The Swedish Model is Evil

The ”Swedish Model” - it is world-renowned. All too many advocates of the welfare state the world over urge us to emulate Sweden. Sweden is lavished with praise for being the one single country which first entered upon that proverbial “golden middle road”. The famous married couple of Social Democrat intellectuals, Gunnar and Alva Myrdal - are the individuals reputed to have coined the term – “The Middle Road”. That road is supposed to be the utopian middle of the road which is imagined by the Social Democrats to exist in between capitalism and Communism.

Incidentally, it is a testimony to the nature of the child-rearing skills of Social Democrat intellectuals, that Gunnar and Alva Myrdal together sired that vicious Communist intellectual, Jan Myrdal. The latter is notorious, in Sweden at least, for singing songs of praise to such moral monsters as Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin. And even - get this - to *Pol Pot*! Right at the very time that this mass-murderer was at the height of his power in Cambodja, and was beginning to come under attack even from Swedish Communist intellectuals, Jan Myrdal proved his “heroic integrity” by sticking it out and defending Pol Pot to the bitter end (Jan Myrdal lost the support of most of his treasured “groupies” - those naïve teenage “idealists” who remained teenagers-in-spirit even after turning twenty - as his reward for that display of “integrity”.) But I digress.

But the Social Democrats themselves always said that capitalism was *evil*? Did they not? And nowadays, at least, the Social Democrats concede that Communism is evil *also*? Do they not? And if the Swedish Model is a middle of the road between two different forms of evil – according to its *own* defenders – then what does that say about the moral status of the Swedish Model?

Well, I will proceed to tell you exactly what *I* think of the Swedish model. It reeks to high heaven! The Swedish Model is the vilest form of radical evil. This idea of mine will, I am sure, give rise to ringing guffaws of laughter on the part of many of the readers of this blog. But I believe, nevertheless, that I am in fact right. And that I do stand a fighting chance of showing at least the more honest of my readers that I am right, if I tell the tale of exactly what happened when the Swedish Model came close to destroying *my* own life.

The essence of what happened to me is that the Swedish Model made me so distraught, when I was a teenager, that I went literally insane. Literally, I mean. I was in fact actually committed to a mental hospital (Ulleraakers in Uppsala, to be specific) for the entire summer of 1972, and for the entire whole year of 1973 - with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, which is perhaps the gravest form of psychosis. The following is my story:

I was born in Stockholm in 1954. My father was a bank clerk and my mother was a housewife. When I was five years old (i.e. in 1959) my father was offered the opportunity to work in the U.S.A., in order to sell Swedish industrial products (such as, for example, specialty steels and mining products) on the North American market. My father jumped at the opportunity. For he realized that this was his big chance to move forward in his career, and to “go places”! So in 1959 he moved to America. And he took me, my mother and my sister with him. For eleven mostly happy years all of us lived together in the suburbs of New York City. My father worked in an office in a skyscraper on Manhattan.

So I was blessed with the wonderful privilege of getting to grow up in the freest, and the most rational, society in the world at the time – the United States of America. Instead of having to go through the agony of growing up in that cultural cesspool which is modern, egalitarian Sweden – the society which is - “The Royal Swedish Envy´s Beloved Cloak” - in my mind´s eye. That is what I like to call Sweden. I think that verbal shoe fits the country which I now have the misfortune to live in, so to speak.

So you see - I detest my own country of birth, modern Sweden. And I admire the county of my choice, the U.S.A. I did not myself choose to move to the U.S.A. when I was five old, of course. I was just lucky. But my values are now such that I *would* choose to move to the U.S.A any time, at the very moment that I got the chance. I have in fact tried a few times. But, it turned out, I was unable to get a Green Card. So I am proud to be able to say (I regard this as an honor) that in some ways I am just like my all-time favorite heroine, Ayn Rand – who detested *her* country of birth, Russia. And who, like me, also admired the country of her choice, the U.S.A.! For Ayn Rand used to say that she was – “An American who happened to be born in Russia". Well, I can honestly say that *I* was an American who happened to be born in Sweden (of all rotten places!).

I was happy during my idyllic childhood in the U.S.A. When I think back and dream about my first four magic years “over there”, I like to refer to them as - “the Golden Age” – of my life. For the U.S.A. had that healthy kind of culture which is so rare these days – a culture in which everybody and his brother took it for granted that life was full of wonderful opportunities (they were supposed to be around every corner - and most of us Americans actually believed that), that it was right to value one´s own personal happiness and that (and we thought that nobody could fail to realize this "obvious fact”) ultimately it was up to *you* to determine whether or not you made anything of yourself. And that you should have a dream. And that you should, indeed must, “go for” that dream, whatever it was. My own personal dream was to become a scientist when I grew up – but it turned out that I came to suffer heartbreak instead.

For in the year 1970 my luck changed for the worse. I was sent back to Sweden.

To be taken from the relatively healthy American culture, and instead be immersed in the Swedish welfare state – that was like being thrown into a vat of ice-cold water! It was a shock! I felt awful.

What was it which was so wrong with Sweden? It can be summarized *very* briefly in Ayn Rand´s observation that Sweden is the society which a fortiori is characterized by – “hatred of the good for being the good”. This observation´s meaning is that the majority of the Swedes, due to the influence of their sick culture, are such creatures who hate those things which *they themselves* evaluate as being good in some major way. So these subhuman creatures will say – “This man´s superlative intelligence is a wonderful thing. It impresses me. So I really hate this guy. I want to hurt him!”

Most Swedes thought that money, for example, was a major value. They did think that money was something well worth having. For the majority of Swedes would sure wanted to have a lot of money themselves - did they not? Well, the heady sales statistics of the government monopoly on lottery tickets sure argued that they did. But – those very same Swedes *despised* and spit upon those individuals who succeeded at making lots of money! With the exception of the lucky bastards who won a few cool millions on a lottery ticket.

A Swedish businessman who managed to make a fortune by building up a productive business was, virtually without exception, persecuted and harassed by the mass media and by the tax authorities. And the Swedish masses - most of its members that is - cheered whenever the taxman succeeded at “nailing”, and ruining the life of, some unfortunate millionaire. I personally overheard my workmates at the factory gloat over the latest “wealthy bastard”, who “had got his” - while eating their lunches quite a few times over the years. It was a routine occurrence. I kid you not. Many Swedish workers were, and still are, like that.

Well, what was the difference between a wealthy businessman who was burned at the stake, figuratively speaking, in front of a jeering crowd of the envious Swedish equivalents of America´s Joe Sixpacks - and an equally wealthy lottery winner? The difference was simply that the businessman had *earned* his money - whereas the dude who just happened to win a few cool millions on a lottery had merely *got lucky*. So you see – all too many of my countrymen *hated* anyone who proved themselves to possess moral virtue. That was the issue. Those vermin in human bodies hated those men whom they noticed were morally *good* - or whom, at least, they noticed were better than *they* cared to make themselves!

Another luminously clear - luminously clear to anyone who is intelligent and honest, that is - example of this phenomenon (i.e. the phenomenon of “hatred of the good for being the good”) could be found in the Swedish education policies. Sweden´s children were not supposed – “to learn at their own pace” – as the former Minister of Education – and the idol of Sweden´s Social Democrats - Olof Palme, put it. For then, *obviously*, some children would learn more and learn it faster than others! So the best and brightest of Sweden´s schoolchildren were to be *deliberately* frustrated and discouraged from learning! They were to be stunted on purpose! All because the “masses” of Sweden - and most of the intellectuals too - hated and resented any individual who showed signs of possessing unusual *intelligence* and ambition! Those intellectuals were, of course, the corrupters of those masses.

Incidentally, Sweden´s Social Democrats viewed and still view, this moral monster Olof Palme - who wished to torture his own voters´ *children* - and who did little to hide that fact from them - in a similar way that many “modern” Americans view that power-luster JFK. And in addition to this parallel, there is also the parallel that both Olof Palme and JFK “benefitted”, as far as their “reputation to posterity” goes, from their otherwise tragic fates as martyrs.

When I found myself right in the middle of this disgusting filth immediately after my return to Sweden from the U.S.A. – I began to feel absolutely miserable! It was the worst period in my life. It was hell. The only reason that I did not attempt to commit suicide was that I lacked the energy – for I was so passive and depressed! Just two short years after my return to the Swedish cesspool I was almost like a vegetable.

In fact my sister Sophy, has told me many times over the years after I recovered from my psychosis, that she was rather embarrassed to be seen with me at the time, because all her friends would ask her (behind my back, so to speak) – “What kind of dope is that brother of yours on?”. For my facial expression and demeanor were so “wooden”, that people who saw me on the tramway with my sister actually thought that I must be high on some drug! They mistakenly took my psychosis for being a drug habit.

