Social Sweden. Update: Came in Ferrari - applied for social benefits

[JohnMc]

Can one of the Swedes here answer this?

I learned years ago that radical feminism in Sweden is so bad that at one point the feminists commandeered the snow plowing services stating that the snow plow schedules were sexist and patriarchal because they plow places where men work more.

So they started to plow in front of where women typically work first.

The city came to a stand still, it was a disaster and they had to change it back immediately.

Then it was covered up.

Sweden sounds like a feminist fascist state.

Is there other examples like this of radical feminism ruining your country?

Or, do you feel that you are revolutionaries at the tip of the spear, and everyone else are "cavemen"?

Men have to pee sitting down since the Feminists removed urinals because it was a sign of oppression or some shit.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Men have to pee sitting down since the Feminists removed urinals because it was a sign of oppression or some shit.

Dear Lord.

I've heard of that one but I didn't think it through and realize they removed urinals. That's hilarious. Swede male are literal cucks lol.

They teach their kids that gender is purely a social construct and teach it like it's science.

That must be so confusing for them.

 

[Ballsaque]

Sweden has changed, like a runaway train. This year has been the most tumultuous year in Sweden in my lifetime. We Swedes have changed, we have become more hard on the surface, we are no longer passive citizens, we are really pissed. Far away are the days when it meant something to be passionate about and care for fellow human beings. Today, those who help or are still positive to immigrants are regarded with suspicion and contempt.

In a year of poor economics in our municipalities, Swedes want a quick solution and most people prefer that as many as possible who have received asylum return to their home countries. Our patience is over and the heart we thought with before has died as we have opened our eyes and seen the seriousness of what has happened to our country. Happy stories about the new ones are very few, while the bad ones are so many times more. For many years now, we have come to realize that these people do not care about bad reputation, that we do not see that they are striving to get a better reputation. That the new people who live and receive money from us does not give enough to our society. 8 years in Sweden and 80% who still do not have jobs are statistics that you cannot quite understand. What other country in the world had accepted people like these?

With this comes the final statistics on politics of this year and which party is most important for Sweden. Aftonbladet, which is a social democratic newspaper ( I do not understand why I still mention that my sources are left media. One hope that some very left are looking into this thread), can no longer close its eyes. With this article, they admit that Sweden Democrats (SD) dominate and will dominate so much more for the next election.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SD is about to become completely dominant, 2019-12-22

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/a/Op2obb/sd-pa-vag-att-bli-helt-dominerande

Their policies top the list in nine out of nine areas, according to Aftonbladet / Demoskop.

Four times a year, Demoskop, on behalf of Aftonbladet, examines which political issues the Swedish people think are most important right now. And which parties the voters think has the best policy in nine selected areas. According to today's survey, the top-five list has remained largely unchanged since the last survey in September. The ranking between the questions is the same and the most important issue, law and order, has not become more nor important in the last quarter. Major changes, on the other hand, have furnished the lists with which parties voters think have the best policy in nine selected areas.

In short, the result can be formulated like this: The Swedish Democrats are about to become the dominant force in Swedish politics.

SD is the only party that is experiencing a better policy now than it was three months ago. Now the Swedish Democrats' policy on the Swedish summit lies in all the surveyed, a total of nine, areas.

Continuing this development, Sweden's traditional government-bearing parties, the Social Democrats (S) and the Moderates (M), are really badly off. They are groping in their efforts to become relevant to the electorate.

SD is considered to have the best policy in two areas, refugee and immigration and law and order. That is twice as many as in September but still fewer than S and M. They are best on each of three questions (see table) according to the voters. But SD's position, even though they "own" a question less than the other two major parties, is good, or even very good. Both of their questions are included in the voters' five in the top list of the most important issues in politics. There are also two of the Social Democrats' questions, but none of the Moderates. In addition, SD has a devastating advantage on the others in the two areas where voters think they have the best policy. The distances are by far the largest in this measurement.

- They are not considered to be second best on any issue, in that category, in descending order, the Social Democrats, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats.

- By contrast, the Swedish Democrats are considered to have the third best policy in seven of nine areas.

At present, voters think that SD has the best or third best policy in a total of nine issues out of nine possible. Last fall, the figure was five.

The Moderates and Social Democrats, on the other hand, remain at the same level as in the last survey in September, seven and eight issues respectively. Three parties live dangerously. The Center (C), the Liberals (L) and the Left Party (V) are not considered to be the best, second best or third best on any of the issues examined. The smaller parties with some form of political political wind are two. The Environmental party (MP), which voters believe has the most genuine climate and environmental policy. And the Christian Democrats (KD), who voters think, have the second best policy for elderly care and healthcare. In the last survey, however, they were considered to be the best in a category, elderly care, and thus have lost some. It should be noted that voters have no higher thoughts about the Center's environmental policy or the Liberals' school policy. Although they certainly think it is great.

