The importance in hearing people out


This post touches upon something I pointed out in my previous post, namely that when Donald Trump went on the Alex Jones show for a long interview where he doesn’t get interrupted, and was given the chance to make his opinions heard, I realized that what Trump says simply doesn’t hold substance. He was talking and talking, yet it felt like nothing was coming out of his mouth.

Which sort of makes me think about how people tend to react to “controversial” figures in general. The reaction is often emotional, rather than saying: “Let’s listen to this crazy bouffoon and find out why he thinks like he does.” What Alex Jones chose to do was listen, and that’s how you extract more out of a “nutjob” to see if there’s any substance.

When you first hear something controversial it might appear like the statement has no merit nor substance, based on your preconcieved notions. And that’s why it’s important to ask questions and let the person reveal the reasoning behind their statements. If there really is no substance behind them then you’ll proven to the audience that the nutjob really does lack substance. But it could also turn out that they’ve thought about something that the rest hasn’t.

For this reason, tolerance and democratic discussion which focuses on the reasoning presented, rather than ad hominem, is a win-win situation. Either it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person is a fucking moron, thus causing them to lose their mystifying appeal, or you learn something new that everyone could benefit from.

I see the American media making the same mistakes with Donald Trump, as the Swedish media has done with the Sweden Democrats. They think bullying and smear tactics are gonna make people dislike the ugly duckling. But that’s counterproductive.

When you only attack someones character and alleged intentions, the argument they presented is left un-refuted. This creates the illusion that they are in the right, even if their point could desperately need some well-deserved problematization and nuancing.

This is what we here in Sweden should have been doing with the Sweden Democrats years ago, when they were voted into parliament back in 2010. Back then they were small. Now they’re the biggest party in the opinion polls. Guess why?

The Sweden Democrats might have a shady background, but they occasionally make very sound points. And these are points no other party wants to make. Common sense statements like: “Immigrants should adapt to Sweden, not the other way around.”And “Sweden shouldn’t have more immigration than it can handle.”

Instead of refuting these points, politicians have been shouting “racist” instead. Even when the SD express common sense. What kind of effect do you think this is gonna have on the general public?

Politics is about making prioritizations. If you don’t know how to make uncomfortable yet necessary priorities, you should not be in parliament. If you choose to prioritize the citizens of other countries over Swedish citizens, you really shouldn’t represent the Swedish people. And you shouldn’t be surprised when the party who expresses peoples frustrations end up becoming bigger and bigger.

Let the scary boogeyman speak. The only reason you have to fear the words of someone, is if there’s actually some truth to it.


The Refugee Children of Sweden

Recently, the Swedish newspaper Gothenburg-Post wrote a sob story about a 16-year old unaccompanied refugee child who….. appears to be a full-grown man.


Does that person look 16 to you?

What’s even worse is that Avpixlat, a site often labeled as racist, completely destroyed their report simply by going on the guys facebook and looking through pictures and info. They discovered that he registered on a dating site in 2008. If his age was true then he was looking for a fuckbuddy at the age of 8. But as you can see for yourself, his age is 24 on the site.

CRyYxORUEAAN61_.jpg large ARSE

Do I need to explain to you what a disaster it is that established journalists in the massmedia don’t even look through basic information before writing a sobby character portrait? The guy claims to be a refugee from Afghanistan and painted up this story of miserable experiences at the hands of human smugglers, while his Facebook account is full of pictures with him posing in RayBay-shades wearing a big wrist watch in Istanbul.


Or why not this image of him suffering at the poolside in Southern Europe? No wonder he moved to Sweden, considering how terrible his circumstances were.


His gallery gives the impression of tourism rather than war. In the article with GP he showed the journalists a map of his travel route: Afghanistan – Pakistan – Iran – Turkey – Greece – Makedonia – Serbia – Hungary – Austria – Germany – Denmark – Sweden. Several of these are safe countries yet they don’t ask him any questions about why he’s avoided seeking asylum in them.

