Odds and Ends
2 3, 1:16pm
[Unlike you with your racist theories I don't explain this with any magical Swedish blood or gene, but show that it's the low population density and the harsh climate that formed the basis for this separate development, where power in Swedish society has consistently been more evenly (but by no means perfectly so) shared then in other countries.]
You are doing that (blaming others of your own wrongdoing) again.
The only difference from the rest of Europe was the relatively fewer privileges of the Swedish nobility in Sweden - which had to be compensated by the king by giving more privileges for the Swedish nobility in the Swedish colonies.
But the difference from the past and present is still there: finnish immigrants of late medieval period and renaissance were given land but not monetary support and they had to pay taxes and be drafted to the army of Sweden. The present immigrants have it very differently. Maybe you should copy more of the old Sweden, instead of accusing your neighbours of racism.
[Where every individual has been important and the social acceptance for diversity has been higher as a result.]
Sweden's diversity has always been smaller than that of Russia. But that is not because of one was better and the other worse or vice versa.
[On the continent every country had far larger and more influential Nazi parties - in Sweden they found it almost impossible to recruit members to their racist agenda.]
There was no need, because the parties in power in Sweden practiced eugenics. Which is something that cannot be said of many continental countries of Europe.
[Swedish voters clearly don't believe the neo-fascists (and yours) claim that Sweden is being destroyed from within by immigration - if they did they would of course flock to the polls to vote for the only party that wants to "save the nation".]
You are a proven liar by the fact that the SD voting statistics differ from the polling numbers on the immigration issue.
One cannot possibly evaluate any party based on just one issue. And the voters don't.
[... I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Finn that thinks that Sweden has ever treated them wrongly.]
Most things are relative.
The Swedish rule is considered by many estonians as the best foreign rule, but that shouldn't prevent one from criticizing it.
[Since your a racist you see "horn and tails" - we don't.]
Here you reveal your lack of understanding.
Any distribution has a horn and two tails. Sometimes one tail might be truncated. So it has nothing to do with your subjective labeling of me.
[But the only way you can sort the bad from the good is giving them the chance to prove themselves.]
The litmus test is whether any subset of them would change the distribution of Swedes. Therefore you can't have a purely individual approach.
[Which means that you let those in that have legitimate reasons and then you use the exact same standards to judge them as you would anyone born in Sweden - the Swedish law.]
The Swedish law is tailored to a population characterised by the distribution of Swedes. If the distribution is different, then the old laws do not necessarily work as well any more.