The most important issues in politics:

- Law and order 39 percent (Unchanged)
- Healthcare 35 percent (+1)
- Refugees and immigration 34 percent (+3)
- School and education 27 percent (+3)
- Climate and environment 24 percent (-2)

Percentage of voters who think this is one of the most important issues in politics right now. Up to three response options were possible. The comparison applies to the previous survey made in September.

Follow the link for the remaining 7 selected areas.

Excellent new brother. Keep fighting the good fight. Dont let the brainwashed liberals ruin a once excellent country. Time to get the motherfucking torchers and pitchforks

 

[The ScorpioN]

Dear Lord.

I've heard of that one but I didn't think it through and realize they removed urinals. That's hilarious. Swede male are literal cucks lol.

They teach their kids that gender is purely a social construct and teach it like it's science.

That must be so confusing for them.

The inevitable pendulum swing will be glorious.

 

[Happy Man]

You have observed an important detail.

"They do not have work here and have learned to speak only inadequate Swedish," according to the judgment.

15 years in the country without a job. Now I want to ask the man who lives under a rock @Trotsky and the other gentleman who loves Islam so dearly @Kafir-kun . I ask for a sincere response.

What are these 2 men doing in our country? Do you think these gentlemen deserve to live in Sweden?

trotsky understands its subversion. He understands it’s meant to DESTROY your country.

you can’t look at these people as fellow people. Rather They are your opponents.

 

[lifelessheap]

The West is at war withe the Globalists. The Invasion began long ago.

 

[sweede]

Since the turn of the year, we have had a platform where all parties except the 2 extreme right and left extreme parties. They have not been welcomed into negotiations even though they are sitting in the Riksdagen (parliament). It has been criticized as some see these as a culture of bullying. But on the whole, the Swedish population thinks that both extreme parties (V) and (SD) are too unreasonable as one wants unlimited immigration and the other wants a total stop and this includes labor immigration as they believe that they steal Swedish-born jobs. And I personally think it's good that they both are not in the discussions.

Now it has been six months and the government and the opposition still do not agree. The Social Democrats (S) are in a coalition with the Miljöpatiet (MP, green party). This party is just on the verge of leaving the Riksdag as they are dangerously close to the barrier border (4%, and they have 4.4% of the Swedens votes). Unfortunately, this small party has received to much power in to the discussions as they constantly disagree, just like the V (extreme left party), are very refugee-friendly. They have threatened to withdraw from cooperation with the Social Democrats and if that had happened we would have had to have a new election in Sweden They accuse S of not upholding the values of their party ideology. That you should help people in need, etc. So in the negotiations, the MP is involved and makes unreasonable demands and the others in opposition want to see a ceiling, a number and as low a number as possible when it comes to refugees.

The Moderates (M) have a couple of days ago entered the debate on Aftonbladet and here is their post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/6jm70r/ett-bortkastat-ar-for-integrationen

A wasted year for integration

The debaters: The Swedish people want to see a sharp reduction in immigration

DEBATE. Today, the parliamentary committee concludes its work and it can now be stated that it has been another lost year for all those who want to reduce immigration and reverse the integration crisis. Ultimately, it affects those who suffer in exclusion. The Committee's apolitical officials estimate that the number of asylum seekers will be at the same levels as today. The number of residence permits granted will increase. This goes against the Swedish people's desire for a sharp reduction in immigration. And go against the Social Democrats' election promise. In the last ten years, 1.3 million residence permits have been granted and the group born abroad now makes up 20 percent of Sweden's population. Every year, the number of foreign-born in Sweden increases, but the group's unemployment does not decrease. Less than half of all those who came during the period 1990-2016 are not self-sufficient.* It is devastating for their chances of successful establishment that immigration continues to be at far too high levels. Letting foreign-born people live in socio-economic exclusion is not a humane immigration policy. Overcrowding, dependency on benefits and hopelessness are spreading in our Swedish areas of exclusion. So does the oppression of honor and crime. With continued high immigration, many foreign-born will continue to be stuck in the red-green exclusion, with no real chance of successful integration.

