Sweden explodes

Translation by Michael Laudahn:

Image from original PDF (Sorry, no link)

H/T Snaphanen.Dk

written by former chief editor of Ekstra Bladet, Bent Falbert

Sweden is about to become a big nation. The number of people has surpassed 9.5 millions. It grew by 500 000 within seven years. Of these, almost 400 000 are owed to immigration, espepcially of somalis, afghans and iraqis.

 

The demographic explosion continues. That is, a new swedish court verdict means that immigration and family reunions will be facilitated significantly. So far, authorities could reject foreigners without personal papers. But the new verdict prohibits this, because it can be difficult for people in chaotic countries to get documentation.

Those interested in asylum often first send unaccompanied children to Sweden. If they are below 18, they are eligible for an appartment at an institution and a new swedish existence. Authorities try to sort out frauds, who in reality maybe are 18 to 20 and ought to be sent back, but determing their ages is difficult without any papers. The swedes have to believe the stories told by the young refugees. Trust is better than control. 

Provisioning of these young people at the institutions costs up to 5 000 crowns per day [ http://www.xe.com/ucc/ ]. The municipalities get their expenses reimbursed by the government, but cannot say no to receiving the ‘children’.

The next step is that these big children’s relatives in fx Somalia follow after, in order to achieve family reunion in Sweden. Such family reunions are expected to rise to more than 15 000 per year, which brings the total annual number to between 50 000 and 60 000 people.

The swedish taxpayers’ expense to their many new fellow countrymen from the warm countries swells dramatically. Simply food, accomodation, administration of their cases during the period before they get asylum reaches eight billion danish crowns in 2012. The generous swedish social state’s benefits and leave regulations for families are expensive in themselves, because they were not intended for home-staying asylum seekers with many children.

Total influx of asylum seekers is expected to amount to about 90 000 people per year. Predictions are being changed all of the time, because the rumour is going around in fx Somalia and Afghanistan that it has become easy to become a swede. It is not even necessary to work, which half of those that get asylum don’t do.

What is incomprehensible is that the formidable immigration of people from the world’s far regions hasn’t led to any swedish debate worth mentioning. Among politicians, it is considered to be racist and inappropriate to vent sorrow, let alone criticise Sweden’s fast metamorphosis into the world’s relatively biggest immigration country. After all, there is plenty of space in the vast forests.

Swedish media are likewise dominated by downtrodden, pious editors, who remove diligently from their papers, websites and radio/tv broadcats any criticism against the policy on refugees and its consequences.

Luckily, we don’t have it so in Denmark, where it is allowed to publicly discuss the reason in asylum policies. So how does it look like here?

Well, according to Danmarks Statistik, the population has grown with 163 000 from 2004 to 2012. We are now 5 561 000 danes. Of these, immigrants have a share of 445 000 in 2012, to which 140 000 offspring must be added. With regard to asylum seekers, we are not even close to the invasion of Sweden. In 2012, Flygtningenævnet [refugee commission] expects 5 000 asylum seekers, of which 800 from Somalia, who are the most rapidly growing nationality. However, Danmark has major problems to get rid of those seekers whose request for asylum was rejected. Each month, their number grows by 100 – and they need to be accomodated, while they wait to be either returned – or for tolerable conditions in their home countries…

Therefore, new danish asylum centres continue to be established. Recently, Juelsminde [ http://preview.tinyurl.com/78rmgvf ] citizens discovered that all of Hotel Juelsminde Strand near the Kattegat has been rented out to 134 asylum seekers from asian, middle eastern and african countries. The locals will see a lot of their new neighbours, because they will be tasked with leisure time activities, visiting school and work. Other centres will be placed on Langeland, at Ringsted, at Hillerød and on Lolland. Each month, a new one will be opened. Just 5 000 asylum seekers now live in such centres.

Also Denmark feels growing somali interest, and also this interest is due to a court verdict, i e one issued by the European Court of Human Rights. It told two somalis they were right that Britain was not allowed to expel them, although they were criminals – the cause being that living in Somalia is hazardous to one’s life. It has been like that for so many years, that Denmark today has 17 000 somalis, which are hard to integrate.

As a consequence of this verdict, somalis receive a new treatment of their requests, and some 200 have already got aslyum this year. The same is true for iranians and syrians, who cannot be sent home either to their violent dictatorship states.

However, attempts are made to return rejected afghans, but most of them resist strongly, so the process goes slowly.

So why do I write all this? Well, because I have the idea that – even if I myself cannot present the solution for Denmark’s problems with asylum seekers – it is useful to become aware of the numbers we are talking about – and what we presently do with them.

We preserve freedom of speech only by using it [also] on sensitive issues.

And then it is a distinct pleasure to showcase the mad situation in which the crazy, dumb swedes have positioned themselves. Have a nice sunday.

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

22 Replies to “Sweden explodes”

  1. The EU should make sure that its member states are multicultural to ensure the prosperity of the union, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

    Peter Sutherland also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

    He told the House of Lords committee migration was a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some EU nations ‘however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states’. He said that an ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the ‘key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states’. He criticised the UK’s attempt to cut net migration from its current level to ‘tens of thousands’ a year through visa restrictions.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

  2. Fois gras by the EU & the UN is national suicide. They want to eat your liver. End of discussion.

    They want you dead…turn about is fair play.

  3. Iftikhar Ahmad admits that Islam is part of the NWO. Iftikhar, if the oil sheiks really believe in Islamic paradise, why don’t they use oil to destroy Israel? After all, why fear Israeli nukes, as there would be heaven? Islam destroys itself in Syria. Only if the Middle-East converts to my religion, it will be safe.