I felt that I was surrounded on all sides by a "vile and pernicious" evil. I could not explain it. I was only sixteen years old. So I did not understand it. For, I was a philosophic illiterate. For this all happened roughly ten years before I found my rescuer – Ayn Rand and her philosophy of reason – Objectivism.

I felt in my bones that I lived in a hostile, malevolent and threatening universe. I was in such a bad condition that just two short years after my return to Sweden I was committed to the mental hospital in Uppsala, called Ulleraakers Hospital, with the diagnosis schizophrenia. The Swedish model had literally turned me into a certified psychotic!

And I am *not* making this up. I still, to this day, must take anti-psychotic neuroleptika regularly. If I ever forgot to take my medicines (which I never do) for a long enough time, I might have a relapse. Although I sure as hell have not done anything which might bring about a relapse a single time since 1975. For I sure as hell so not want to have a relapse! The reason for that being that "I have been there” – i.e. that I know what it is like to be psychotic. I would probably prefer to be castrated than to lose my mind again. And I mean that. I regard those Swiss drug companies who invented the first anti-psychotic medications way back in the 1950s as wonderful benefactors. For more on that subject, please read my debate piece elsewhere on this blog titled - “Lysenkoism in Socialized Medicine” - .

And there is much, much more which I can say about the depravity of the Swedish model. I can point out that Sweden soon after the end of the Second World War began to aspire to the role of being the world´s “Moral Superpower”.

But – what was the source of the Swedish Model´s seemingly impressive successes during the 1950s and the 1960s? The answer is – the blackleg policies which Sweden pursued during the Second World War. Sweden was, as everyone knows, never invaded by Nazi Germany. Of course not! Why would Hitler go to the trouble of invading Sweden? Those “practical-minded” Swedes collabererated with the Nazis willingly anyway! Almost exactly 50% of all the iron ore which the Nazi war machine consumed during the war came from Sweden. Hitler´s tanks, cannons, battleships, etc – they all were manufactured largely from *Swedish* iron ore! So – as a result of this - Sweden had an economy which was in much better shape at the end of the war than that of *any* of its major competitors, with the single important exception of course, of the U.S.A.

For most of Sweden´s industries had been favored with chockfull order books during the entire war. And not a single one of Sweden´s factories had been laid in ruins by the fighting. For none of the fighting had taken place in Sweden! Now, this relatively robust private sector, proved able to carry the heavier and still heavier burden of the parasitical welfare state, which was being built up on its back by the Social Democrats, during the first two decades which followed the end of the war. It was not before the late 1960s that this sham of a pretense and self-deception began to self-destruct.

Now, Sweden´s Social Democrat Party had a majority, by itself, in both chambers of the Swedish Parliament during the war years 1940-1944. You can look that up in the history books. I have. So it was the *Social Democrats* who bore the primary responsibility for the shameful blackleg policy which had kept Sweden out of the war. But.

After the end of the war the Social Democrats began to demonize the U.S.A.! In other words, the Social Democrats had the temerity to demonize that very nation which had saved Sweden from both Nazism and Communism. Those Yankees sure as hell received no gratitude from the Swedish Social Democrats for their heroism, and for their foolish generosity! All they received was a figurative slap in the face. Nay - a knee in the crotch! Of course, if it had not been for the U.S.A´s willingness to fight the Nazis during the war, and to at least block the otherwise unprotected road into Western Europe beckoning Soviet Communists after the war, Sweden would today probably be a vassal state – either under Nazi Germany, or under the Nazis´ partner-in-crime, the Soviet Union. Which - say I - would merely have served them, the majority of my countrymen that is, right!

So the Swedish Social Democrats – the creators of the Swedish Model – sure knew how to go about turning themselves into a pack of ungrateful swine! And how to go about turning themselves into world champion hypocrites!

So you see – the source of the good reputation of the Swedish Model is a disgrace.

And what about that famous, much talked-about - “solidarity with the weak”? Well – if we are to speak of the “weak” - what about all those victims of *lobotomies*? During the 1940s and the 1950s, *many* thousands of mentally ill Swedes were lobotomized – without their own consent, of course! And many of these unfortunates were crippled, literally, as a result of this “beneficial medical procedure”. JFK´s sister, Rose (who to be sure was not lobotomized in *Sweden* - but still), was never able to even go to the bathroom again without assistance after she was lobotomized in the early 1940s. And between 2% and 18% of those lobotomized, *died* as a direct consequence of that operation (often from heavy bleeding in the brain). Today, many textbooks use the lobotomy procedure as a concrete example of *bad science*! So - how in the world could all this happen in a “civilized” country, such modern Sweden is widely believed (but not by me, of course), to be?

A likely explanation is that the reason so many Swedes were lobotomized without their consent was precisely the Swedish Model! Specifically, it was the fact that the mental hospitals were all financed by a means which was based on “solidarity”. For the mental hospitals were financed with tax money. It was the government which paid the enormous bill for keeping alive all those many thousands of psychotics who were kept in the mental hospitals of the time. And before the lobotomy procedure came onto the scene, there were *no* effective treatments for psychoses which were deemed to be effective and reliable. So, any unfortunate individual who developed a psychosis in those days would often have to live the rest of his life in an institution! And it goes without saying that this must have caused the “public treasury” tons of tax money. The vast army of psychotics vegetating in the mental hospitals at the time, constituted a major economic drain on “the public”.

But towards the end of the 1930s, a new method for treating psychoses appeared – the lobotomy. This treatment *seemed* to work on many psychotics. To be sure – many patients died as a result of the procedure. And to be sure – many more were crippled for life as a result of it. But *some* patients, at least, seemed to benefit from this new treatment! So the lobotomy procedure seemed to be a promising means of emptying the mental hospitals of the economically burdensome army of psychotics. It was, obviously, possible to save tons upon tons of tax money here! And you know how politicians typically behave when they feel that they are hard-pressed to save tax money? They will do some of the craziest things imaginable! You know they will, don´t you? So it stands to reason that the widespread and rapid adoption of the morally questionable lobotomy procedure in Sweden, as well as over the entire world, was a *political* decision, not a medical one. You can read about the lobotomies here - http://henrik-unne.blogspot.com/lysenkoism-i-den-socialistiska.html .

What more can I say about the Swedish Model´s depravity? Well, I can easily demonstrate that those many Swedes who support it are beyond the moral pale. I worked for roughly 34 years, up until the end of 2009, as a factory worker in order to make a living. And I heard with my own ears what one of the favorite discussion topics was, whenever my fellow factory workers discussed politics during the lunch and coffee breaks. It was – “distribution politics”. That is the name, in Sweden, for the combination of tax and handout policies which directly affect how much money the wallets of the citizens come to contain. Distribution politics is a very dirty business – sort of like emptying bedpans or cleaning latrines!

And most Swedes adore it! My workmates´ litanies over the injustices they perceived in the current “distribution politics” of the society they lived in was never-ending. Those “rich people” *never* paid enough taxes. And my former workmates *never* stopped complaining about how unfair it was that the foreman at their own workplace, or the doctor at the nearest hospital, or the neighbor across the street, made more money than they themselves did. It was *always* unfair when somebody else made more money than they did. But, on the other hand, it was *never* a problem worth mentioning when the apprentice or the janitor at their own workplace made *less* money than they did!

But – my workmates *never* grumbled even a teensy-weensy bit about the Swedish education policies. The well-known fact which was that Sweden´s children were not learning even to read and write properly in the public schools – that did not seem to bother them at all. For they never even mentioned it! And this despite the fact that many of them were themselves parents at the time, with kids of their own in school!

And get this - I literally cannot recall a single occasion during the 34 years during which I worked in Swedish factories on which the subject of the deplorable state of public education was even brought up! I kid you not. Their *own* kids´ education did not even seem to be an issue in the eyes of my fellow Swedish factory workers. For they did not seem to think the subject was worth mentioning! So you see – these swine in human bodies were tormented by the thought that somebody - anybody – who more often than not produced more than they did – was making a little bit more money than they were. But the fact that their *own* kids were failing to get a decent education in the public schools – that did not bother them the least!

*Such* were my workmates´ priorities! Such were the mentalities, and the moral stature, of those “heroes of production” - the Swedish workers! The situation in the land of the Swedish Model was *that* bad. The Swedish Model´s enthusiastic supporters (and they are enthusiastic in a desperate, contrived sort of way) are moral lice.

So, I say – the Swedish Model belongs in the dustbin of history! Along with those other two “darlings” of socialism the 20^th century gave birth to - Nazism and Communism. We should all value justice instead of equality. And we should all value freedom instead of security. For it is a false and illusory equality, which consists of people making the equal money for unequal production. And it is an equally false and illusory security, which one attempts to found on the quicksand policy of handing over one´s life to the state.