With the report adopted today, the government has got what it asked for in its substandard directives: a concise product that can wash away a conflict between the governing parties. But they have not delivered on what the Swedish people demanded - and as the Social Democrats promised before the election: a long-term sustainable immigration policy at lower levels. Sweden could have reached an agreement on a historically tight immigration policy that takes into account today's integration capacity. But at the moment of the decision, the Social Democrats chose power and the Green Party before Sweden's need for reduced immigration. Instead, the Social Democrats support proposals that mean that asylum immigration remains at today's levels. If they are happy with these levels, why did Stefan Löfven say as recently as January that immigration must be reduced? In the final stages, the entire chapter of what the committee worked on for a year was deleted, and which we have chosen to highlight:

- A volume target / benchmark for a sharp reduction in immigration. The framework proposed by the Moderates would regulate the so-called pull factors, ie circumstances that make asylum seekers choose Sweden over other countries. These include setting requirements to benefit from Sweden's generous welfare system, tightening the rules for relative immigration and introducing requirements for permanent residence permits and citizenship. With a political will, immigration to Sweden could be reduced, and measures taken if the goal is about to be exceeded.

- An entire chapter on how new arrivals should be able to qualify for welfare through work.

- An entire chapter with eleven sharp suggestions on how a no should really be a no. Today, too many of those who should return and are deported stay. The National Audit Office, the Delegation for Migration Studies, the Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Board have confirmed this.

Nor does anyone know how the report should be treated in the government in order to become a bill. In the committee, the Green Party (MP) votes for an unregulated immigration to Sweden, while the Social Democrats, as I said, stand for maintained levels of immigration. We regret that the majority of the committee today chooses green relief before moderate austerity. The moderates are determined that the 2020s will not be a new decade of far too high immigration in combination with lousy integration. We will therefore continue to pursue a strict immigration policy and are ready to tighten the rules as soon as we get the chance.

Maria Malmer Stenergard, Migration Policy Spokeswoman (M) Tobias Billström, group leader (M)

* A comment. Sweden's foreign-born is 22% and in a number of surveys, 25% are employed since 1990-2016

 

[ElKarlo]

Wow half of those who've been there for 20 years are still non self sufficient.
@Kafir-kun, this is a massive reason for not being for sending refugees to culturally different countries

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wow half of those who've been there for 20 years are still non self sufficient.
@Kafir-kun, this is a massive reason for not being for sending refugees to culturally different countries

If you remember our conversation I specifically said that countries like Sweden shouldn't take refugees. For one they are in no way responsible for the crisis as far as I know unlike countries like the UK and France and the US who directly contributed to it through military interventions in the Near East. But another important point to consider is that they have a relatively small population so any influx of refugees will have a larger impact on their population when compared to a country like America that has a population of over 325 million.

I also said that I was critical of the neoliberal view of immigration which treats people like interchangeable cogs in the machine of capitalism when we can clearly see that's not the case and cultural differences can cause tension. A big difference has to do with relationship to government. Highly developed countries like Sweden and the Nordic countries have a population that invests a lot of trust in their governments. But people from the third world have the opposite view since their experience is with corrupt, inept governments. So for them their mentality is "forget what I can do for my government, what can it do for me?" and that takes various forms, whether its milking cushy state jobs or lying to get benefits or bribing government officials to avoid tickets/arrests or to expedite government actions that would normally take forever. In a lot of those countries you basically have to know someone in the state to get stuff done or you just avoid it altogether. That means working under the table instead of trying to officially open a business since the red tape is a nightmare.

So again while the refugee issue and the immigration one are separate, I don't see why countries like Sweden should be taking in too many of either. I don't think they have any moral responsibility to the refugees and I don't think immigration has worked out so well for them.

 

[ElKarlo]

If you remember our conversation I specifically said that countries like Sweden shouldn't take refugees. For one they are in no way responsible for the crisis as far as I know unlike countries like the UK and France and the US who directly contributed to it through military interventions in the Near East. But another important point to consider is that they have a relatively small population so any influx of refugees will have a larger impact on their population when compared to a country like America that has a population of over 325 million.

I also said that I was critical of the neoliberal view of immigration which treats people like interchangeable cogs in the machine of capitalism when we can clearly see that's not the case and cultural differences can cause tension. A big difference has to do with relationship to government. Highly developed countries like Sweden and the Nordic countries have a population that invests a lot of trust in their governments. But people from the third world have the opposite view since their experience is with corrupt, inept governments. So for them their mentality is "forget what I can do for my government, what can it do for me?" and that takes various forms, whether its milking cushy state jobs or lying to get benefits or bribing government officials to avoid tickets/arrests or to expedite government actions that would normally take forever. In a lot of those countries you basically have to know someone in the state to get stuff done or you just avoid it altogether. That means working under the table instead of trying to officially open a business since the red tape is a nightmare.

So again while the refugee issue and the immigration one are separate, I don't see why countries like Sweden should be taking in too many of either. I don't think they have any moral responsibility to the refugees and I don't think immigration has worked out so well for them.

But that only means people from said countries. Unaffected ones shouldn't even be considered then.
Also, why send them at all? As it's clear they never integrate and are just perennial parasites. Which is a disgusting thing to do to people on both sides.

