How Immigration Is Destroying The Swedish Welfare State

Leftists in the United States have long pointed at the “Nordic Model” welfare state epitomised by Sweden as the type of system they would like to implement in the US.

They think that by raising taxes and enabling collective bargaining between employers and trade unions they will obtain the same results in a country with a historical aversion to socialism, and one still divided in many areas along racial lines.

The second point matters, because although socialism of the type in Sweden worked well while it was still a racially and culturally homogenous country – beginning after WW2 – society began to gradually fragment with the influx of immigrants beginning in the 1970’s, resulting in government mistrust and in-group strategies, which have left the weight of propping up the failing system on a dwindling core of mostly white Swedes.

An article in The Economist has the following to say regarding this:

TENSIONS were running high when your correspondent visited Sweden at the height of Europe’s migrant crisis, in late 2015. Although most Swedes happily accepted the 163,000 asylum-seekers who arrived in their country that year, others were far less welcoming. In Malmo, a heavily immigrant city in the south, one cashier in a local shop was particularly angry. “They are just here for welfare and benefits,” he said, before telling your correspondent to “get out”. Such language was once the preserve of politicians from the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which has capitalised on the crisis to boost its support. Since then the government has been trying to adapt the Swedish welfare state to suit the times: both to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees and to try to diminish such right-wing sentiment. What is changing?

The first response by the centre-left coalition government to the overwhelming influx of refugees in 2015 was to close the border with Denmark. This was seen as an extreme measure: the deputy prime minister, Asa Romson, cried when announcing the move at a press conference. Since then it has also tried to tweak welfare spending. Previously, failed asylum-seekers received a monthly cash benefit of around 1,200 SEK ($140) and housing; this was scrapped last year. On May 31st the government voted to limit paid parental leave for immigrants: previously, refugees could claim the full amount of paid leave (480 days per child under the age of eight). Now they can only do so if the child is under one year old. For big families the benefits will be limited further.

At first the thought of the deputy prime minister crying about closing the border with Denmark to stop the influx of refugees seemed like a joke, but alas not.

It’s no wonder that “refugees” were uninterested in settling in Eastern European nations if they could make their way to Sweden – and likely Germany also – and get cash and housing even if their bid for asylum failed.

Those Swedes worried about becoming a minority in their own country can draw some encouragement from the government decision to limit paid parental leave for immigrants – one imagines a recently settled “refugee” using his free government provided iPhone 7 to call his three wives in Afghanistan telling them to pack the bags for themselves and their 17 children under eight – however the fact that it’s still applicable for children under one will only encourage them to find the first Swedish girl they can get their hands on and try their luck.

In truth the only solution to this is a complete collapse and reboot of the system, something which doesn’t seem too far off judging by the talk of civil war from the Swedish National Police Chief. It remains to be seen if Swedish men still have the fighting spirit of their viking ancestors lying dormant somewhere inside them, which will save their women and their country, but not their once idealised welfare state.

 

 

Advertisements

US Military Services Transgender Enlistment Delay

The debate on transgenders in the US military services has been raging for some time now, with the left dangerously pushing their subversive agenda into national defence, wilfully ignoring the catastrophic consequences it will have on the most powerful armed forces in the world.

Department of Defense regulations banning transgender persons from US military services were repealed on June 30, 2016, by former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, a Democrat favourite selected for the job by Barack Obama.

Thus the US joined 18 other nations that allow transgenders to openly serve in their militaries – unsurprisingly all of them Western nations. Despite that, there’s an evident reluctance to allow immediate enlistment of transgenders in the US, as reported by AP:

Military chiefs will seek a six-month delay before letting transgender people enlist in their services, officials said Friday.

After meetings this week, the service leaders hammered out an agreement that rejected Army and Air Force requests for a two-year wait and reflected broader concerns that a longer delay would trigger criticism on Capitol Hill, officials familiar with the talks told The Associated Press.

Clearly the decision made by the Obama administration to lift the ban was most unpopular throughout the military services, as it was clear to all that the decision was political rather than one made to make them more efficient. Of the other 18 nations mentioned above it remains to be seen if any of their decorated soldiers are transgender – indeed, if that had been the case it would have made world headlines, without a doubt.