So wake up, you pathetic fools who constitute the clear majority of those who populate modern Sweden! If you do not wish to wind up finally realizing that something is really wrong – but that it is too late to do anything about it!

Summa Contra Xenophobia

I have strong views on the question of free immigration. I hold two strong views in particular. I believe, firstly, that all opponents of free immigration, with the single exception of the very young (whose age constitutes an excuse for their eventual gross ignorance), are morally depraved. And I believe, secondly, that all opposition to free immigration, with the possible exception of the very young, presupposes an element of xenophobia.

Now these are two sweeping generalizations. And they are *unqualified* (apart from the bit about the “very young”) judgments. So I had better work d-n hard to back those assertions up. Here goes.

This essay will consist of four parts. First I will show that all opponents of free immigration (except for the very young) are morally depraved. Then I will show that all opponents of free immigration (again, except perhaps for the very young) have an element of xenophobia. Thirdly, I will discuss the fact that all restrictions on immigration are, by their nature, a violation of individual rights. And last of all, I will deal with the issue of *Objectivists*, specifically, who oppose free immigration.

WHY ALL OPPONENTS OF FREE IMMIGRATION ARE MORALLY DEPRAVED

I feel very strongly about the free immigration issue. I am enraged by each and every man who argues for restrictions on immigration. Now, by “restrictions on immigration”, I mean restrictions *other* than those which protect individual rights. I do not take freedom to mean anarchy. So I do not take “free immigration” to mean that the government should do nothing whatsoever to prevent convicted criminals, known members of terrorist organizations and individuals carrying contagious diseases, from entering one´s own country. I am *only* condemning restrictions on the immigration of *innocent* men, who are not carrying contagious diseases. And Lord knows there are so many such controls in this rotten world which we live in today!

Now, why am I so incensed by “mere” restrictions on immigration? Well, have you read about the *consequences* of the restrictions on immigration in the newspapers?

Desperate men, women and children – who are merely trying to improve their own lot by means of escaping some pesthole in the Third World – frequently drown at sea while trying to travel to free countries by boat. Sometimes it happens that unscrupulous smugglers of immigrants literally throw their “customers” off a boat, way out in the middle of the ocean, and let them drown in order to “get rid of them”. And sometimes the police, or its equivalent, in the prosperous country which the prospective immigrants are trying to reach, will actually drive boats filled with prospective immigrants back out into the ocean, where they are certain to perish from thirst or to drown.

And then there are all the prospective immigrants who have been slowly suffocated to death in containers. And then there is the fact that the border police of the U.S.A every now and then discover the mummified remains of Mexicans in the middle of the deserts of Southwestern America. Those Mexicans had died of thirst while desperately trying to enter the U.S.A. And there are the prospective immigrants (admittedly there have not been many of these cases) who have died of cold or asphyxiation, because they hid themselves just before take-off in the landing gear of some jet-liner which was to fly to some prosperous nation.

Now – whose fault are these human tragedies? When I have argued this issue with opponents of free immigration they have most often answered – “Well, those prospective immigrants *chose* to try to enter our country by boat or by crossing the desert or by hiding in a container. So *obviously*, it is those prospective immigrants´ own fault!” This line, which I have actually heard, enrages me. For these swine, who are making that argument in order to defend the policies which bring about those tragedies, are *blaming the victims*!

For the reason that prospective immigrants take the enormous risks that they take is that they are desperate, and that the governments of the western countries try to prevent them from doing what they need to do, and which they have a *right* to do – namely, to improve their own lives by means of moving to a freer country than the pesthole which they had the misfortune to be born in.

And the prospective immigrants often meet tragic fates even when they succeed at reaching their goal. For the western countries often “send the immigrants back”. And that breaks the immigrants´ hearts. These prospective immigrants have often “bet the farm” on a desperate attempt to reach a free country. To reach a free country in which they will be able to enjoy a human existence. But – just when they thought that they have made it – they are sent back to the very pesthole which they had paid such a high price to escape from.

Now – those prospective immigrants who have been “sent back”, or who have died in the attempt to reach a better place to live - are total strangers to me. I have, for obvious reasons, not had any opportunity to befriend any of them. So why should I care about their fate? Well, for one thing I value justice. That is one reason.

And another reason is that I *detest* the disgusting phenomenon of indifference to the suffering of innocent human beings. Those human swine who oppose the free immigration of innocent men, despite all the tragedies which I related above, are callous and inhumane. They are indifferent to the suffering of innocent men. They are, in my opinion, moral monsters. They are on the same moral level as the creatures which can stand by and watch while an innocent man is physically tortured, without feeling anything.

Also, there is the fact that the advocates of “sending them back” are *picking on the weak*. Just about no man is weaker, and is with fewer friends, than the prospective immigrant. Those brave individuals are alone against the entire police force and the military apparatus of hostile alien governments. And the opponents of free immigration sit in the safety of their own homes and workplaces - where they are well-fed, comfortable and warm – and smugly urge their governments to see to it that those innocent weaklings be persecuted and victimized!

MY PERSONAL MOTIVE

And I also have a personal reason for being p-d off by the opponents of free immigration.

This additional reason that I feel so strongly about the issue of free immigration is the hardship which my own wife has gone through due to Sweden´s restrictions on immigration. My own wife, Thi, is an immigrant to Sweden from Vietnam. And she has *suffered* due to the Swedish government´s restrictions on immigration. And since I love my wife deeply, I am personally p-d off by those restrictions. My wife is such a kind, gentle woman and is such a good, morally upright person. But she has had to go through hell.

My wife came to Sweden a few years ago. A man from Sweden had visited Vietnam, looking for a wife to bring home. Some relatives of my wife recommended her to marry him. She trusted her relatives´ judgment and did so. But when she came to Sweden, after marrying that man in Saigon, she soon discovered that this man was an alcoholic, and that he beat her whenever he was drunk. Which was almost every day. My wife went through a year of hell. For she was afraid to leave this man, since she knew that then she might then be sent back to Vietnam, where she would face an uncertain future. But after an incident in which her husband threatened her with a kitchen knife, she just had to leave him and divorce him. For Thi feared for her life after that incident.

Well, after the divorce, it turned out that Thi´s fears were not unfounded. For the Swedish Immigration Authority decided that since Thi now was not married to a Swedish man any longer, there was no reason that she should be permitted to stay in Sweden any longer. But my wife appealed the Immigration Authority´s decision to a Swedish court. The court deliberated for a whole year. During that whole year Thi waited, with the Damocles Sword of being “sent back” hanging over her. And during that entire year Thi was not *permitted* to work. For she did not have a “work permit” (Imagine, the very idea that anyone should need the government´s permission to carry out honest work! That is absurd!). Thi wanted to work, but she was not permitted to. So for a whole year Thi had to live on welfare payments. And guess what? There are reams of Swedish swine who oppose free immigration and who like to complain about “those parasites from abroad which come here in order to live off of our generous welfare system because they are too lazy to work”!

Thi met me, and married me, while she was waiting for the decision in regard to whether she would be permitted to stay in Sweden. The County Court heard Thi´s case six days after our wedding. I attended the hearing, though I was not given a chance to speak. The representative for the Immigration Authority, a tired old woman of around 50 with deep lines in her face (I bet that she had been a radical Communist when she was young back in the 1960s. You know – she was probably a survivor of that famous “Long March Through the Institutions”. Although she had in that case let herself be corrupted by the system which she had set out to conquer. Big surprise!), argued in full seriousness that Thi should be sent back despite the fact that she was now married to me, a Swedish citizen, because our marriage *might* be a fake one. I.e. one intended merely to enable Thi to stay in Sweden. So the onus of proof was on Thi and I to prove that she had *not* done anything wrong! Well, what were Thi and I to do? Should we have set up video cameras in our bedroom, made recordings of our nights together and sent the tapes to the Immigration Authority as our evidence?

Well, to my and Thi´s great relief, the County Court decided to let Thi stay in Sweden, for reasons unrelated to the fact that she now was married to a Swedish man. If Thi had been sent back to Saigon – then she would have had to reapply for permission to move to Sweden. She would eventually have been granted that permission – since she was now married again to a Swedish man, me. But it would have taken maybe a year. During that time Thi and I would have been kept apart from each other. And Thi would have been obliged to pay bribes to the corrupt public officials in Vietnam – which would not have been easy, since neither Thi nor I had much money.

So, you see, I have good reasons to feel a personal animosity towards restrictions on immigration, and towards those human swine which defend such restrictions.

And I have not even begun to tell you anything at all about the hell which Minh Tri, a good friend of my wife, went through. Minh Tri was a boat refugee from Vietnam who came t Sweden back in the 1990s and who also had major problems.

