Inequality and Immigrant Ingratitude: Reflections on Sweden’s Paradise Lost

Left wing pundits who romanticize welfare states have no doubt had a rude awakening following the eruption of race riots in the socialist utopia of Sweden. I don’t make this comment with the intention of bashing the welfare state. Rather, many leftists engage in what I like to refer to as “policy reductionism.” In other words, whenever any given society has certain outcomes, these people attribute said outcomes to state policies, rather than analyzing a society’s underlying values, cultural capital, and demographics.

Lest one think I’m excoriating the left while absolving the right, the right is equally capable of this folly. For example, the mainstream right loves to blame the pitiful performances of cities such as Detroit on “liberal policies,” unions, teachers unions, and so on. All while ignoring the taboo fact that Detroit and similar cities have predominantly poor, black populations that lag behind other groups regardless of who’s in charge. Anyone who thinks that poor blacks will perform as well as suburban East Asians if only some less indulgent Republicans were in charge need only look at the Deep South.

One can simply not look at policies in a vacuum.

That’s the reason why the progressives mentioned in the article are off base when they blame Sweden’s reduction of welfare benefits and growing inequality for the violence. Sweden, by any measure, still has some of the world’s most generous welfare policies. Nor does Sweden fall short when it comes to accommodating immigrants. Sweden ranks fourth among first world nations in welcoming asylum seekers, and second relative to its population. That’s why I’m simply not buying the traditional left wing narrative that Sweden’s riots are a result of poverty, institutionalized racism, or other oppressive white male machinations. Even the New York Times article mentions the fact that the neighborhood where the riots originated could not be described as outwardly desolate.

As Tino Sanadaji, himself an immigrant to Sweden, has repeatedly pointed out, Sweden’s successful welfare state is the product of Sweden’s unique characteristics, and not any brilliant governmental policies. Swedish culture places a high value on work ethic, trust, and cooperation. Logically, if one introduced a substantial population of foreigners who are radically different in values from the native population, and possess less educational or cultural capital, then they’re not going to mesh with the welfare state quite as well. However, since all cultures are equal in the eyes of the left besides the oppressive, hegemonic dead white male culture, then any shortcomings of immigrant and minority populations must be the result of pernicious discrimination.

Rather than be grateful for the refuge and opportunities that Sweden has provided  them, which few other countries would provide, these minorities are irate that they don’t enjoy the same quality of life as the native Swedes. This, despite the fact that they played no role in creating Sweden’s advanced society.

Too many liberals have supported this notion that Western nations are propositional nations, meaning that they’re based purely on ideas as opposed to heritage or race/ethnicity. Given enough time, anyone can become a full member of society. However, as long as a substantial percentage of immigrants and minorities in Europe harbor cultural attitudes that are anathema to Western civilization, no amount of welfare benefits, coddling, or denunciations of racism and inequality will alleviate this problem.

Unless Western societies unapologetically assert their values and demand that newcomers embrace such fundamental values in the form of assimilation, there will be other Stockholm’s waiting to happen.

Diversity can only function well when there’s a an ethos of assimilation, and a dominant core racial/ethnic group that minorities aspire to emulate. Cradle-to-grave multiculturalism and tolerance can only lead to chaos, as Sweden’s story perfectly illustrates.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Immigration, White nationalism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Inequality and Immigrant Ingratitude: Reflections on Sweden’s Paradise Lost

  1. Herb Dregs says:

    “Anyone who thinks that poor blacks will perform as well as suburban East Asians if only some less indulgent Republicans were in charge need only look at the Deep South.”

    Brilliant, BAG!

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Thanks! In many ways, I’m shaking my head that I even need to make this point in the first place. But some people never learn…

  2. Andalusian Renaissance says:

    The problem with Sweden and Europe in general is that, they’ve accepted too many refugees or working class immigrants, and not many high skilled immigrants.

    High skilled immigrants rarely commit crimes(as is the case in North America), working class immigrants and refugees(Tsarnaev brother types) are more prone to committing crimes and they also tend to be more lazy.