Regarding the service leaders concerns that delaying enlistment would trigger criticism on Capitol Hill, perhaps they should have been reminded via Twitter that there’s a new President in the Whitehouse – and a Republican majority in Congress – who has more important things to worry about than whether or not members of Chelsea Manning’s fan club can enlist.

Stephen Peters, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, said the group is disappointed with the delay request.

“Each day that passes without implementing the final piece of this important policy harms our military readiness and restricts the Armed Forces’ ability to recruit the best and the brightest,” said Peters, a Marine veteran. “There are thousands of transgender service members openly and proudly serving our nation today, and as they’ve proven time and time again, what matters is the ability to get the job done — not their gender identity.”

Surely the Iranians and North Koreans – among others, but specifically these two because they’ve been publicly denounced by the Trump administration – relish witnessing the most powerful combined military force in the world concerning itself with its own destruction, rather than the destruction of its perceived enemies. The US still has the most advanced weaponry which gives it supremacy – even as their armed forces become increasingly feminized – but that advantage will not last indefinitely.

Stephen Peters should be reminded why militaries exist. Despite talk about recruiting the best and the brightest, what’s ultimately needed are trained men ready and willing to go into battle and kill the enemy, and if necessary give their lives for their country. Powerful nations have always had a ready supply of those types of men, and when they didn’t they lost their power.

America can still afford to pander to this madness of social justice and political correctness, but make no mistake, when the Republic is in grave danger, it will have to be swiftly swept aside if she is to survive – her enemies, both internal and external know this, and will do everything in their power to prevent it.

 

 

 

Starbucks Hiring Invaders To Serve Coffee In Europe

Remember when Howard Shultz – the former CEO of Starbucks, and its current executive chairman – told a shareholder in 2013 that he could “sell your shares” if he didn’t agree with the company’s stance on gay marriage?

Well that should have left things quite clear to anyone who was unsure about the company’s position on the political spectrum, and its evident disdain for anyone right of Barrack Obama, even at the risk of losing their business.

Now they’ve decided to go a step further by effectively telling jobseekers and customers in eight European countries, who are senseless enough to give money to this corporate giant rather than support their local coffee shops, that if they’re not happy with the EU’s and mama Merkel’s migrant policy they can drink their coffee elsewhere. As reported by the Independent:

Starbucks will hire 2,500 refugees across Europe by 2022 as part of a wider plan that sparked a social media backlash when it was announced in January.

The world’s largest coffee chain said on Tuesday that it had already started the hiring the refugees, which it said would represent around 8 per cent of its current European workforce of 30,000.

Starbucks‘ commitment was made to coincide with World Refugee Day and proves “that businesses like ours can use its scale to make a positive impact in people’s lives,” said Martin Brok, president of Starbucks for Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The company will roll out the initiative in Britain, France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands.

So basically 2,500 jobs that could go to unemployed Europeans – in this case unskilled workers who may already be in a delicate economic situation themselves – will be given to “refugees.” Let’s see how well that works out for them. At this rate by 2022, 2,500 workers may make up 100% of Starbucks workforce after the company is forced to put a hijab on their mermaid logo and a crescent above her head. Somehow the name Crescentbucks doesn’t have the same ring to it, but hell, we need to move with the times, right Howard?

The company faced fierce criticism from some people using the #BoycottStarbucks hashtag on social media. So far, only a handful of people on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval of the latest announcement regarding European hires.

It’s hardly surprising they received fierce criticism from “some” people on social media, but why even mention that if they then seem to contradict themselves after by claiming that only a “handful” of people expressed disapproval. It’s also quite surprising that they didn’t qualify the statement by writing instead that “only a handful of racist white supremacists on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval…”

Europe’s refugee crisis shows no signs of abating. Around 360,000 refugees and migrants arrived on the Europe’s shores last year, many from war-torn Syria and Iraq as well as African countries including Guinea and Mali, according to the UN refugee agency.

Yes, nothing quite like getting your coffee served by someone with PTSD from a war-torn third world hell hole where customer service is as rare as a functioning Starbucks, and you’re likely to get scalded with boiling water for demanding the correct change.