THE QUESTION OF SCIENTER

I have shown that restrictions on immigration have vicious consequences. But in order to prove, conclusively, that all opponents of free immigration also are morally vicious, I have to deal with the question of scienter. In other words – do those bastards know what they are doing/saying when they oppose free immigration? Or are they merely making an innocent error of knowledge?

Well, I know for a fact that anyone in my own country, Sweden, who read the newspapers, must be aware of the vicious consequences of the restrictions on immigration. For I have seen with my own eyes that the papers frequently report on these vicious consequences. After all, the reason that *I* know about the many drowning and the many suffocations and so forth of prospective immigrants, is the fact that *I* have seen detailed reports of concrete instances of these types of events in the papers. And my fellow Swedes, they read pretty much the same newspapers that I do.

But if I am to say that *all* opponents of free immigration are morally vicious then I have to show that those of them who live in other countries also must know about these things. Well, I have read many issues of the American periodicals Time and Newsweek Magazine over the years. And I have seen many individual reports on the tragedies which have afflicted prospective immigrants in those two periodicals over the years. And any other American or European who reads those magazines must have seen those reports as well. And then there is the Internet. I have seen reports about prospective immigrants who met tragic deaths on news sites on the net. And those sites are accessible all over the globe. And then there is the fact that I know that one reason that the Swedish mass media is so keen on reporting the tragedies which afflict prospective immigrants is the fact that they are controlled mostly by leftists – and those leftists love to point to the tragic fate of immigrants and refugees as a means of blackening the reputation of the, allegedly, “capitalistic” societies of the West. Well, I know that the mass media in the USA, and also in the rest of Western Europe, are controlled mostly by leftists too. So it would be very surprising if the mass media in those places didn´t also give the tragic fate of the immigrants and refugees a lot of attention. So – I say that I know, beyond a *reasonable* doubt that all men, in the Western countries at least, who oppose free immigration do have scienter and that they *are* therefore moral scum.

And what does it really matter if I am wrong on this point (not that I harbor any non-arbitrary suspicions that I am wrong)? The opponents of free immigration are advocating for the use of *physical force* by the government – against men and women who have *not* themselves used force. For the prospective immigrants certainly did not do anything involving force when they merely fled poverty and oppression. And – since the reports about the tragedies afflicting these prospective immigrants are reported in the mass media of all the countries of the West to *some* significant degree at least – these opponents of free immigration cannot have tried hard at all to find out the facts – even if they really are unaware of those tragedies. And that means that, in that case, they are advocating for the use of physical force against non-criminals with *cognitive recklessness*. They are so presumptuous that they claim to know that their governments have a legitimate right to dispose of the fate of other men – even though they have not taken much trouble to find out what the relevant facts are. And that means that they also in that case are moral scum, even though they do not have scienter. For ignoramuses who cavalierly presume to have a right to dispose of the lives of other men - by means of governmental physical force - are morally contemptible too.

WHY ALL OF THEM HAVE ELEMENTS OF XENOPHOBIA

What makes the opponents of free immigration tick? What are their motives? I say that all of them are motivated to some significant degree by a fear of “outsiders” or “aliens”. In other words, all opponents of free immigration are to some significant degree *xenophobes*. Now, this statement of mine is incendiary. For - xenophobia is a form of ethnic collectivism, and it is therefore closely related to *racism*. Now, I do *not* equate xenophobia with racism. There *is* a difference. To be sure, both racists and xenophobes feel a fear of “alien” collectives. But xenophobes are not on the premise that the members of those alien collectives whom they fear are morally or intellectually inferior to their own collective. Racists *are* on that premise. So racists are, morally, worse than xenophobes. Xenophobes and racists have a common psychology – a visceral fear of “aliens”. But they do *not* have a common philosophy. They do not both regard “aliens” as being intellectually or morally inferior. Except in those cases where a xenophobe is at the same time also a racist, of course. So I suspect that all racists are xenophobes. But I know that not all xenophobes are racists.

Now – how do I know that all opponents of free immigration have an element of xenophobia in them? Well, the best place to start is with the empirical evidence. I have argued against advocates of restrictions on immigration many times over the years. And I have seen that *all* of them fall into one of three categories. Some opponents of free immigration, namely the leftists and the socialists, are afraid that an influx of immigrants will lead to more intense competition on the labor market, with “wage dumping” as a consequence. They are therefore especially afraid of immigrants from the Third World. Other opponents of free immigration, namely the ones who lean towards conservatism, are afraid that an influx of immigrants will lead to their own culture being “polluted” by the cultures of alien societies. They are therefore especially afraid of immigrants from non-Western areas of the world. The third kind of opponents of free immigration consists, to a large degree, of Objectivists. These opponents of free immigration are afraid that some of the prospective immigrants will be terrorists or violent criminals, or will be enemies of capitalism. They are afraid that if we permit Arabs and Muslims to immigrate freely into our Western societies, then our societies will be filled with Islamistic terrorists. And that if we permit the free immigration of Mexicans, then their America will become plagued by violent drug gangs. And that if we permit free immigration from leftist societies, such as those of South America then we will risk being voted into socialism, once those immigrants come to constitute a large fraction of the electorate.

Well, all the opponents of free immigration which I have run into have been *afraid* of the prospective immigrants. They have shown clear signs that they feel a visceral fear of hordes of aliens “invading” us, and either “dumping” the wages or “polluting” our culture or blowing us up or voting us into socialism. And that fear of theirs is a fear of a *collective*. Those enemies of free immigration are *not* afraid of just individual foreigners. They generalize and say that *any* member of at least some alien groups constitutes a threat. And is that not a *fear of aliens* per se?

Well, it is obvious that the fear of “wage dumping”, and of “cultural pollution”, are instances of irrational collectivism (socialism and ethnic collectivism, respectively).

But - what about the fear felt by some Objectivists that some immigrants will turn out to be terrorists or socialists? *Some* individual Arabs/Muslims *are* in fact Islamists who sympathize with the terrorists. That is true. And some Latinos *are* socialists. That is also true. Well, restrictions on immigration constitute *preventative law*. For prospective immigrants are to have their right to live and work where they want violated on the grounds that they *might* turn out to be terrorists or socialists, according to these Objectivists.

Do you remember Ayn Rand´s analysis of racism, in her essay Racism? She explained in that essay that the white racists of the Deep South in America saw that *some* individual blacks had raped white women, or had proven themselves to be lazy, or whatever and then the racists decided that they could permit themselves to violate the rights of *all* blacks on the grounds that they (the racists) knew for a fact that there were some individual blacks who had done bad things. Well, what is the difference between those racists and the Objectivist opponents of free immigration? *Both* decide that they have a right to violate the individual rights of all the members of a certain group, on the grounds that they know for a fact that *some* members of that group are “bad” in some way.

And there is still another reason to view all opponents of free immigration as being xenophobes. Even if their motives were individualistic – for example, even if they were motivated by a genuine desire to protect themselves against Islamistic terrorism – they *are* advocating patently collectivist *means* to achieve that individualistic goal! For they are advocating that *all* members of a certain group – foreigners – be discriminated against. And what does it *mean* to restrict immigration, if not to treat *all* foreigners in a less favorable way where individual rights are involved, than the way the citizens of one´s own country are treated? Well, individualist goals do not justify collectivist means, do they? Moral ends do not justify immoral means do they?

Enough said. There can now be no *reasonable* doubt that all opponents of free immigration have an element of fear of the members of a certain type of collective -aliens. So they are all, to some extent, xenophobes.

WHY ALL RESTRICTIONS ON IMMIGRATION ARE VIOLATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Unfortunately, the question I posed in the caption above is necessary to answer. For, there is so much ignorance about this issue in our collectivistic modern world.

Let us begin by concretizing. Say that a man is born in New York. He lives and works there for many years. Then, one day, he decides that he wants to move to Chicago and work there, in order to improve his lot. Does the American government have *any* right to demand that he gets permission from itself in order to get to move to Chicago, and work there? No way, man!

Now, let us say that another man is born in, say, Mumbai or Sao Paolo or Jakarta. And *he* decides one day that he wants to move to Chicago, and work there, in order to improve his lot. Does the American government have any right whatsoever to demand that he gets permission from itself in order to get to move to Chicago, and work there? Again – no way, man!

And the mere fact that, in the latter example, the man is not an American makes no difference whatsoever. For rights are not gifts from the government. *All* men, by their nature as rational beings, have the same rights. Regardless of nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and so forth. The mere fact that one is not an American, or is not a Swede, does not mean that one lacks the same right as an American or a Swede to live and work anywhere in the U.S.A. or in Sweden that one wants to (provided, of course, that one can find a place to live, and a job to accept, by one´s own efforts).

