We’ll Take Ukrainians Any Day!

The war in Ukraine has revealed that Swedes prefer to take in Ukrainian refugees rather than the usual culture-enrichers they are forced to accommodate. This attitude is condemned by Swedish progressives, who see it as another example of right-wing hypocrisy.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this lead editorial from Samhällsnytt:

Kent Ekeroth: “Not strange that Swedes prefer Ukrainians”

March 11, 2022

In the last few days I have received two questions from two different newspapers about my editorial position on real refugees. They wonder why I, the Sweden Democrat party, and critics of immigration now have a completely different view on Ukrainian refugees compared to those from the Middle East and Africa (MEA). They also seem to think that we have changed our minds(!) and wonder why. But their surprise is likely fake, or they have not listened to what we say.

I got the following question from Aftonbladet:

“You have previously had a critical attitude on asylum-seekers to Sweden — Has what you experienced now made you change your mind? If so, why?


“You mention Swedish cultural similarities with Ukraine, but what do they consist of for you? There is, of course, a large difference between, for example, our churches, language, traditions, food… In what way are we more alike than, say, Swedes and Turks or Bosnians?”

Another question from DN [Dagens Nyheter] reads like this:

“Countries and individuals who earlier opposed refugee immigration from, among others, Africa and the Middle East have pointed out cultural differences between Sweden and these countries. Do you see Ukraine and Sweden as having cultural similarities? What cultural similarity is it that makes it easier for Ukrainians to assimilate in Sweden?”

The phenomenon of not seeing the difference between one immigration and another immigration is not new for left-liberal journalists, nor, for that matter, left-liberals in general. How many times have you not heard them try to draw parallels to Finnish immigration? Also Norwegian, Danish, or English:

“What, do you have anything against a Norwegian immigrating?”

This has been heard many times. What their questions imply is that they are blind, because one immigration and another immigration are not necessarily the same thing. The fact is, this often involves radically different things. Deep inside, I think they understand this, but either they are actively playing dumb to push the left-liberal propaganda, or they have buried their reason under so many layers of empty phrases that their consciousness has no direct contact with this reason, which, with a little luck, perhaps, lies buried someplace.

Most recently, we have seen immigrants who complain about the different treatment MEA people receive compared with Ukrainians.

“When thousands of others from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria fled to Sweden, nobody opened their summer cottages as they are doing now. That is hypocrisy and a double standard,” writes Arif Sulimani, Chairman of the Association of Unaccompanied Minors in Stockholm.

Sulimani doesn’t get it. Swedish MSM journalists don’t get it.

But just as I said to the two newspapers, neither I nor SD has knowingly changed any opinion at all. We have had a consistent line: regional proximity, cultural similarity, and real refugees, etc. But in the traditional media’s world, this is something new and startling to the point that many of them are now writing articles about this. This just shows their ignorance.

Open your real hearts

Sulimani, in the debate article I cited above, is appalled when Swedes “open their summer cottages”. That is not just complaining about the actions of the State, but he is complaining about the actions of private Swedish people. But it is just this, just the radically different welcome Ukrainians seem to get from ordinary citizens is in one way the ultimate proof that the Swedish immigration policy has had no basis of support among the people.

Of course, they have silently accepted it because Swedes don’t dare oppose it. As everyone knows, the Swedes’ biggest fear is being branded as a “racist”. But beneath the surface, they have opposed it. We see that now when Swedes truly “open their hearts” for the Ukrainian women and children who are coming.

This is nothing ordered by the State. This is happening automatically, willingly. In fact, it is even in conflict with what the State is saying. Remember [Prime Minister] Magdalena Andersson, who said that we will not take in Ukrainian refugees.

Seeing through the fraud

One factor that now shocks the left-liberals about the conservatives’ welcoming attitude for Ukrainians is that they always believed, or, at least, imagined, that conservatives are evil, unsympathetic, and selfish. That is what they believe — or, at least, try to make people believe. The fact is that, without a doubt, we are more empathetic than all the left-liberals together.

The difference is that we are sensible and see through the tear-jerking shams like “unaccompanied refugee children”. We see through it when hordes of young, angry men flock to Europe, leaving behind their women and children in the alleged “war zones”, refuse to leave our countries when the situation has calmed down, and thank us with welfare dependence, violence, and ingratitude. That is what conservatives see.

But at the same time, we also see when real refugees come. We see when the Ukrainian people actually try to protect what is most valuable: women and children. We also see the gratitude from those we help. We see that the Ukrainians, even if there are differences, also have a great similarity to us. We are not dumber in that we see that it might not be problem-free, but we also see the likelihood that they will be assimilated is immensely higher than for the MEA immigrants we are used to. Or that they might actually go home again, which should be the starting point.

Is it unreasonable?

So when the leftist journalists are appalled over the empathy, help, and welcome from the Swedish side, when Sulimani & Co. envy the reception, they should think about their own actions.

Is it unreasonable that Swedes prefer better immigration over worse? Is it unreasonable that Swedes prefer gratitude, assimilation, real refugees who are culturally closer? Is it unreasonable that Swedes tire of violence, chaos, ingratitude, and parallel societies?

Studies from Sweden and abroad have long shown this: People search out those who are similar to themselves. Swedes move out, for example, when as little as about 5% immigrants establish themselves in an area. This does not refer to Norwegians or Danes, but to immigrants whom Swedes see as immigrants.

Because there IS a difference between one immigration and another immigration. Many may not dare to say it, but the expression, “voting with one’s feet” can be applied here. Swedes perhaps dare not say it, but it shows in their actions.

So no, it is not strange that Swedes prefer Ukrainians. It is completely natural.

6 thoughts on “We’ll Take Ukrainians Any Day!

  1. More pussy-footing about. The problem with MEA migrants is that they invariably bring islam with them and islam causes trouble. Islamic migrants are invariably male and they have been indoctrinated to believe that they are in some way superior to host populations. People should be honest and declare that islam is not welcome here.

  2. Sunday Chronicle:

    The madness of the masses

    Posted on March 6, 2022
    by Professor Emeritus
    Karl-Olov Arnstberg /KOA

    Starting with this chronicle, I will publish one a week – a Sunday Chronicle.

    A couple of years ago, the English author Douglas Murray published a book with the telling title The Madness of Crowds. Not only is it a hair-raising book title, but it is also a theme that many critics of civilization, philosophers and social psychologists have taken up. We can start with the early 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. He detested the masses and saw collective life as meaningless: subjectivity is truth. To strive without reflection to be like everyone else was to anonymize oneself, or worse: to make oneself an imitation.

    Kierkegaard asserted that every human being possesses the possibility of truth. It is within all of us, but can only consist of an individual stance. It takes courage to be your own individual, someone who does not blame others for their behaviour but takes responsibility for their own actions. We cannot choose the times we live in, but we can choose how to relate to them.

    Kierkegaard was deeply religious, but since only one’s own position mattered, he left the state church. He could squeeze out statements like The Priest – that long-clothed definition of nonsense!

    Nietzsche was of the same mind with Der letzte Mensch: a weak-willed individual who takes no risks but just wants to be like everyone else and live a comfortable life. It can be spiced up with one of his most quoted aphorisms: in individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. His own life story did not confirm the thesis. For the last 11 years of his life, he was insane.

    The great 19th-century name in this body of thought is the French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon. He set out three characteristics of the masses. The first is anonymity, that the individual is hidden in the mass, which means that the individual is freed from responsibility. It is the crowd, the sect, the group, the collective that is the “individual”. The second is that one is “infected” or hypnotized, if one has been drawn into the energy of the collective. Of course, the collective may be working for a good cause, but usually it is something negative or destructive; something or some people to be attacked and rendered harmless, whereby reason is lost. There is nothing left in the individual to take responsibility for what he or she says or does.

    The third characteristic of the mass can be exemplified by Hitler. Hitler was one of the masses, of the collective paranoia of his time. However, it was not that he forced the majority of the German people into his thinking, but he was one of very many who thought much the same way. The difference was that he managed to direct the collective consciousness towards a goal. This is true of many of those who will lead a mass movement. Greta Thunberg is a contemporary example. Skillfully presented, she manages to give the climate anxiety of young people in particular political explosive force.

    When you ask people who are deep in the collective consciousness what it is they want to achieve, you find that they don’t really know what they stand for. They lack self-awareness, because it is the group that has given them their identity. What they say and do is not based on any individual position. They repeat words they have heard, but they do not know what they are members of. All they know are the key phrases fed to the collective. The prime example is the “equal value of all people”.

    Le Bon’s assertion that this is a contagion has high explanatory value. Not infrequently, people want to be contagious. Look at the screaming crowd of teenage girls, as a youth idol stands on stage, singing and swaying her hips.