Last week, the European Commission launched legal proceedings against three European Union member states who have refused to take in refugees.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are accused of not fulfilling their obligations outlined in a 2015 plan to relocate migrants from Italy and Greece, to help share the burden. The three Eastern European countries have taken in a total of just 12 people since the agreement started.

Perhaps those 12 people could be hired in their respective Starbucks as a pilot project, and if successful the EU would have a perfect example of the unique benefits that refugees can bring to their local economies? Or even better, why not persuade Starbucks to hire refugees as 100% of their workforce and eventually rid themselves of this subversive company by putting them out of business after enough customers have taken their business elsewhere. Now that would be poetic justice.

 

 

 

 

Johnny Reb’s Unread Message To Posterity

As the left continues it’s maniacal purge of Confederate monuments throughout the Southern United Sates in an attempt to erase all trace of all its heritage, history, and pride – much as they’ve done and continue to do in any part of the Western world where historical white men are immortalised in art – opposition will continue to increase, even if its only manifestation among the majority for now is a growing resentment which will eventually be unleashed in one form or another.

Even if Dylann Roof hadn’t walked into a church in Charleston two years ago and murdered nine black worshippers in a cowardly and unjustified act, the left would have found another mendacious excuse to target the Confederate flag, monuments, and anything else remotely connected to that period of American history – a history which shouldn’t be forgotten if it’s not to be repeated, despite the best efforts of James T. Hodgkinson and company.

The latest victim of their purge is Johnny Red, the personification of the Southern Confederate States during the American Civil War. As reported by WESH 2 News:

As crews removed a Confederate statue called “Johnny Reb” from Lake Eola Park Tuesday they uncovered a time capsule in the base of the statue.

The time capsule was moved to city hall. It is unclear what is inside or when the city may open the time capsule.

Do these paranoids suspect they’re dealing with a potential booby trap rather than an important historical find? Of course it’s unclear what’s inside if it remains unopened – surely the normal thing to do would be to see what’s inside as soon as possible?

Cassandra Lafser, who’s a spokeswoman for Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, said the time capsule is very light. It was found in the top part of the statue’s base, Lafser said.

It’s light because it’s probably got some documents or letters in it, not a booby trap. So what’s the Mayor so scared of? Perhaps he imagines a time traveler went back to 1917 and planted the time capsule under the statue with a letter inside warning America about the consequences of allowing leftist ideology to insidiously penetrate American society?

The statue is being moved to Greenwood Cemetery following public outcry that it’s a symbol of racism and white supremacy.

The public “outcry” was probably from a handful of paid agitators and usual suspects, whose idea of racism and white supremacy is whites dressing up as Indians and Mexicans on Halloween and having fun at their campus parties.

The statue was originally located on Magnolia Avenue before it was moved to Lake Eola Park in 1917. It has been in Orlando since 1911.

So 100 years have passed with an unopened time capsule under Johnny Red. It appears we’ll have to wait a little longer before we get to read his – or the time traveller’s – message to posterity.

 

 

Pivoting From Afghanistan To A Defence Of The West

The 1842 Kabul Retreat remains as one Britain’s worst military disasters. At the time Britain was well into her “imperial century” and was unchallenged at sea, much like her successor the United States is today.

But that massacre at the hands of the Afghans was the first stark lesson for Western armies on the perils of meddling in a country whose people are fiercely independent and hostile to outside interference when they’re not busy fighting amounts themselves.

It should also have been a lesson the US learned after the CIA covertly supported the Mujahideen in their successful war against the Soviet Union, but apparently not.

Admittedly, the US’s intervention can hardly be compared in terms of negative consequences to those two conflicts, but after nearly sixteen years of continuing casualties it’s time the decision is made to withdraw all troops and leave the Afghans to their own incomprehensible devices – it appears that they no longer want to endure Western freedom.

Thus unfortunately it’s no surprise to see reports of coalition troops – in the latest case US – continuing to be treacherously killed despite an end to major combat operations in 2014. As reported by AP:

An Afghan soldier opened fire on American soldiers on Saturday, injuring at least seven, the U.S. military said. It was the second such insider attack by an Afghan soldier in the past week.