Restrictions on immigration are a violation of individual rights for another reason also. They are instances of *preventative law*. For prospective immigrants are prevented from exercising their right to live and work wherever they wish *before* they have committed any crime. When leftist governments restrict immigration, they assume that the prospective immigrants *might* not be “sufficiently beneficial” to the host country (which is, obviously, a collectivist premise - the idea that one must be “beneficial to the community” in order to be permitted to live in it) until proven otherwise. For they do not permit the alien to exercise his right to move into the country unless and until it is proven that he *is* beneficial. And when governments restrict immigration on the grounds that a prospective immigrant *might* be a terrorist or a violent criminal, they treat the prospective immigrant as “guilty until proven innocent”.

Of course, preventative laws are necessarily *non-objective* laws. Take the case of the Swedish immigration laws. These laws say that a foreigner does not have a right to enter Sweden, with the exception of persons who risk “political persecution” in their home country. But - how will the Swedish government possibly be able to apply that law consistently? *All* countries of the world violate individual rights to some degree – even the Western ones. So the Swedish government would have to let *every* alien who so wishes, move to Sweden in order to apply that law with full consistency. Since it does not want to do that, the Swedish government has put into practice the policy that only a “sufficient” risk of political persecution will give an alien the right to flee to Sweden.

Well, what constitutes a “sufficient” risk? A 50% risk of being murdered by one´s own government? A 20% risk? A 5% risk? A 1% risk? And how will the Swedish government determine the magnitude of the risk?

And how major a form of political persecution will qualify a foreigner for asylum in Sweden? Will not being able to get a job be enough? Will being beaten up while serving in the military be enough? Will having racial slurs or the like sprayed on the walls of one´s house be enough? Will having difficulty in finding a place to live be enough? Will being harassed, or insulted, by government bureaucrats be enough? Will being subjected to a hostile tax audit be enough?

So you see, *any* laws which restrict immigration, as long as they stop short of banning *all* immigration – i.e. which stop short of banning immigration as such - will necessarily institutionalize a *rule of caprice* (or a rule of terror, actually). There is no way to regulate immigration objectively – just as there is no way to regulate prices or wages objectively.

And restrictions on immigration violate the rights of the citizens of *one´s own country* also, to boot.

If my employer decides that he wants to fetch somebody from, say, Bangladesh or Ethiopia and let that fellow work for him here in Sweden, then I would be violating my employer´s rights as well as the prospective immigrant´s rights, if I blocked that Bengali´s or Ethiopian´s attempt to immigrate to Sweden and take that job. And likewise, if my landlord decides to invite a foreigner to come to Sweden and rent an apartment which the landlord owns, I would be violating that landlord´s rights if I blocked that foreigner´s attempt to immigrate to Sweden and rent that apartment.

THE ISSUE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Well, most men today do not understand the issue of individual rights. So I would not be justified if I condemned all enemies of free immigration on the grounds that they were contributing to the violations of individual rights. But the reason I condemn all enemies of free immigration is *not* that that one. The reason that I condemn all enemies of free immigration is, as I have explained, that they are, firstly, callous individuals who are *indifferent to the suffering of innocent men*, and, secondly, that they are bullies who *pick on the weak*. The issue of individual rights is not really the source of my contempt for the opponents of free immigration.

THE ISSUE OF TOLERATION

Now, should I, and you the reader alienate ourselves from Objectivists who disagree with us over the narrow, political issue of free immigration? When they agree with us on so many other, more fundamental questions of philosophical principle? Yes, yes, yes! Any man who is willing to victimize the weak and innocent is *not* a good Objectivist. I do not think that such a man is a valuable ally. And I do not think that he is suitable as a friend. That is why I am now taking the risk that I may wind up alienating me from an awful lot of Objectivists. I say “an awful lot of Objectivists” not because I think that many Objectivists are themselves opposed to free immigration. I believe that most Objectivists understand that they must support the principle of free immigration in order to be consistently for individual rights.

But, in my experience, *many* Objectivists refuse to ostracize those Objectivists who support restrictions on immigration. In my experience, many Objectivists are willing to “sanction the sanctioners” of evil in this issue. They do not take the issue of free immigration as being important enough to justify the “exclusion” people who otherwise seem to be good Objectivists. Well, that is a grave error. It is similar to the error made by the Libertarians.

It would be a grave error to refuse to “exclude” otherwise good Objectivists who were willing to tolerate the victimization of innocent Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. This would be a grave error despite the fact that the victimization of those Jews would be a very narrow concrete. And for the same kinds of reasons it would also be a grave error to refuse to “exclude” otherwise good Objectivists who were willing to tolerate the victimization of innocent prospective immigrants. This would be a grave error despite the fact that the victimization of those prospective immigrants would be a very narrow concrete. For - the victimization of the innocent is *always* a major moral issue. As Milton Friedman said in another context, when individual rights and justice are at stake, one must not count noses.

Lysenkoismen gick igen vid Cancún

När jag läser om klimatmötet vid Cancún får jag en känsla av déja vu. Det hela påminner mig mycket om Lysenkoismen i Stalins Sovjetunionen. Därför att både Lysenkoismen i Sovjetunionen, och myten om den ”antropogena globala uppvärmningen” idag, utgör nämligen samma gamla historia. Det är fråga om dålig vetenskap som har möjliggjorts av statens makt över den vetenskapliga forskningen. Statens inflytande över forskningen korrumperar den – i världens blandekonomier idag, likaväl som i kommunismens Sovjetunionen på 1930-talet.

Hur såg Lysenkoismen ut? Tja, Stalin bestämde i Sovjetunionen. Och gubben var en fanatisk kollektivist. Han *ville* att kollektivismens idé – den att den sociala omgivningen betingar individen – skulle vara sann. Så han fordrade av sin tids sovjetiska vetenskapsmän att de skulle ”leverera” sådana forskningsresultat som syntes bekräfta denna förutbestämda ”sanning” som han gillade. Och Lysenko var en biolog vars samvete var så pass rymligt att han kunde ställa upp på detta. Lysenko påstod att hans forskning ”bevisade” att enskilda växter och djurs egenskaper kunde förändras av deras omgivande miljö, och att dessa förändrade egenskaper sedan kunde nedärvas av avkomman. Som en följd därav förespråkade Lysenko *korkade* jordbruksmetoder – som att plantera spannmåls säden tät intill varandra för att de olika enskilda plantorna skulle ”sporra varandra” till att växa fortare, utan extra gödning och vatten. Ungefär på samma sätt som Stalin inbillade sig att den ”socialistisk tävlan” skulle medföra att arbetarna började ”sporra varandra” till att producera mera i fabrikerna, utan extra löner och rentav utan ens extra mat.

Lysenkos arvslära var ett dåligt skämt till vetenskap. Den hade egentligen ingenting med vetenskap att göra. Det hela var bara geschäft. Darwin kunde mycket väl ha vänt sig i sin grav av skam. Men Stalin gillade Lysenko. Så Lysenko gjorde en lysande karriär i Sovjetunionen. Och alla de andra biologerna och jordbruksexperterna i Sovjetunionen – de var alltihopa illa tvungna att låtsas som att de höll med Lysenko – om de inte ville se sina drömmar om en karriär krossas.

Eftersom Stalin hade den yttersta makten över vetenskapen i Sovjetunionen, var det han som bestämde vad som skulle tas för sanning inom vetenskapen i sitt rike. Om han ville att den genetiska vetenskapen skulle ”bevisa” riktigheten i hans favorita kollektivistiska teorier, då var vetenskapsmännen illa tvungna att fungera som ”ja-sägare”. Politiken skaffade sig företräde framför sanningen inom Sovjetunionens vetenskap – eftersom det var den socialistiska staten som finansierade forskningen - och som därmed erhöll den yttersta makten över denna forskning.

Vad har nu allt detta att göra med klimatmötet i Cancún? Tja, den vetenskapliga ”forskningen” som politikerna vid Cancún åberopade som stöd för sina krav på utökad makt åt sig själva, var vår tids motsvarighet till Lysenkos genetik. Den ”vetenskap” som sades bevisa att mänsklighetens eldning av fossilbränslen håller på att orsaka en klimatkatastrof var en politisk ”beställning” – precis som Lysenkos genetik var.

Det är förvisso så att västländerna idag, där den mesta av den vetenskapliga forskningen sker, inte är totalitära diktaturer såsom Stalins Sovjetunionen var. Men det behövs inte totalitärismen för att underkuva vetenskapsmännen. Det räcker med att de blandekonomiska staterna ger anslag till forskningen. Det är ju så att - ”den som betalar, bestämmer”. Eller hur? Så om en vetenskapsmans forskningsanslag kommer från staten – hur skall då den vetenskapsmannen kunna våga ”leverera” forskningsresultat som han vet kommer att misshaga inflytelserika politiker? Att låta sitt forskningsresultat motsäga politikernas fördomar vore ju att - ”bita handen som föder en”. Det finns många rapporter om vetenskapsmän som har förlorat sina forskningsanslag, och riskerat att gå miste om sina karriärer, efter det att de vägrade att skriva under på teorin om ”antropogen global uppvärmning”. Fast dessa rapporter har av förklarliga skäl fått ytterst litet uppmärksamhet i våra politiskt korrekta massmedier.

