005. This was based on the acknowledgement that open borders will create security issues, and the belief that this will be combated collectively as a cross-border problem ( But it is not clear how open borders will make it possible to prevent terrorists and weapons to move about, and this strategy relies on the ability to co-operate in the middle of a crisis. It is not impossible but is far from certain. It is reasonable to argue that cross-border co-operation is necessary due to the nature of the problem but it is not clear why British EU membership would be a necessity.


Orde has claimed that if we were outside the EU then terrorists would find it easier to move in and out of Britain as co-operation will allow effective border control. But as EU members our borders are porous. The Schengen Zone, something that we are not (officially) a part of, allows terrorists and EU and non-EU migrant to move across the continent freely. The Paris terrorists had managed to move through EU borders towards France and to have weapons smuggled in the from the Balkans. When there is too many people the EU level institutions seem to be unable to co-ordinate security control amongst member states.

Borders across the EU would make it more difficult for mass movements across the continent if they are enforced like what certain countries in Eastern Europe are doing – against the wishes of Brussels and Berlin. If the flow slows down then it will be easier to obstruct those whom pose a threat.

Border sovereignty would be achievable outside the EU and would allow us to control who comes in if the political will exists in Westminster.


The Daily Mail, 2/12/15


George Lawlor and Warwick: How Can the Zealots Justify His Treatment?

25 Nov

George Lawlor is a 2nd year politics and sociology student at Warwick University and he has been the target of vilification by members of the Politically Correct brigade, and other useful idiots, for the ‘crime’ of disagreeing with them.

Feminist activists, with the backing of the National Union of Students, decided that men needed to be taught not to commit rape so they organised classes for this purpose. Oxbridge has now timetabled this class for all undergraduates. Universities are now terrified of their own students. Lawlor was invited. But he did not like the insinuation that he was a potential rapist so he wrote a blog post criticising the logic of running the classes and done a photo with him holding up a sign saying stating ‘This is not what a rapist looks like’. This then led to the shit-storm.

He claims that he faced calls claiming that he was a rapist from other students, both male and female, despite there being nothing to suggest that he had actually done anything other than dissent against an imposed orthodoxy.

His case against the Classes

He reasonably argues that the classes will have only limited effects. If someone is inclined to forego consent then they will probably not attend the classes. If someone attends the classes, that were in theory voluntary, then they would not be inclined to commit rape anyway.

Another argument that could be directed against it is that if someone was inclined to rape and attended the classes then they would be unlikely to change their ways just because a student at the front of a lecture hall is telling them that it is wrong. Of course rape is wrong, but a rapist is unlikely to operate on the assumption that rape is moral and socially approved.

 The Vilification

His treatment has been compared to the pursuit of religious heretics in the 17th century and McCarthyist anti-Communist witch-hunt in the 1950s. Like in these cases, someone who has defied an orthodoxy is pursued as a result.

Freedom of speech is rightfully deployed as an argument against vilifying someone for their opinions. Freedom of speech demands that if someone has an opinion then they ought to be able to express it freely, without being threatened into recanting, unless they explicitly and clearly incite. But in Lawlor’s case this does not apply. He put out a reasonable argument against the point of the classes – and not an argument for rape, as the more fanatical and less informed critics seem to believe.

Freedom of speech is also a means of creating a more informed debate. But the PC brigade do not want to people to be informed for the same reason that the Catholic Church historically kept literacy confined to a few individuals in monasteries. Ignorant people are easier to control. A free discussion will against the interests of the PC brigade so they won’t allow it.

Student newspapers are often organs of PC dogma. According to Lawlor the student paper at Warwick University printed two articles that both criticised him rather than having a balanced set-up with one article critical and one defending his position, or his right not to face the vilification that he has.

The atmosphere it also poisoned when dogmatic bullies make someone’s life a misery for disagreeing with them. Universities ought to be a place where debate happens. One person put forward an argument, and someone will disagree, so they will put an argument against the other one and in favour of an alternative. But what is happening is a small organised group dictates what is right or wrong and everyone else ought to go along with it or else. No debate allowed. If someone disagrees with any Politically Correct doctrine then that person is therefore evil, and not worth debating with. If someone disagrees with them then that person will be bombarded with ‘-isms’ and ‘-phobias’ designed to single that person out as a pariah. This also operates within a wider Politically Correct social framework that increases the scope and effectiveness of Politically Correct vilification on campus.

Nor is it right that someone’s academic future and career prospects can be ruined for disagreeing with PC bullies. He is rightfully worried for his academic future, and that he could get kicked out. Threatening someone’s future in this way also operates as a sanction to keep people in line. Other people will see what is happening to an unfortunate dissenting individual, and will hope to have a good career after finishing their degree and so will hold back from their dissenting opinion and implicitly accept the unearned dominance of the PC orthodoxy. Lawlor has claimed that he knows people who sympathises with him but are too afraid to speak out. This is no doubt true.

Social media can be used as a weapon against dissenters and anybody who is able to speak sense. Lawlor has claimed that abusive people have pursued him on Facebook. As far I tell from what he has said no-one has put forward an articulate rebuttal of his points. That would require too much thinking, and many people get a rush of power from joining a hate mob. Hundreds of years ago these people would be carrying torches and pitchforks and would be pursuing someone who defied some religious tenet.

He says that he has faced physical threats. Someone on a bus apparently was overheard saying that he ‘really wanted to hit that kid’. People obviously fear being physically attacked, and if this is the consequences of speaking off-message, this will act as a disincentive to speaking out. Threatening someone physically is an intellectual failure, and indicates someone who wants to be seen as on the ‘right side’. It is a social signal to say that ‘I am on message’ and the willingness to pursue violence makes that person ‘hard-core’ and increase their standing or so they would believe. Substance of the argument becomes irrelevant.

There are critics of Lawlor that are against violence but attack his position. He is attacked as naïve. In the sense that he did not know what the PC brigade are like and did not expect the reaction he got could he possibly be considered naïve but that is not what the criticism is based on. This criticism is based on the idea that there is not a ‘typical’ rapist. This is a riposte to his sign saying that he does not look like a typical rapist.

Sure rapists can come in all shapes and sizes but so can perpetrators of any crime. But would you get people to go along to classes and state the obvious that people shouldn’t break the law on other crimes? The fact that rapists do not all look the same does not justify making all males suspected rapists. Sure rape is serious and victims suffer for it but innocent men should not have to be treated as suspects and attend meetings to be told the obvious that rape is wrong, just because there are feminists who will only feel safe when they have the male population under their thumb. These ultra-feminists groups often stereotype all men as potential sex offenders and yet men are supposed to accept this characterisation or these feminists will make the fallacious deduction that implicit support for rape is being expressed.


Making a counter point to Politically Correct does not justify the vilification that Lawlor says that he suffered, and those pursuing him are dogmatic zealots who will use threats in order to enforce their world-view onto other people.