Abdul Qahar Araam, spokesman for the 209th Army corps, confirmed that an insider attack took place at a camp in Mazar-e Sharif. Araam said the soldiers returned fire and killed the attacker.

Gen. Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, also confirmed the attack.

The Resolute Support mission announced on its Twitter feed that seven U.S. service members were wounded but said there were no U.S. fatalities. It said one Afghan soldier was killed and one wounded.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid praised the attack in a statement sent to the media. But he did not claim Taliban responsibility.

Last week three U.S. soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.

Since the US and UK intervened in 2001 to oust the Taliban and deny al-Qaeda a safe base of operations – in other words blow up a few caves and tunnels, destroy some monkey bars and other invaluable jihadi training facilities with multimillion Dollar weaponry – and were subsequently joined by NATO forces in 2003, a total of 94 coalition soldiers have been killed in so called “green on blue” attacks, out of a total of 3535 fatalities.

Fortunately none of the seven “insider attacks” described above were fatal this time, but the fact that they continue, and the Taliban concurrently praise them, is a sign that not all is well in poppyland. So are coalition forces still in Afghanistan to safeguard and oversee the production of heroin as concluded by some or are there other reasons?

The answer to that question is yes, and it most likely has to do with a variation of “The Great Game” which saw world powers pit their forces against each other for control of central and Southern Asia in the nineteenth century.

It’s time for the US to scale back her empire and put her troops and resources to better use – namely Making America Great Again. The same goes for the UK and the rest of the Western coalition forces in a region which has been the nexus of an exodus of “refugees” that have invaded Europe under the auspices of NATO’s erstwhile partner Turkey.

It seems unlikely that this “refugee” crisis comprised of military aged men, with a penchant for violence and European women, would have materialised if those coalition troops had been patrolling the Aegean Sea, and stationed along the Greek border with the country whose leader has called for Turkish couples in the EU to have five children each. We ignore his veiled threat at our peril.

Our troops should be defending our nations, not Afghanistan – or for that matter Iraq. It’s time to pivot to a defence of the West.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comey’s Testimony

There’s no need to go into more details on the Comey hearing here, which has made all the top headlines the past couple of days in the US and been discussed ad nauseam already.

Suffice to say that despite the left’s best efforts to salvage something from it in terms of incriminating Trump in any wrong doing, it was a bit of an anticlimax for those calling for impeachment, and quite an eye opener to see Comey admitting to leaking confidential information to a reporter via a friend.

Two videos worth watching on the subject are from Tucker Carlson and Stefan Molyneux. Enjoy:

MSNBC’s Obsession With Trump

It seems that MSNBC has an obsession with President Trump. That might seem like something obvious considering the constant barrage of negative news coverage he’s been subjected to throughout his first six months in office, but it really hits home visually when you visit their home page and are confronted by the following:

Trump MSNBC

Is it me or is there something strange about this picture…?

As can be seen, all their top stories are a barrage of Comey testimony and Trump related stories which leaves one wondering if there’s anything else going on in the MSNBC studios in terms of reporting on other important US and world news? With pundits like Al Sharpton on their payroll the answer is likely a resounding no.

Of course it’s not just MSNBC but the leftwing media in general, and if Breitbart, Fox News, and others on the right are spending more time than normal covering the President, it’s because there has to be a counterargument against the constant attacks which amount to nothing more than propaganda worthy of countries like Venezuela.

It’s hard to imagine Obama receiving this much negative media from the right during his two terms of office, despite the fact that he was incredibly unpopular among Republicans, and would probably have been with a considerable amount of Democrat’s if it wasn’t for the colour of his skin.

But does this behaviour by the left reveal something about it’s psychology as a group? Are people on the left more prone to whining and constantly playing the victim, as it so often appears to even the most casual observer? Is it any wonder that so called “progressivism” and all the baggage that comes with it – from slut walks to gender fluidity, to whatever other destabilising perversions they thrust into our lives – is an ideology of the left and not the right? Reach your own conclusions.