I dag är det svårt för vetenskapsmännen att finna andra finansiärer till sin teoretiska forskning förutom just staten. Högskattepolitiken i västländerna har ju minskat antalet rika, oberoende privatpersoner som är villiga att finansiera teoretisk forskning (alltså sådan forskning som inte kan förväntas leda till snara och rent monetära vinster). Universiteten var förr i tiden oberoende och viktiga finansiärer av den teoretiska forskningen – men nuförtiden är utbildningsväsendet ju nästan helt skattefinansierat i samtliga västländer – så universiteten är numera också i praktiken styrda av staten.

Det finns förvisso stora privata företag som finansierar vetenskaplig forskning. Och dessa privatföretag *har* faktiskt producerat forskning i klimatfrågor som är bättre, d.v.s. är mera objektiv, än den klimat-”forskning” som världens politiska makthavare har ”beställt”. Men just p.g.a. att denna bättre forskning har finansierats av privatföretag, tas den inte på allvar! Miljöaktivisterna har haft stora framgångar med att avfärda de forskare som inte är köpta av politikerna med argumentet att de är köpta av *näringslivet*! Så vår tids motsvarigheter till Lysenko inom klimatvetenskapen tas på allvar – därför att deras forskning är finansierad av ”oegennyttiga” regeringar. Medan de *riktiga* vetenskapsmännen – de som håller på sin integritet – ignoreras, därför att deras forskning oftast är finansierad av privata företag (som ju brukar sakna ideologiska agendor)! Världen är minsann upp-och-nedvänd nuförtiden!

Jag nämnde just nyss ”ideologiska agendor”. Vad kan det tänkas vara för ideologisk agendor som ligger bakom klimatbluffen? Tja, det handlar dels om *makt* - och dels om att föra oss tillbaka till en ”enklare tillvaro”.

Låt oss ta det där om makten först. Många av världens politiker trängtar efter makt. Det förnekar väl ingen? De vill ha större möjligheter att styra och ställa över resten av oss människor än vad de har idag. Men eftersom dessa politiker inte är diktatorer (ännu, i alla fall) måste de tubba världens folk till att överlämna den där efterlängtade makten till dem (politikerna) av sin egen, otvungna vilja. Politikerna i västvärldens blandekonomier måste således övertyga sina väljare att det råder en sådan krissituation i världen att det är en tvingande nödvändighet att ge politikerna ännu större maktbefogenheter. Och teorin om att mänsklighetens fossilbränsleeldning håller på att orsaka en klimatkatastrof passar dem då som hand i handske.

Poängen med klimatbluffen är ju att det krävs massiva *politiska* åtgärder för att tvinga fram en drastisk reducering av fossilbränsleeldningen. Lägg märke till att *samtliga* de offentliga röster som blåser under teorin om ”antropogen global uppvärmning” kräver långtgående politiska tvångsåtgärder för att få till stånd en forcerad avveckling av fossilbränslena. Det ska till lagar mot utvinning av kol, olja och naturgas. Det ska till ännu högre skatter på bensin, flygresor, plastprodukter o.s.v. Det ska till skattefinansierade statliga program (rattade av politikerna givetvis!) för att ta fram alternativa energikällor. O.s.v. Självfallet kommer alla dessa politiska åtgärder att medföra ökade maktbefogenheter åt politiker. Tvivla inte ett ögonblick på att politikerna vid Cancún mötet fiskade efter makt när de drev på opinionen i klimatfrågan. Intresset ljuger aldrig!

Att forcera fram en avveckling av fossilbränsleeldningen kommer att medföra en världsomfattande ekonomisk katastrof. Det kommer inte att finnas någon möjlighet inom överskådlig framtid att driva alla världens fabriker, gruvor, bilar, flygplan, kraftverk o.s.v. utan vare sig olja, kol eller naturgas. Inte ens om vi satsar på en massiv utbyggnad av kärnkraften. Och de gröna socialisterna som driver på klimatbluffen motsätter sig ju nästan alltihopa idén om att vi ska bygga ut kärnkraften! De vill bara - i ”bästa” (bästa om man ser på det med ”gröna” glasögon, d.v.s.) fall - ha flera vindmöllor och solfångare! Och detta leder oss in på den andra ”ideologiska agendan” som jag nämnde – den om en ”enklare tillvaro”.

”En enklare tillvaro” – det är bara en vacker (vacker om man har ”gröna” sympatier d.v.s.) omskrivning av innebörden av att rasera industrisamhället och av att återvända till fattigsamhället. Miljörörelsens yttersta syfte är att avskaffa industrisamhället, och att återföra mänskligheten till stenåldern. (Och det finns åtskilliga miljöaktivister som har sagt detta *uttryckligen* - tro mig! Ett par exempel på sådana miljöknuttar är den amerikanska författaren till boken ”The End of Nature”, Bill McKibben, samt den likaledes amerikanska forskningsbiologen vid The National Park Service, David M. Graber).

Det enklaste sättet att åstadkomma detta mål – att rasera hela världens industrisamhälle – är att strypa världsekonomins tillgång till energi. Vi kan ju inte driva den moderna ekonomin – med dess´ otals energislukande maskiner, transportmedel, stålverk, kraftverk o.s.v. – utan en riklig tillgång till energi. De Gröna må vara dumskallar – men de är i alla fall tillräckligt sluga för att inse att deras bästa chans att återföra mänskligheten till stenålderns ”enkla tillvaro” är att beröva våra industrier sin tillgång till energi.

Det finns dock en avgörande skillnad mellan Lysenkoismen i 1930-talets Sovjetunionen, och klimatbluffen vid Cancún mötet. Lysenkoismen orsakade inte *tillnärmelsevist* lika mycket lidande och förödelse som klimatbluffen kommer att ställa till med, om *den* så småningom blir ”framgångsrik”. Därför att Lysenkos kvacksalveri till genetik aldrig togs på allvar utanför Sovjetunionens egna gränser. Utanför Sovjetunionen, där han beskyddades av Stalin, sågs Lysenko som den stolle som han i själva verket var. Så Lysenkos bluff till vetenskap tillämpades endast *inom* Sovjetunionen. Därför var det endast det *sovjetiska* jordbruket som ödelades av Lysenkos inflytande. Och därför var det ”bara” de stackars ryssarna som fick svälta ihjäl.

Men teorin om den ”antropogena globala uppvärmningen” - den tas på allvar hela världen runt idag. Därför hotas inte ”bara” ryssarna av denna bluff. Vi äro alltihopa - *alla* av oss medlemmar av mänskligheten - i riskzonen den här gången! Klimatbluffen kan utvecklas till en humanitär katastrof av ett slag som världen aldrig tidigare har skådat.

Låt inte detta massmord i vardande ske! Säg nej till Cancún mötets krav på politiska ingrepp mot fossilbränsle-eldningen! Slå vakt om friheten och slå vakt om industrisamhället!

Välfärdspolitiken gynnar Sverigedemokraterna

När jag förespråkar fullständigt fri, oreglerad invandring (vilket är det enda principiellt riktiga för en anhängare av individens frihet) i debatter, möts jag hela tiden av ”kugg”-frågan – ”Ja, men hur ska vi klara välfärden om en massa utlänningar kommer hit för att leva på bidrag?” Tja, hur *ska* vi klara välfärden om en massa utlänningar kommer hit och lever på bidrag? Men tänk efter och ställ också frågan – ”Hur ska vi klara välfärden om en massa *svenskar* lever på bidrag?” Ett bidrag är väl en precis lika stor börda på dem som jobbar när det är en svensk som tar emot bidraget som det är när det är en invandrare som tar emot det?

Så du ser – problemet är inte invandringen. Problemet är välfärdspolitiken. Om det är ett problem när invandrare lever på andra i välfärdsstaten, då är det ett minst lika stort problem när svenskar lever på andra i välfärdsstaten. Välfärdspolitiken är ju bara en utspädd variant av socialismen. Därför kommer den svenska välfärdsstaten att kollapsa förr eller senare - det är precis lika säkert som det var att Sovjetunionen skulle kollapsa – om vi inte ändrar kurs och avskaffar välfärdspolitiken innan det är för sent.

Vi *kanske* kan skjuta upp kollapsen några futtiga år genom att hindra fattiga stackare från att invandra till Sverige – på samma sätt som passagerarna på en överfull livräddningsbåt kan klara överlevnaden en stund genom att hindra de drunknande omkring dem från att ta sig in på livräddningsbåten, och låta dessa stackare drunkna i stället. Men att strypa invandringen är bara ett moraliskt förkastligt sätt att köpa lite tid.