    The members of the collective are infected by a virus that prevents them from thinking for themselves. They can only reproduce the collective’s highly simplified key concepts and values.
    The members of the collective are infected by a virus that prevents them from thinking for themselves. They can only reproduce the highly simplified key concepts and values of the collective. This is the essence of Gustave Le Bon’s thinking, that human individuality is completely destroyed. They no longer exist. What exists is a collective thought form. It can also be likened to being a fish in a school of fish. The voice moves collectively and functions as an individual.

    When there is uncertainty, people get scared and when they are scared they follow the herd instead of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions This is where religion comes in, both as a morality and as a creation. We are not insecure if there is a code to follow. But when there is no agreed code, herd behaviour can end up in almost anything. It’s based on the belief that the pack, or “the other” must reasonably know more, because we ourselves don’t know at all. There are several expressions that illustrate this. One I happen to remember is “Billions of flies can’t be wrong, eat shit!”

    Gustave Le Bon sums it up by stating that crowds are primitive, over-emotional, instinctive and irrational. Because of these inherent tendencies, violence is always lurking as a possible solution to what the crowd sees as problematic. The masses are in danger of becoming a mob, a lynch mob. The following comment on wikipedia is interesting:

    Today, “lynching” is used as a metaphor when a person suspected of a crime is subjected to extrajudicial trials, for example through the mass media.

    Many of us dissidents have experienced just that, when journalists form a mob and go on a joint attack. I myself have been subjected to this on two occasions and can state that what is said to apply to war then applies, namely that the truth is the first victim.

    The discussion of the contradiction between the individual and the masses continues in the 20th century. The Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset’s La rebelión de las masas (1930) deals with the rise of the masses and their rise to power in modern European society. Y Gasset’s basic idea is that a majority of ignorant and complacent people, intent on enjoying material abundance, have taken control of society. It is a kind of man who denies “everything of quality, everything individual, qualified, exclusive”. The masses hate what is different, what is different. Individuals act like spoiled children, like unbridled demand machines.

    What distinguishes those who turn against the masses are individual positions. They refuse to submit. They seek liberation from the inauthentic life of the masses. Herein lies the key to why dissidents find it so difficult to unite in a common and coordinated resistance. They cannot be generalised as belonging to another collective, but have taken individual stands. To put it a little more bluntly, it is even collective thinking, with all its simplifications and lies, that they oppose.

    The American historian Christopher Lasch, in Rebellion of the Elites (1995), took Ortega Y Gasset’s idea further, but turned the argument on its head. He argued that what Ortega Y Gasset saw as characteristic of the masses in the interwar period had become characteristic of the American elites. They take no responsibility but float on top. They have the vices of the old aristocracy but lack its virtues. They see the world through the eyes of the tourist.

    One of the works that stands out is Nobel laureate Elias Canetti’s Mass and Power (Masse und Macht, 1960), on which he is said to have worked for three decades. Canetti was a distinctly European cosmopolitan. He was born in Bulgaria but became an English citizen at an early age and later a Swiss citizen. Canetti moved quite freely in Europe and mastered several languages. He wrote in German. It took him more than thirty years to write Mass and Power. Yet he felt he was only halfway through the subject when the book went to press.

    When I try to grasp the message Canetti wants to convey, I fail, and I am hardly alone. His reflections are contradictory in several directions, but in general Canetti too sees the crowd in negative terms. I don’t get much further than that. What is worth thinking about, however, is his observation that even as a sperm, man is a creature of the masses. I also find an aphorism that I like: man has all the wisdom of his ancestors, and look what a fool he is!

    There is a personal background to my interest in the madness of the masses. A little over a decade ago, I began to resent my academic circle of friends more and more. We were intertwined since the political seventies and they were all politically to the left, even if over the years and academic successes they had become something of caviar socialists. When they talked politics, I thought everything they said I had heard before. I usually knew all too well what was coming next and couldn’t always manage to just listen. Sometimes I was just bored, sometimes I got nasty and said things that were insulting.

    When Gunnar Sandelin and I published the two volumes of “Immigration and Cover-up”, our friendship was put to the test and I had little patience with the criticism they directed at me. I particularly remember the discussions I had with one of my closest friends, a SKP member in the seventies and eventually a museum director, professor of ethnology and resident of one of Stockholm’s most fashionable suburbs. He argued that mass immigration – a word he did not accept, by the way – was both economically and otherwise positive for Sweden.