  4. I’ve made enough comments on this site so you know I’m not a knee jerking mush head. So keep that in mind when I say that that picture is increadibly racist and in the worst possible taste. It adds an implication that the article itself is motivated by racism instead of other issues and makes you look bad to have it up.

    The Fat Albert reference isn’t enough to justify it.

    I’m not saying you are racist for posting it – just that you are making a mistake. We all make mistakes every day.

    You really should remove it before some detractor nabs a screengrab of it and tarnishes your reputation by posting it all over the internet.

  5. @ Truthiocity What the heck is “racist” about the truth, Sweden is being colonized by people who wish to use her resources and not assimilate and they are mostly all from the same culture. Do you suggest they roll out the red carpet and bend over?

  6. As for the picture, insulting it may be, so who cares, next to beheading, FGM, and jihad it’s nothing. Sometimes the only thing that gets through to barbarians is ridicule. I suggest you don’t waste your “sympathy”. disgust etc. on people who would gladly see you dead.

  7. The picture is insulting? To who? The worthless Muslims or you? You don’t have to be precious about freedom of speech.

  8. The picture is a fair representation of an important percentage of the total intellectual degenerates europe is being flooded with. I see tons of these when I ride the Brussels public transport. The streets are PAVED with them. There’s nothing wrong with it. With those who are insulted by it, on the other hand…you’re in dire need of therapy.

  9. The picture is a bit insulting. However it was part of the original article where in fact, it is about 25X bigger. So I felt I should include it here. While I felt a little bit uncomfortable posting it, I also had to wonder, if say, India posted an article about how the British invaded and took over, and posted a derogatory picture of a bunch of pompous superior baggy pants British people holding Indian flags during the colonial times, would that be OK with you?

    The only problem factually that I have with this picture is it is highly unlikely that these invaders to Sweden would actually ever hold a Swedish flag.

    As we saw in France after the election of the socialists, (You can relate to that, can’t you Miriam?) pretty much all the immigrants who celebrated the win held the flags of their national origins and nations where they felt allegiance. Nearly NONE of them that night held French flags.

    When I weighed that against the derogatory picture representing immigrants to Sweden today (And everywhere else for that matter) it seemed reasonable.

  10. The aging population argument. In the old days it was ” we need them for economic growth!”. Then it was “They do the jobs we don’t do!”. Then it became ” they are fleeing wars!”. Now “its we need them to support our taxes!”. But in reality its the socialist ideal of a one world government. How can you achieve it with nation states? Well you have to subsume them, especially the birth place of the nation state – Europe.

  11. They always find new arguments. Aging population is the result of legalizing abortion and forbidding euthanasia. The Netherlands have euthanasia, the Netherlands have Geert Wilders.

  12. Eyore wrote “I also had to wonder, if say, India posted an article about how the British invaded and took over, and posted a derogatory picture of a bunch of pompous superior baggy pants British people holding Indian flags during the colonial times, would that be OK with you?”

    Funnily enough I can answer that with a yes. I went to an exhibition on characateur at the MET recently. They had a section on racist stereotypes but only included charicateurs of Britons. That really pissed me off (and I’m not British). I thought they should have ignored that aspect of the subject rather than pick on British people.

    I wrote a lot more but deleted it as it’s not germain the the real subject matter of this post, which is the actual article.

  13. Whoops, I meant “no”. I was pissed that the only racist characateurs depicted at the characateur exhibit were of British people.

  14. Whoops, I meant “no”. I was pissed that the only racist characateurs depicted at the characateur exhibit were of British people and thought they should have just ignored that aspect of the subject.

  15. Truth:

    I elected to remove the image anyway. It was way too distracting to the relevant aspects of the article. Frankly I was uncomfortable with it but it was a huge (by area) component of the original article sent to me, so it seemed dishonest not to post it in a way. Even so, as another poster said, it was tactically a mistake because of how people would perceive it, and he was quite correct, so I removed it. The article is important. The image was not. But I did want to point out that people find images of non-white people to be horrific and unacceptable even when contextually accurate perhaps, while derogatory images of out-of-fashion groups never seem to be an issue.

  16. How strange! Just last week my country Canada just abolished free healthcare for asylum seekers and repealed sections of the Human Rights Act banning hate speech on the internet and telephone.

    @Truthiocity
    You know why Canada did that? In part because our expensive court system was clogged up with abusive dimwits like you using the “race card” just to win an argument. There is a valid use for the word “racist”, but it is far overused and this overuse does not actually promote equality, it destroys it.

    Long before Sweden and Europe even heard about multicutluralism, Canada was the first country in the world who has adopted multiculturalism policies in 1970s as an ideology because of its public emphasis on the social importance of immigration …. but we realized our mistake. So know To immigrate in Canada you need to invest at least the equivalent in Canadian dollar of 300 000 Euros or having a university degree and a profession that the country needs.

    Family reunion is now hard to get and if you get it you have to pay for medical expenses and livelihood of your family members who came in the country. Don’t expect any help from us…

    The Swedish Multicultural elites just like in Canada 20 years ago see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate diversity, everything Swedish is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this policy is considered a form of racism.

    The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists. It was the same thing in Canada.

  17. “You know why Canada did that? In part because our expensive court system was clogged up with abusive dimwits like you using the “race card” just to win an argument.”

    Whough there. I wasn’t even talking about the article or using the image to imply anything about the validity of the article or the motivations of the poster. THAT would have been using “the race card”.

    I suggested that it should be taken down because OTHER PEOPLE could use it to disparage the article and the poster. THEY would have been using the race card.

    Please read comments more carefully in future before you respond to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*