Så du ser – välfärdspolitiken ger upphov till invandringsfientlighet. Sosse politikerna som utformade välfärdsstaten saluförde ju den till det svenska folket med slagordet – ”Det är fördelningen som är det viktiga!” Idén bakom välfärdspolitiken var alltså att ”välfärden” var som en enda stor tårta av en viss given storlek – och att hur mycket ”välfärd” det blev till var och en berodde på hur staten ”fördelade” denna tårta genom att skära upp den i bitar. Men vilken trög jobbare som helst kan räkna ut med a-let att om hans välfärd beror på hur staten delar upp en tårta som har en viss given storlek – då blir det mindre välfärd till honom ju flera snubbar det är som ska dela på den tårtan.

Så den tröga jobbaren (som oftast är en entusiastisk LO-medlem) drar slutsatsen att ju flera invandrare som släpps in i landet och sedan ska få ”dela på välfärden”, desto mindre blir just hans ”välfärd”. Där har du förklaringen till att Göran Persson snackade om ”social turism”, och till att byggnadsarbetare tillhörande LO skrek - ”Letter go home!” - mot lettiska byggnadsarbetare. Ju mera välfärdspolitik desto mera främlingsfientlighet, och rentav rasism.

Sossarna hade tänkt att välfärdspolitiken skulle minska kivet arbetarna emellan. Om bara staten såg till att krubban alltid var fylld med sociala förmåner – då skulle hästarna *inte* bitas, var tanken. Så väldigt många sossar kan nu bara inte föreställa sig att det är möjligt för välfärdspolitiken att öka invandringsfientligheten. Trots alla LO-medlemmar som går och röstar på Sverigedemokraterna. Men som du ser ovan är det hur logiskt som helst att det är just det som välfärdspolitiken gör. Välfärdspolitiken är en av motorerna bakom främlingsfientligheten.

Om vi vill minska främlingsfientligheten måste vi därför börja avskaffa välfärdspolitiken. Vi måste införa det system där varje individ är ansvarig endast för sin *egen* personliga välfärd. När varje individs välfärd berodde på hennes *egna* insatser – då skulle ju inte invandringen, hur stor den än växte till sig, bli till ett hot mot svenskarnas välfärd. Därför att om varje individs välfärd berodde på hennes *egna* insatser, då skulle denna välfärd ju inte påverkas väsentligt av andra. Och då blev ”de andra”, som t.ex. invandrarna, inte till ett hot mot någon enskild svensk. Då skulle det inte finnas någon grund för främlingsfientlighet. Eller hur? Det är väl klart som korvspad?

Om din välfärd berodde på dina *egna* ansträngningar – då skulle det väl inte spela någon roll vem dina grannar var – om de var svenskar eller ”svartskallar”? Strängt taget skulle det inte ens spela någon roll om dina grannar var för lata för att jobba. Därför att din välfärd skulle endast bero på huruvida *du* jobbade. Dina grannar skulle inte kunna snylta på dig. Om det inte fanns någon välfärdspolitik, då skulle ju de som inte jobbade inte kunna leva på bidrag som du fick betala med dina skatter - eller hur? Så de som inte jobbade skulle inte bli en börda på dig!

Så – det effektivaste sättet att sätta käppar i hjulet för Sverigedemokraterna vore för de etablerade partierna att gå ut och börja angripa *alla* de människor, svenskar såväl som invandrare, som vill leva på andra. Och att sedan gå vidare och angripa det sociala system, välfärdsstaten, som är till för de människor som vill leva på andra. Utan välfärdspolitiken att stödja sig på skulle Sverigedemokraterna finna att de inte längre hade någon vind i sitt segel. De skulle lugnt och stilla somna in och dö sotdöden i tysthet därför att de blev svältfödda på röster.

Så, sossar och knökar, ta er förnuft till fånga! Gå ut tillsammans under parollen – ”Upp till kamp mot de främlingsfientliga Sverigedemokraterna! Avskaffa den parasitära välfärdspolitiken!” Eller m.a.o. – ”Avskaffa det röda! För att bli kvitt det bruna!”

En elak lösning på problemet med prästernas pedofili

År efter år har den katolska kyrkan högtidligt lovat att åtgärda problemet med alla präster som begår sexuella övergrepp på barn. Och år efter år har övergreppen ändå bara fortsatt. Problemet tycks vara olösligt.

Och det hela är väldigt logiskt. Den mänskliga sexualdriften kan inte förnekas. Den har fysiologiska orsaker. En prästutbildning, hur nitisk den än är, kan inte utsläcka sexualdriften hos prästkandidaten. Präster, liksom alla andra män, har hormoner som ger upphov till sexuellt begär – oavsett hur mycket de enskilda prästerna försöker undertrycka den driften. Det är enligt min uppfattning lönlöst att försöka utplåna sexualdriften från fysiskt normala män som väljer prästyrket.

Att säga till en präst – ”Du *skall* inte idka sex med den där vackra körgossen!” – är ungefär som att säga till en svältande man – ”Du *skall* inte stjäla den där brödlimpan!”. Vi vet ju hur det var förr i tiden. Fattiga, svältande människor som stal en bit bröd dömdes till döden som straff. Vi har alla hört de där hemska historierna om stackars svältande barn som hängdes därför att de stal en bit bröd för att stilla sin gnagande hunger.

Kan vi vänta oss att präster som inte tillåts att få utlopp för sin sexualdrift på normalt sätt, d.v.s. med en hustru, ska avhålla sig från att förgripa sig på barn, när tillfälle ges – mera än vi kan vänta oss att en svältande man ska avhålla sig från att stjäla en limpa bröd, när tillfälle ges? Nej - inte är väl sexualdriften så *mycket* svagare än driften att fylla sin mage?

Så det går nog inte att sätta stopp för pedofilin bland präster genom upplysning, övertalning och moraliska uppmaningar. Så vad ska då göras?

Jag ser bara två möjliga lösningar på eländet. En ”snäll” lösning och en ”elak” lösning.

Den första lösningen vore att avskaffa prästernas celibat. D.v.s. att låta prästerna gifta sig – precis som alla andra män! Men den lösningen skulle nog inte tilltala ledarna för den katolska kyrkan. Därför att den katolska kyrkan tycker ju att sex – denna underbara gåva vi människor har fått av naturen (inte av Gud, eftersom Gud ju inte existerar) – till sin natur är en *synd*. Den katolska kyrkan tycker ju att det är moraliskt förkastligt för människor att njuta av sex. Den katolska kyrkan tycker ju att det är moraliskt förkastligt av människor att njuta av livet överhuvudtaget. Den katolska kyrkan tycker ju innerst inne att det är moraliskt förkastligt för människor att vara lyckliga på denna jord. De katolska tycker att lycka ska vara något människor ska få uppleva endast i det påstådda livet efter detta (och då ska dessutom endast dem som har turen att inte hamna i helvetet få uppleva denna fiktiva lycka!).

Men det finns en annan lösning på problemet med prästernas pedofili, som kanske skulle tilltala ledarna för den katolska kyrkan mera?

Denna lösning vore att *kastrera* alla blivande präster! Detta skulle onekligen vara ett mycket effektivt sätt att sätta stopp för prästernas pedofili. Sultanerna i det gamla osmanska riket visste ju att kastrering av de män som vaktade haremet var ett *mycket* effektivt medel för att garantera att sultanernas kvinnor aldrig utsattes för sexuella närmanden av vakterna! Varför inte då kastrera alla blivande präster? Den katolska kyrkan godkände ju kastrering av de småpojkar som var avsedda att bli körsångare förr i tiden. Och att förhindra att oskyldiga barn utsätts för sexuella övergrepp av präster måste väl rimligen anses vara minst lika angeläget som att förse kyrkan med duktiga körsångare?

Man skulle förstås kunna invända att det skulle vara ett övergrepp på prästernas mänskliga rättigheter att kastrera dem. Men det är ju frivilligt att bli präst! Om en ung man tyckte att det var värt priset att kastreras för att erhålla ”förmånen” att bli präst – varför skulle vi då hindra honom? Det skulle *inte* vara rimligt att argumentera att vi skall låta präster slippa kastreras om priset för detta blev att oskyldiga barn utsattes för sexuella övergrepp. Och vi kan räkna med att oskyldiga barn *kommer* att utsättas för sexövergrepp av präster även i fortsättningen – så länge som den katolska kyrkan behåller den irrationella celibat regeln för präster, men samtidigt låter samtliga präster kastreras. Så om den katolska kyrkan vill envisas med att behålla den irrationella celibat regeln – då bör vi kräva att kyrkan också går med på att låta alla sina blivande präster kastreras!