When he came to Sweden it was winter and “all he owned was a mobile phone and the clothes he was wearing.” There’s no explanation to how he was able to lose his passport but not his iPhone. Like the majority of people granted asylum in Sweden he hasn’t been able to verify his identity.

Case workers at the Migration board have said that asylum seekers from Syria and Eritrea ger their application granted in nearly 100% of the cases, yet 72% of applicants from Eritrea lack passports and for Syria the number is 98%. They simply don’t know if the person is who they say they are, and they don’t really care either because the order from higher ups is basically to accept as many as possible in as short of a time span as possible.

When case workers at the Migration board turn on their workcomputer a message pops up to remind them of the boards vision: “We view migration as a positive force, something that contributes to making our country richer both financially and culturally.”

A former case worker at the Migration board wrote a debate article saying it’s far too easy for ISIS-terrorists to get into Sweden, because even if the workers get suspicious there’s no time to investigate. Cases are supposed to be handled in max 1.5 hours compared to the 2.5 hours a “normal” asylum application takes.

As a case worker you’re expected to hand in at least 3 finished decisions per week, the number of finished errands decide your individual pay grade and possibility for permanent employment. In other words, the work theme is “the more the merrier” and you are given the choice to either keep your job – or do a good job.

Does this man look like 16 to you?


Does this guy look like 17 to you? Should he be in a school with other 17-year olds?


The number of children seeking asylum in Sweden has exploded over the last ten years, presumably because children are granted asylum much quicker than adults and Swedish authorities don’t verify the age of these so called children. The Migration board is expecting 30’000 unaccompanied refugee children to arrive in Sweden 2015. In Denmark, they put 282 unaccompanied refugee children through age tests and found out that 203 of them were adults lying about their age.

In Norway, teeth x-rays revealed that 9 out of 10 unaccompanied refugee children are above the age of 18. Sometimes they are as much as 10 years older. Asha from Somalia said she was 19 when she was actually 30 and for her that’s entailed life-threatening issues. She has high blood pressure but is wrongly medicated due to her incorrect age. She is quoted in the article saying: “The doctor changes medication all the time but it doesn’t help, but I can’t say anything about my age.”

So put simply: This is fucked up for everyone involved. Immigrants lying about their age can be given the wrong medication which contributes to their death, if they say they’re younger than their actual age they’ll also have to work longer and retire later than what’s normal. It’s also bad for Swedish taxpayers who are financing these con artists, but the ones who get it absolute worst of all are actual refugee children who are starving to death in refugee camps that lack funds.

Some weeks ago the government came out and said that they were going to take 8.2 billion SEK from our humanitarian aid budget and put it on refugees who come to Sweden instead. And they declared this the day after UN came out and said they had to cancel food and water for 360’000 refugees near the conflict area due to lack of funds. Now, our prime minister is saying even more money is gonna have to be taken from the aid budget.

Tino Sanandaji is a kurdish national economist in Sweden and his response to this is as following: “The UN:s resources for 2.5 million Afghan refugees equals the cost of 300 unaccompanied refugee children for one year. Cutting down on healthcare and schooling for millions of poor in order to afford a few expensive refugees in Sweden isn’t “taking responsibility”, it’s blatant madness. It will only seem as reasonable to our government because they’re captured in mass psychosis. What Sweden is about to do is a misdeed of historical proportions, and those who have pushed this forward have many lives on their hands.”

He links to an article by Reuters which explains that because of the “migrant crisis” dominating headlines and demanding cash, the UNHCR in Pakistan has received only $33.6 million for 2015 out of its $136.7 million annual budget.

So if you support asylum immigration to Sweden, you’re also supporting the oppression of the poor and excluded in other countries. Basically, the world has officially gone full retard. In Sweden you’re considered racist if you don’t want to accept refugees because that means you don’t care about poor foreigners in need. But according to that line of logic you’re also racist if you want refugees in Sweden, because that means you don’t care about poor foreigners in need.

Clearly, everyone is racist.