    I think Europe should stop taking in refugees and working class immigrants, most of whom can’t even speak the local language, they should only accept high skilled immigrants, who might have the skills that are in shortage in the job market, and are fluent in the local language(s) of Europe.

    “That’s why I’m simply not buying the traditional left wing narrative that Sweden’s riots are a result of poverty, institutionalized racism, or other oppressive white male machinations.”

    Refugees don’t really reflect the true values of the countries they left behind, most of them were out castes where ever they lived before.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      The problem with Sweden and Europe in general is that, they’ve accepted too many refugees or working class immigrants, and not many high skilled immigrants.

      That’s certainly a problem. The educational attainment and socioeconomic status of immigrants does play a huge role in whether or not they flourish in their new societies.

      I pointed that out in my post on Jeb Bush.

      For all of its faults, U.S. legal immigration policy for the most part gets it right in this regard, and is effective at screening out problematic immigrants.

      Refugees don’t really reflect the true values of the countries they left behind, most of them were out castes where ever they lived before.

      But it’s not just refugees who are the problem.

      Take Pakistanis in Britain, for example. Last time I checked, most of them weren’t refugees. Regardless, a significant minority of them harbor attitudes that are completely anathema to liberal Western democracies, are creating a health crisis through cousin marriages, and are overall proving to be a problem.

      Ditto for Arabs in Scandinavian countries.

      For certain immigrant groups such as the Hmong, Cambodians, and Somalis, their refugee backgrounds play a role in their pathologies.

      However, I don’t think that Pakistanis or Arabs are outcasts or biased samples. Pakistan and various Arab nations are barbaric at their core. In many ways, immigrants from those countries to Europe simply harbor the backward attitudes that were inculcated in them since birth.

      • Andalusian Renaissance says:

        Most Pakistani immigrants in the UK were working class immigrants, most of them come from the rural parts of the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Kashmir(mostly from a town called Mirpur), in fact 70% of Pakis in Bradford are from Mirpur.

        These people migrated to England in the 60s and 70s, so most them have old rural Pakistani values, most of them would even be considered backwards in urban parts of Pakistan.

        That’s why honor killings,forced marriages, cousin marriages etc are more common in the Pakistani diaspora in Britain than in the Pakistani diaspora in America, since most Paki-Amercans come from urban Pakistan, most them are professionals and have a college education(men and women).

        You rarely hear about Pakistani-Americans committing crimes or honor killings, they’re more common among the Arab diaspora in America because they have a more refugee/working class background similar to Pakis in Britain.

        The vast majority of Pakistanis migrated to Britain because back in the 60s, the Brits were constructing a dam in Kashmir called the ‘Mangla dam’, and they offered all of the displaced locals an oppurtunity to migrate to England and work in the factories and foundries in the English midlands.

        55% of British Pakistanis live below the poverty line compared to only 15% of Pakistani Americans, and 5% of doctors in America are of Pakistani origins, the same can’t be said about Pakistanis in Britain.

        Median household income of Paki-Americans is $63,000 and 55% of of them hold a bachelors degree, on the other hand Pakis in Britain have the highest drop out rates , and the median income is 60% below Britain’s national average.

        They both come from the same country, share the same religion but the differences are stark.

        This proves that working class immigrants are inferior to high skilled immigrants, and they are a nuisance to their host country, regardless of their religion.

        I would rather have high skilled Malaysian immigrants who happen to be Muslim come to America rather than low skilled mexican immigrants who happen to be Christian like most Americans but that hasn’t helped them assimilate.

        “However, I don’t think that Pakistanis or Arabs are outcasts or biased samples. Pakistan and various Arab nations are barbaric at their core. In many ways, immigrants from those countries to Europe simply harbor the backward attitudes that were inculcated in them since birth.”

        Like I said before, they have a rural working class roots, so the above statement doesn’t hold true for urban college educated people from those countries who have a more liberal worldview.

      • Dota says:

        I want to add a couple of things to what AR has said up there.

        First, I agree with BAG that some cultures practice values that are simply antithetical to western values.

        However, college educated immigrants definitely have a better chance of assimilating since they place a premium on education. I must point out that many educated Pakistanis in Canada tend to be ghetto minded and reactionary and would not assimilate even if their lives depended on it. However, since they are highly likely to put their kids through college, chances are, these communities will become more liberal with each successive generation.