Och jag skulle för min del inte tycka synd om de kastrerade prästerna. Prästerna viger ju sina liv åt att förstöra andra människors liv . Genom att förespråka blind tro på det ovetbara, genom att uppmana människor till att offra och försaka, genom att lära människor att skämmas för sin sexualitet, genom att försöka förbjuda preventivmedel och sedan också förhindra aborter när konsekvenserna av förbudet visar sig o.s.v. Prästerna är kort sagt onda varelser – så jag tycker att det bara skulle vara rätt åt dem om de alltihopa kastrerades! Läkarna skulle nuförtiden kunna utföra kastreringarna under bedövning. Men vi borde nog inte låta prästerna åtnjuta förmånen att bedövas när de kastreras. Minns att på 1800-talet gjorde kyrkan frenetiskt motstånd mot att de då nyuppfunna bedövningsmedlen användes – med argumentet att det var Guds vilja att människor skulle genomgå olidliga smärtor vid operationer eller då de födde barn? Vore det inte bara en rättvis vedergällning att behandla kyrkans egna män på samma sätt när de kastrerades?

Ifall ni inte redan har gissat det – jag är själv ateist. Jag gillar inte religion minsta dugg. Religion för inget gott med sig alls. Kristendom, islam, kommunismen, nazismen – de är alltihopa lika goda kålsupare. Jag är stolt över att vara en anhängare av den sekulära, gudsförnekande filosofin objektivismen. Om ni vill se vad objektivismen går ut på, ta då en titt på dessa sajter – www.aynrand.org och http://henrik-unne.blogspot.com .

Bedriv inte eftergiftspolitik mot de relisiösa!

Det förvånar mig inte. De islamistiska fundamentalisterna bedriver en fräck utpressningspolitik mot väst. De hotar att mörda ännu flera västlänningar, om någon enda västlänning, som Terry Jones, vägrar att rätta sig efter islamisternas befallningar. ”Visa Islam respekt! Annars slår vi muslimer ihjäl er!” Det är islamisternas budskap till oss västlänningar.

Och – kunde man inte ha väntat sig det? – nu vädrar de religiösa i väst morgonluft. Islamisternas utpressning och terror ger en öppning för västländernas egna religiösa mörkermän – de kristna som tar sin religion riktigt på allvar – att förespråka något som i åtminstone ett par århundraden har varit tabu – d.v.s. lagar mot blasfemi. Tuve Skånberg, som är riksdagskandidat för Kristemokraterna, har magen att utnyttja det uppkomna läget – då västlänningar bävar av skräck för våldsdyrkande islamister – som en förevändning för att förespråka att yttrandefriheten i väst avskaffas. Ty att inskränka rätten att kritisera, och t.o.m. förolämpa, religionen det allra minsta utgör ett avskaffande av *principen* att vi får säga precis vad vi vill, så länge vi inte begår bedrägeri, eller förtalar *människor* (det finns sträng taget inget ”förtal” i lagens mening av en världssyn, som kristendomen).

Tuve Skånberg hoppas på att vår rädsla för de våldsdyrkande islamisterna ska tubba oss till att acceptera lagar mot att tala illa om religion i största allmänhet. Men det är en ren inbillning att tro att vi kan lösa problemen som vi har med den islamistiska terrorn genom att tiga. Att sluta upp med att säga saker som islamisterna ogillar skulle bara vara ett sätt att försöka blidka islamisterna. Vi skulle i så fall hoppas på att islamisterna skulle bli ”snälla” om bara vi gav efter för deras hotelser, och försökte vara dem till lags. Men att försöka blidka ondska bara uppmuntrar ondskan, så att den växer och blir ännu dödligare. Detta såg vi på 1930-talet i Europa. Många europeiska politiker, som t.ex. Neville Chamberlain, satsade på att försöka blidka Hitler, när denna diktator började skramla med vapnen. Och vi vet hur det gick. Hitlers aptit på erövringar bara växte när han såg att det övriga Europa var för feg för att försöka sätta stopp för hans aggressioner. Resultatet av det hela blev Förintelsen och det blodigaste kriget i hela mänsklighetens historia.

Hur ska vi då döma Tuve Skånberg moraliskt? Låt oss göra ett tankeexperiment. Låt oss tänka oss tillbaka till början av 1940-talet. Det pågick då ett blodigt krig ute i Europa. Vi svenskar var rädda för att bli indragna i kriget. Därför ville många av svenskarna att vi inte skulle stötta oss med Hitler. Och så kom den där bråkmakaren Vilhelm Moberg och lät publicera en roman, Rid i natt, som inget annat var än en förtäckt kritik av nazismen! Fy vad hemskt! Anta att Tuve Skånberg hade levat då. Han hade väl förespråkat att romanen Rid i natt skulle ha censurerats? För att vi skulle blidka Hitler och undvika våldet?

Nå, vad är den moraliska skillnaden mellan de där mordiska islamistiska fundamentalisterna, som spränger bomber på fullsatta restauranger och folkfyllda utomhusmarknader i syfte att mörda så många oskyldiga civila som möjligt - och de där mordiska nazisterna som gasade ihjäl judarna och zigenarna? Och vad är det för skillnad mellan att förespråka att vi ska förbjuda kritik av religioner, i det föregivna syftet att blidka islamisterna, och att censurera den modiga Vilhelm Moberg, i syfte att blidka nazisterna?

Som du kan förstå tycker jag att Tuve Skånberg är en fähund och en mörkerman. Men – hur ska vi handskas med den islamistiska terrorismen? Vi kan väl inte bara låta det hela fortsätta som hittills?

Nej – det kan vi inte. Vi måste sluta upp med att försöka blidka islamisterna. Vi måste föra krig mot de som ytterst står bakom den islamistiska terrorismen – nämligen regimerna i Iran och Saudiarabien. Terrorism kan inte fortleva utan att ha en trygg bas. Det är regimerna i Iran och Saudiarabien som tillhandahåller baserna åt terrorgängen i Mellanöstern. Iran och Saudiarabien är teokratier. Regimerna där stödjer reaktionära muslimska imamer och muftier. Och de indoktrinerar det uppväxande släktet i sina länder – Iran och Saudiarabien – med rabiata muslimska dogmer. Unga muslimer lär sig t.ex. i Iran och Saudiarabien att judar är ”avkomma till apor och svin”. Och det heter att det är varje rättrogen muslims heliga plikt att slå ihjäl alla dem som vägrar att låta sig omvändas till den ”rätta tron”, d.v.s. till Islam. Regimerna i Iran och Saudiarabien odlar nya generationer av mordiska terrorister för att ersätta alla de där självmordsbombarna som spränger ihjäl sig.

För att sätta stopp för den islamistiska terrorismen måste vi därför sätta stopp för dessa två regimer – regimerna i Iran och Saudiarabien. Vi svenskar borde därför ge f-n i att försöka blidka islamisterna. Vi borde i stället uppmana USA - det enda landet som har de erforderliga resurserna för att göra jobbet – till att äntligen få a-let i vagnen och gå i krig mot Iran och Saudiarabien! Det vore en enkel sak för USA att slå ut regimerna i Iran och Saudiarabien. Det skulle antagligen räcka med att bara bomba dessa två struntdespotier med USAs effektiva hangarfartygsbaserade stridsflyg. Och om inte det räckte, så har ju USA kärnvapen också!

Skulle ett krig mot Iran och Saudiarabien göra alla de där hundratals miljoner muslimerna i Mellanöstern till våra svurna fiender - som skulle påbörja ett korståg av terrorism mot västländerna? Skulle den muslimska världen blossa upp - så att det blev ett eldhav av terrordåd mot västlänningarna? Nej – historien visar att så inte skulle vara fallet. Japanerna var fanatiska fiender till USA under Andra världskriget. Japanska soldater var så fanatiska att de utförde rena självmordsaktioner mot de amerikanska trupperna (minns kamikaze piloterna). Men USA krossade Japan med järnhand. Och som en följd av det blev det *inte* någon våg av självmordsterrordåd mot de amerikanska ockupationstrupperna i Japan efter krigsslutet. Japanerna blev så grundligt slagna i kriget att de tappade suget på att fortsätta att kämpa när kriget var över. Det lär inte ha varit en enda amerikansk soldat som mördades av japanska terrorister under den amerikanska ockupationen.

Så det gäller att göra samma sak mot Iran och Saudiarabien som USA gjorde mot Japan under Andra världskriget – d.v.s. att bedriva kriget mot dem med en moralisk självrättfärdighet och utan att visa iranierna och saudiaraberna någon som helst återhållsamhet eller nåd.

Vi ska inte göra som Tuve Skånberg vill. Vi ska inte göra eftergifter för att blidka islamisterna. Vi ska kämpa i stället. Därför att vi har rätten och verkligheten på vår sida.