@Nisse_Hult
[No, I'm only stating the fact that you're a racist - you've proved that yourself with what you've written here.]
No. You are labeling me as such. There is a difference.
[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.]
The land was not given for free.
You would have had to pay annual taxes from it. The same today.
I repeat, the difference from past and present is that at present Sweden gives financial support to the immigrants, while in the past the immigrants had to give financial and military support to the Swedish state. Are you able to discern the difference.
[And I've accused no neighbour of racism. I've accused you of racism...]
That is the same thing, because my views roughly represent the majority view of Estonians.
[What I wrote was "the social acceptance for diversity". ]
Even that is debatable.
For example when compared to the Poland-Lithuania union.
[Eugenics was considered a reputable science in the beginning of the 20th century and it was practised in countries over the world.]
But not in most European countries.
In most germanic / anglo-saxon countries, yes.
[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.]
That is exactly what I was referring to.
You can't claim that immigration issue would impact voting preferences in a straightforward way. But that is exactly what you did.
[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.]
You are doing it again.
You can't claim overwhelming majority.
You might be able to claim at least majority of Swedish voters (of which 10-15% are already immigrants from elsewhere but the Nordic countries). If it becomes likely that the immigration issue won't be able to determine the election outcome, then voters automaticaly start to consider other issues as well. So the voting preferences do not behave straightforwardly as you think. And the media can move the perceived likelihood of immigration issue determining election outcome - meaning that basically you can't even be sure of a majority - perhaps 40-45%, of which up to 1/3 might be immigrants from not Nordic countries, which leaves just 30-40% for ethnic swedes or immigrants with long residence history (like finns).
The point is that you seem to be waiting for (a) a civil war or (b) the election win of SD, to finally conclude that perhaps indeed immigration is a state-threatening issue. And I am not even sure that the current election system and voters behaviour could result in (b), which means that the only definitive proof of immigration problem would be option (a), a civil war. At least in case of Sweden.
[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.]
Not really.
Lithuanians had it better in Lithuania under the Lithuanian-Polish union.
Let me say it another way for you to understand - the life in the colonies was different from life in the "motherland".
Sweden proper was the "motherland". Estonia was the colonies.
[Hey - you're the one talking about "horn and tail".]
It depends whether we are dealing with unicorns or devils. Both have horn(s) and tails.
They should be able to blend in to the Swedish population. If they do not blend in, then we should make some cuts.
[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.]
"you can't have a purely individual approach."
Notice the 'purely'.
And yes, that is the compromise that shall not be compromised any further.
[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. ]
Great.
Perhaps Sweden can finally adjust to the global situation of the 21st century.
Borderless Sweden is an oxymoron.
Borderless Europe is an oxymoron.
0
@Nisse_Hult
[No, I'm only stating the fact that you're a racist - you've proved that yourself with what you've written here.]
No. You are labeling me as such. There is a difference.
[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.]
The land was not given for free.
You would have had to pay annual taxes from it. The same today.
I repeat, the difference from past and present is that at present Sweden gives financial support to the immigrants, while in the past the immigrants had to give financial and military support to the Swedish state. Are you able to discern the difference.
[And I've accused no neighbour of racism. I've accused you of racism...]
That is the same thing, because my views roughly represent the majority view of Estonians.
[What I wrote was "the social acceptance for diversity". ]
Even that is debatable.
For example when compared to the Poland-Lithuania union.
[Eugenics was considered a reputable science in the beginning of the 20th century and it was practised in countries over the world.]
But not in most European countries.
In most germanic / anglo-saxon countries, yes.
[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.]
That is exactly what I was referring to.
You can't claim that immigration issue would impact voting preferences in a straightforward way. But that is exactly what you did.
[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.]
You are doing it again.
You can't claim overwhelming majority.
You might be able to claim at least majority of Swedish voters (of which 10-15% are already immigrants from elsewhere but the Nordic countries). If it becomes likely that the immigration issue won't be able to determine the election outcome, then voters automaticaly start to consider other issues as well. So the voting preferences do not behave straightforwardly as you think. And the media can move the perceived likelihood of immigration issue determining election outcome - meaning that basically you can't even be sure of a majority - perhaps 40-45%, of which up to 1/3 might be immigrants from not Nordic countries, which leaves just 30-40% for ethnic swedes or immigrants with long residence history (like finns).
The point is that you seem to be waiting for (a) a civil war or (b) the election win of SD, to finally conclude that perhaps indeed immigration is a state-threatening issue. And I am not even sure that the current election system and voters behaviour could result in (b), which means that the only definitive proof of immigration problem would be option (a), a civil war. At least in case of Sweden.
[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.]
Not really.
Lithuanians had it better in Lithuania under the Lithuanian-Polish union.
Let me say it another way for you to understand - the life in the colonies was different from life in the "motherland".
Sweden proper was the "motherland". Estonia was the colonies.
[Hey - you're the one talking about "horn and tail".]
It depends whether we are dealing with unicorns or devils. Both have horn(s) and tails.
They should be able to blend in to the Swedish population. If they do not blend in, then we should make some cuts.
[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.]
"you can't have a purely individual approach."
Notice the 'purely'.
And yes, that is the compromise that shall not be compromised any further.
[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. ]
Great.
Perhaps Sweden can finally adjust to the global situation of the 21st century.
Borderless Sweden is an oxymoron.
Borderless Europe is an oxymoron.