Being opposed to mass migration and wanting to send back migrants who cannot support themselves is completely uncontroversial, and barely makes a dent in the political grey area of centre politics. Those in favour of tax-funded population exchange are the real extremists.
And instead of an objective debate, they get hung up on terms like “mass migration”, wondering how to define it and what it means? Or “population exchange”, which is considered a typical ultra-nationalist expression, according to the same extremists. This word game serves mostly as a diversionary manoeuvre, with the aim of dumbing down and polluting the discussion.
Allowing mass migration of about 100,000 people a year – to Sweden, that before the migration wave had about 8.7 million inhabitants – will change the population structure and even the culture over a few decades. We will see changes in the economy, the labour market, the housing situation, health care, social interaction, religion, everything. No one can claim otherwise.
In 20 years there will be two million new individuals, in 40 years four million. But that’s not all, since many non-European peoples give birth to far more children than Swedes, the net increase is even greater. Add to this so-called “white flight”, where white people often leave mixed neighbourhoods, and the end result is a real population exchange.
And citizens have every right in the world to oppose mass migration, especially when the experiment is paid for with their own money, through taxes. This is not a nationalist position, everyone can think that way, even non-nationalists, reds, or greens.
And it is not about helping people in need, there are other ways to take care of them. Moreover, few of the migrants are true refugees according to the UN definition. All the money Swedes have spent on immigration could have been used to build new cities in the Middle East. The aid and need argument is a lie. And even if it were true, we can’t help everyone in the world (and why should we?), Swedes are a mere 0.1% of the world’s population.
It is perverse to present mass migration as something normal. No one can know in advance the consequences of such a gigantic social experiment; no one can claim that it will be peaceful and pleasant. The precautionary principle should of course apply.
Normalising the phenomenon is the extreme position. The real fanatics are those who confidently smile and say that all is good. The ones who claim that everything Swedish is actually barbarism, that all good things come from abroad, that crime has not increased significantly, and that rape and humiliation robberies certainly existed in the 19th century as well. And that immigrants built Sweden. That integration is desirable, and that immigration will be a benefit to society in the future.
This is an extreme perspective that has been normalised in some circles, but will always be a dressed up pig. For it degrades indigenous peoples, steals their money, breaks down their society, mocks the labour of generations, and creates insecurity and chaos. All people have the right to cultivate their culture, uniqueness and identity in their own country, including Swedes. Something that is self-evident and undeniable.
And those in favour of mass immigration have not even prepared society. Few new roads are built, few new health centres, schools and homes. And the tiger economy that will swallow up all the potential workers does not exist. Nothing is planned, nothing is thought out, everything is based on lies and false hopes. The great social transformation that they want to fool us with is based on free fantasies. Never forget, those who affirm the experiment are the extremists, we are the dull grey and harmless centrists. No nationalist or far-right views are needed to oppose mass migration.