    When I published the PK society, it broke. Most of these my academic friends did not read it, which is still something of a trauma. Why didn’t they give me a chance to explain myself? Why did they never try to see Sweden and the world through my eyes? After all, for many of them I was the teacher and tutor, to whom they had listened for years of seminars and teaching. They were just provoked. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to read; it was worse than that: they couldn’t actually. They were academic herd animals who had lost the ability to think for themselves, something that has taken me some time to understand.

    I find it easy to see today’s digital public sphere from Ortega Y Gasset’s perspective. What people often post on Facebook is what they had for dinner, nice cars and great holidays. They take endless selfies with their phones but too rarely show how they think. The vast majority of people don’t want to deal with real things. They want to be consumers, they want to be non-thinking, non-reflective members of a collective consciousness. They can’t even defend themselves against their own mobiles. Facebook is like a carpet of inauthenticity, something that makes people miserable!

    What we need is a functioning immune system or a vaccine against the destructive collective consciousness of the masses. The less we allow ourselves to be controlled by the masses, the better and more meaningful lives we will have. Perhaps it is enough to train self-awareness, to learn to see oneself; a platform for common sense, grounding in reality and thinking for oneself. To follow Kierkegaard, truth is not found in any ideology or religion. It is in your own inner self.

    • I really enjoyed reading your missive, it really does explain the stupidity of the herd, I just call them what they are, sheep, and in the end, the sheep get sheared and slaughtered by the Wolves.
      With mass invasion by the 3rd world, we get Balkanized, and when we reach critical mass, we get war, it is that coldly simple and history bears this out time immortal. Sweden and the rest of the west are almost at critical mass, then the fun really begins. Frankly speaking, it really is time for the Great Purge, for people have gotten fat, sloppy, stupid and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of the 3rd world through indoctrination formerly known as education.

  3. It’s as if they don’t know the difference between a mother with small kids, who had no choice but to escape, and predominantly men of military age from a culture which hates Europe and Christianity, and thinks European women are merely “uncovered meat”…

    Either that, or they just pretend to be tone deaf.

  4. .

    AFS began its election tour in Stockholm on Saturday


    Naziswime – Naziswime – Naziswime…


    Profile questions in the first speach:

    Repatriation of some one milliom MENA,
    Swexit, CLEAN THE SWAMP,
    Civil service accountability, Meritocracy,
    Martial law for corrupt politicians,
    No Corona passport, No people exchange,
    Death to multiculturalism, Martial law +
    civil service accountability, Extended millitary,
    A pure Swedish Sweden,
    No to wax passports, Take back the country,
    9,8% believed to vote AfS in 2022,
    Extensive return migration – No integration,
    Sweden is the country of the Swedes,
    No NATO, Kick out the clans and ISIS,
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    AFS began its election tour in Stockholm

    Published 13 March 2022 at 09.19 in Fria Tider

    Alternative for Sweden began its election campaign on Saturday with a square meeting in Stockholm.

    Ten crowns lower petrol prices, repatriation, exit from the EU and no to all forms of compulsory vaccination. These were the main messages when Alternative for Sweden started its election campaign with a meeting on Stortorget in the Old Town.

    In his speech, party leader Gustav Kasselstrand described the party’s platform as “a national foundation where we put the Swedish people first”.

    – The single most important measure is for Sweden to establish a comprehensive return programme so that those who do not belong in Sweden can return to their home countries, Kasselstrand said.

    Another issue Kasselstrand highlighted was that Sweden should leave the EU.

    – Our laws should not be made by foreign politicians in Brussels whom we ourselves have not elected, he said.

    – Major decisions should always be taken, as far as possible, by national referendums where the people can have their say on which way this country should go.

    “Without the car, Sweden stays” is one of the slogans under which the anti-immigration upstart party is going to the polls. In his speech, Kasselstrand pointed out that about ten kronor per litre of petrol and diesel is made up of excise duties on fuel. The AFS wants to abolish these taxes completely.

    Kasselstrand described the other parties’ actions during the pandemic as pitting vaccinated and unvaccinated Swedes against each other. He stressed that the AFS was virtually alone among Swedish parties in taking a clear stand against the now abolished vaccine passes.

    – Vaccination should be a completely voluntary choice.

    The AFS leader stressed that support for the party had increased in every election in which the party had stood. In last autumn’s church elections, AFS received 1.26% of the vote in the elections to the Church Council and took three seats there.

    Another new development presented at the election meeting was that AFS is running candidates in a wide range of municipalities across Sweden in this year’s elections.

    In addition to Gustav Kasselstrand, Jeff Ahl and Evelina Hahne spoke at the meeting.

Comments are closed.