Sunday, February 14, 2016

Is something rotten in Scandinavia?

Now then, mes amis, imagine you are Norwegian, Danish, Swedish or Finnish. You would be regarded as Scandinavian. You could also be called Nordic. You are the descendants of a proud warrior class known to history as the Vikings. They didn't suffer fools gladly nor take any BS.
Consider the following from an article in The Financial Times entitled "Have the Nordics turned nasty?"
Danish moves to confiscate asylum seekers' cash and jewelry; Norwegian officials deporting migrants over a freezing Arctic border; mobs of Swedish vigilantes pursuing immigrants. Have the Nordics turned nasty? Examples of unexpectedly harsh Nordic policies in recent years are many. Norway introduced local begging bans two years ago to great international consternation. Both Denmark and Norway have taken out adverts in newspapers in Afghanistan and the Middle East to warn off would-be asylum seekers. And Sweden may have provided one of the more poignant images of the region's internal conflict over the refugee crisis when its deputy prime minister broke down in tears at her own government's hardening of its immigration policy.
So if you question your nation's ability to absorb hundreds of thousands of "asylum seekers" culturally, your country's capacity to put them on the dole which was meant to sustain the native population, including the ageing population that was already putting a strain on the welfare system, and police inaction regarding crimes committed by the newcomers, including—gee whiz—rape of your women, you, as a Nordic, are "nasty".
These days, the contemporary products of Viking society are being led, as Michael Savage put it, by "ninnies and sissies". A ruling class that has already thrown in the towel due to an aching desire to be regarded as good. Or, you know, not nasty.
According to The Financial Times article, a former "Nordic" minister was quoted as saying, "The Nordics are not nasty, not at all. But I am deeply worried about the direction we are heading in." In other words, there aren't enough mosques in Scandinavia yet. Total capitulation has not quite been realized. Deeply worrying, indeed.
Nobody on the Left seems to have realized that it is the Scandinavians—as well as the Germans—who have pushed recycling and urged responsible use of nuclear power, preferring "clean" energy sources, as well as deliberately limiting their population growth. Does anyone seriously believe that a country overrun with Syrian "asylum seekers", meaning Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans and other undesirables, will place such an emphasis on environmentalism as the blue-eyed devil Nordics?
Maybe Scandinavians have come to understand the threat to their liberal policies? Perhaps they've comprehended the fact that a liberal society cannot have it both ways, that they must protect what they value, even if it means turning these oh-so-pitiable migrants out into the cold—which literally happened when Norwegian authorities turned back migrants on bicycles who tried to enter the country from its border with Russia.
Jimmie Akesson, leader of the Right-wing populist Sweden Democrats, said, "For us, mass immigration and welfare are opposites. You can't have both." A very astute observation.
Sweden, a country that has classically been concerned about its image as a beacon of humanitarian principles, has responded to the uproar caused by the 160,000 migrants that have taken up residence there in this past year alone as it has instituted tougher immigration policies. Nevertheless, vigilantes have been beating up Middle Eastern-looking foreigners in Stockholm, but have to have their faces covered by masks and hoods because the police would arrest them if they were identified. Does this nix the Swedish capital's status as civilized?
A European ambassador in Scandinavia, according to the FT piece, said, "Some people have long had this Utopian view of the Nordics and I think these recent events show that these countries have problems, just like all of us."
These are problems that everyone should understand. But when Denmark dares to collect cash and jewelry from asylum seekers, the Danes are compared to Nazis. Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has called the legislation "the most misunderstood". He has been backed up in this regard by fellow Danish politician Morten Messerschmidt who noted that, "If you arrive with more than about €1,000 it is only reasonable that you pay your way in order to get generous benefits."
Luckily for Finland, which took on 32,500 migrants last year and is experiencing economic troubles, thousands of Iraqi migrants have voluntarily cancelled their bids for asylum and have returned where they belong. 
Alas, it is not only the Nordics who have been examined as lacking in compassion. Consider the following article, from The Guardian, entitled "Foreign-born fascists radicalise UK far-Right movement". The piece analyzes the presence of Polish neo-fascists in anti-immigrant groups like PEGIDA UK. Noting that the "national rebirth" Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski organization operates as Zjednoczeni Emigranci Londyn (United Emigrants of London), the article states that the group attacked a north London music festival. Ukrainian and Italian influences are also mentioned.
I thought we were not supposed to discriminate against foreigners? Apparently, according to the highbrows at The Guardian, it's fine to be foreign if you're a "Syrian migrant" or "asylum seeker" from some third-world hellhole—but if you're a Pole, Ukrainian or Italian, you might be participating in groups that wish to cease the movements of these rapist ingrates into the country. Yet the same newspaper previously detailed the struggles of the Polish community in Britain.
The larger point is that once a sea of swarthy-looking humanity starting licking the shores of Europe, eastern European immigrants could take a hike. Who needs them anymore when we've got darker hungry mouths, caused by Hilary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, to feed? Why do we have to put up with the staunch, backwards Catholicism that the Polacks and other bohunks embrace when we can steadily increase the presence of adherents to "the religion of peace" instead?
Right, moonbats? Am I right?

No comments: