Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9603874:

Living Hell 3 3, 7:12am


"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."

No, I'm only stating the fact that you're a racist - you've proved that yourself with what you've written here.
No, the free Swedish peasants had as I said representation in the Swedish parliament - they where they only ones in Europe to do so as far as I know (Denmark maybe had it too?).
There are also several other differences but that is a very major one.

"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."

So you think that your stated fact that Sweden gave Finnish immigrants the most valuable thing there is - that is free land - is proof that we didn't treat them as well as we treat immigrants today? I would say the land owning peasants were very happy to pay taxes as that meant they didn't have a nobleman over them but where on an equal footing with the nobleman in the eyes of the state - both paying their taxes to the crown. That's the very basis for their equal representation in parliament.
Also I think many immigrants to Sweden today would be very happy if they where given land instead of money. Since land is much more valuable.
And I've accused no neighbour of racism. I've accused you of racism - and as I've said you've proven that yourself by what you've written in several different comments here.

"[Where every individual has been important and the social acceptance for diversity has been higher as a result.]
Well, no.
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."

What I wrote was "the social acceptance for diversity".
You answer by stating that diversity was greater in Russia. I'm not sure that's actually true, but anyway it's certainly not true that the SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE for diversity was greater in Russia - the nation that gave the world the name for pogroms:

Definition of pogrom per the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Pogrom : an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews

Origin and Etymology:
Yiddish, from Russ, literally, devastation

"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."

Complete and utter nonsense. Eugenics was considered a reputable science in the beginning of the 20th century and it was practised in countries over the world.

As per Wikipedias article on Eugenics:

"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States. It also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain. Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Sweden."

"[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."

No, I'm not - it's just that you don't understand the implications of what you yourself just wrote.
Because while Swedish people answering a survey may say they would like to see the number of immigrants decrease our general elections aren't on that single question and the Sweden Democrats are much more then that single question.
SD likes to pretend they're just "critical" of immigration, but they are in fact (as I've just written another comment describing here) a neo-fascist party with a clear antisemitic and racist history that continues to this day.

So the Swedish voters are clearly not evaluating SD on just what they claim they are today, but also on their entire history and all the anti–Semitism and racism that keeps seeping out of the party.
They see that SD is a neo-fascist party and even if they might say they would wish to see immigration decrease, they clearly don't want to support a neo-fascist party to see that happen.

Also - as I said - if they did believe yours and SD's ridiculous scare mongering about how immigration is "destroying" Sweden they would of course vote for SD - since nothing is of course more important then the survival of the nation. As without the nation none of the other policies we vote for in the election could ever be implemented.
But the overwhelming majority of Swedish voters clearly don't feel that immigration is a threat to the survival of the nation.

"[... 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."

You're free to criticize all you want - I'd just wish you kept to historical fact.
And by the way - the fact that the Swedish rule is so considered not just by Estonians but most of the people we ruled over during our war mongering days actually undercuts your argumentation and supports mine.
Because Swedish rule was of course generally positively received precisely because it was all those things I've repeated stated. More socially acceptant of diversity, more equal (but by no means perfectly so of course), more fair to the peasant class and so on.
And again - I'm not claiming that's because Swedes are naturally better or more just or anything - I'm saying that's because we as a people was taught the value of these things because of the sparseness of the land we chose to settle and the low population density that gave us.
I don't believe Swedish rulers started out as more respectful towards their subjects then any other - they just realised it didn't work in their own favour to press the population to hard, but that a more inclusive way was a much smarter strategy.

"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."

Hey - you're the one talking about "horn and tail".

"The litmus test is whether any subset of them would change the distribution of Swedes. Therefore you can't have a purely individual approach."

You can't treat people as individuals? OK - I have nothing to add there. I'll just let that comment of yours stand for itself.

"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."

The law is constantly changing - that's not a problem in any way. That's how a nation is govern - with laws. We change a bunch of laws ever six months. Sooner then that if there is some special urgency.