 

[Islam Imamate]

But that only means people from said countries. Unaffected ones shouldn't even be considered then.

Huh? Not sure what you mean here.

Also, why send them at all? As it's clear they never integrate and are just perennial parasites. Which is a disgusting thing to do to people on both sides.

Because they are legitimately suffering due to the chaos in their countries. Btw the vast majority of refugees are taken in by neighboring countries, that's inherent to any refugee crisis since those countries are the closest and also usually more culturally similar. But they can't take all of them and in some cases the neighboring states are fragile and the influx can really destabilize them. In Lebanon something like 1 in 5 people are a Syrian refugee and we're talking about a state that can't even pick up the trash. Its in no one's interest to let the domino of failed states continue beyond Iraq and Syria. Primarily the West should help states like Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon financially and otherwise to maintain the refugees but again I don't think its fair or wise to let them take all of them especially when countries like the UK and the US are primarily responsible for the instability in the region.

 

[ElKarlo]

Huh? Not sure what you mean here.

Because they are legitimately suffering due to the chaos in their countries. Btw the vast majority of refugees are taken in by neighboring countries, that's inherent to any refugee crisis since those countries are the closest and also usually more culturally similar. But they can't take all of them and in some cases the neighboring states are fragile and the influx can really destabilize them. In Lebanon something like 1 in 5 people are a Syrian refugee and we're talking about a state that can't even pick up the trash. Its in no one's interest to let the domino of failed states continue beyond Iraq and Syria. Primarily the West should help states like Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon financially and otherwise to maintain the refugees but again I don't think its fair or wise to let them take all of them especially when countries like the UK and the US are primarily responsible for the instability in the region.

Ie people from Nigeria can't go to the UK as refugees. Or Pakistan.

But as I said and is abundantly clear, is that these refugees will stay welfare recipients and will drag down their host nation. Just write them a check and let that money flow into a neighboring country that would actually integrate them.
This is the problem in the ME as well. They use the Palestinians as hostages. There's no reason any of them should be a refugee still. They should be fully integrated by now, and they aren't.

Basically the west should pay Jordan as you said. But also help Jordan create jobs as the ME and most the Muslim nations around it are really bad at making any infrastructure and jobs. Without that they will neve rave true stability. As there's 10 guys fighting over one job that actually pays well and it's a govt job

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ie people from Nigeria can't go to the UK as refugees. Or Pakistan.

Well both those countries have instability so I am not sure I entirely agree but at the same time its probably the case that people from there abuse the refugee system so some care in sorting them is fair. But I also think if you're a neutral nation that doesn't intervene militarily, especially a small one, not taking them in is fair too.

But as I said and is abundantly clear, is that these refugees will stay welfare recipients and will drag down their host nation. Just write them a check and let that money flow into a neighboring country that would actually integrate them.
This is the problem in the ME as well. They use the Palestinians as hostages. There's no reason any of them should be a refugee still. They should be fully integrated by now, and they aren't.

Basically the west should pay Jordan as you said. But also help Jordan create jobs as the ME and most the Muslim nations around it are really bad at making any infrastructure and jobs. Without that they will neve rave true stability. As there's 10 guys fighting over one job that actually pays well and it's a govt job

Look we're just not going to agree, I believe countries that engage in military interventions should take responsibility partly in the form of financial and logistical aid but also in the form of taking in refugees(commensurate to their ability to do so which takes into account stability and population size), partly for moral reasons and partly as a incentive to not destroy countries will nilly, while you think they shouldn't. I really don't see how that's a controversial position but apparently in the WR it is.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Sweden needs more immigrants as does most of Europe. This is good for them. Immigrants help enhance the culture of a country.

 

[Natural Order]

Sweden needs more immigrants as does most of Europe. This is good for them. Immigrants help enhance the culture of a country.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Caliphate of Swedestan is a lost cause

 

[scoopj]

* A comment. Sweden's foreign-born is 22% and in a number of surveys, 25% are employed since 1990-2016

Do you mean 25% are unemployed? Not sure I follow what you’re saying here.

 

[SATW]

u cant make people aware

 

[sweede]

Do you mean 25% are unemployed? Not sure I follow what you’re saying here.

75% that don´t have a job. We also have a dark figure about how many women actually stay at home because the men do not allow them to work, due to control, jealousy and that it is the man who has to take care of the family. This is why you always see only men applying for social assistance for the family.

 

[sweede]

u cant make people aware

aware of what?

I see your location is Judea. I have had a lot of experience with Israeli soldiers on vacation in Thailand. Some came to a camp and vacation trained. That is, just exercise in the morning and get drunk a little later. You were pretty cool, but you have a tendency to often show that you are tough. LOL