        But AR also makes some excellent points pertaining to class and regional variances. Pakistanis that emigrate from Karachi are certainly expected to be more liberal than those from rural Punjab. And then there is the caste factor as ~60% of Pakistanis are Punjabis who happen to be converts to Islam from Hinduism’s peasant caste. These people possess the same base culture/values as the peasant castes of India in places like Bihar and the cow belt.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Those are very good points, AR.

        Despite our debate, I think we are fundamentally agreeing with one another. European countries definitely need to be more discerning about who they let in, and perhaps even emulate the U.S’s legal immigration policy.

        Countries such as Britain are textbook examples of what not to do. They have allowed a significant number of backward, parochial, low skilled immigrants to gain a foothold in their respective countries, many of whom will not assimilate.

        However, that being said, I don’t know if I don’t think that those rural Pakistanis from Mirpur are the exception to the rule. As both Dota in the comment below, and Indian journalist Aakar Patel pointed out, peasants (as in, descendants from the peasant caste) comprise the majority of Pakistan’s population.

        Therefore, for countries such as Britain to implement a more sane immigration policy, they would in effect be screening out most Pakistanis.

        I would rather have high skilled Malaysian immigrants who happen to be Muslim come to America rather than low skilled mexican immigrants who happen to be Christian

        Also, it should be pointed out that Malays, like other Southeast Asian Muslims, tend to practice a much more relaxed version of Islam. Indonesia, despite being a mainly Muslim nation of around 200 million people, has managed to maintain a reasonably secular democracy.

        As my co-blogger Dota would always say, race/ethnicity/culture > religion, always.

        Most of the Muslims who make the news for all the wrong reasons tend to be Arabs or Pakistanis.

        You don’t hear about honor killings among Bosnians or Indonesians.

      • Andalusian Renaissance says:

        @Dota: I agree with most of your points, except Punjabis make up 42% of Pakistan’s population (not 60%), the province of Punjab’s overall population makes up about 56% of Pakistan’s population, but not every resident of Punjab is a Punjabi, there Seriakis,Pasthuns,Kashmiris and even Indian Muslim migrants.

      • Dota says:

        BAG

        Pakistan’s cultural/geographic composition makes the issue a lot trickier. I’ve known lots of Punjabis who are quite liberal since they were originally from Karachi. Likewise importing Pakistani Pashtuns from the North West Frontier province is a very bad idea whereas one of the most pro white Pashtuns I knew in Canada was from the NWFP but grew up in Karachi. The intersection of region and caste makes the issue quite tricky. But that is why the situation calls for a more rigourous screening approach.

      • Dota says:

        AR

        I’m impressed, you seem to know your stuff.

  3. As far as immigration is concerned, the United States should accept only a moderate amount of immigrants. These immigrants should be middle-class, average people, who are willing to assimilate into American culture and who can speak English fairly well.

    Accepting too many refugees or poor immigrants causes the obvious problems. However, accept too many high-class, highly motivated immigrants, and you get less jobs for American citizens, Americans being forced to compete with more qualified immigrants in socieoeconomic areas. That is why middle-class immigration is ideal.

  4. WmarkW says:

    Just linked here from Robert Lindsay.
    Great article about how no matter how good a society is (like Sweden) some underperformers are going to blame the majority for their own failures; and Western culture has become predisposed to agree.

  5. JimmyIon says:

    Can’t believe you just called for forced racial assimilation of non-Whites with Whites. You want your grand children to be negroes?

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      @ JimmyIon

      You seem to conflate assimilation with intermarriage. For me, assimilation has more to do with embracing various cultural and ideological norms than anything else.

  6. Pingback: Give me Your Black, Your Brown, and Your Third World: I’ll Take Them Off Your Hands! | Occident Invicta, the unconquered west

  7. Pingback: No (European) Country For White Men: Sweden and the Relentless Pursuit of Diversity | Why I Left Sweden

  8. Pingback: Swedism: The Relentless Pursuit of Diversity | cj303addict

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s