Swedes love American culture. I think it is one of the most Americanized countries in Europe. When Hollywood and American liberals introduced cultural Marxism, the Swedish elite (journalists and politicians) were happy to follow. The high levels of altruism among Northern Europeans paved the way for political correctness. In Sweden, the whitest country in Europe, political correctness became the new state religion with its own form of Inquisition. Anyone who doesn’t want to ruin the country by mass immigration is labeled as insane. No wonder the Swedish Democrats only got 5.75 percent. Not even I dared to vote for them.
Sweden cooperated with the US “in secret”. The Russians knew about it of course, and so did many Swedes. Even after the cold war when I was in the military, our drills were always about a Russian invasion and we were supposed to hold the lines for some weeks and then hope for the Americans to come and rescue us. I know there was a lot of criticism about the Vietnam war from many prominent Swedish liberals, like Olof Palme. But I can assure you, that if the Communists had invaded Sweden just like they invaded South Vietnam, those same liberals would have been very glad if good old Uncle Sam came marching in.
There is one fundamental thing you are missing here. The Jews you are talking about were better educated than the average American. In Sweden it is just the opposite. This is from today’s editorial page in well respected “Svenska Dagbladet”:
The national employment office (AF) is further alarmed by a massive influx into vulnerable groups. An increasing number that is transferred from the Insurance will be assessed as disabled. And next year’s migration will have an even worse level of education - in recent years, about 40 percent of the overseas migrants had only primary school qualifications or less - warns AF. * Ingen kan visa upp något alternativ till låglönejobb | SvD Ledare
Trust between people. Speaking of which, I have more trust in a Harvard professor than you.
As ready workers, the Swedes were welcomed by the Americans, and there was no significant anti-Swedish nativism of the sort that attacked Irish, German and, especially, Chinese newcomers. The Swedish style was more familiar: “They are not peddlers, nor organ grinders, nor beggars; they do not sell ready-made clothing nor keep pawn shops,” wrote the Congregational missionary M. W. Montgomery in 1885; “they do not seek the shelter of the American flag merely to introduce and foster among us … socialism, nihilism, communism … they are more like Americans than are any other foreign peoples.”Swedish emigration to the United States - Wikipedia
And I can add that 89% of all US presidents have had blue eyes. No brown eyed president has ever fulfilled two terms. All of the US presidents who have been considered great, or near great by historians, had blue eyes. Anyone want to try an explanation? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2008/02/18/the_blue-eyed_rule_freakish_fact_for_presidents_day
I will try one. The behaviors of the Swedes, the Danes and the Norwegians made the Americans realize that the crown of creation is the Scandinavians.
You think conservatives would be willing to give people the tools of free thought knowing they couldn’t control their use to their own advantage? Think again.
The Oirish, the Eye-talians, the Powlacks, the Rooskis, the Koleans… They all came in waves of dirt poor unskilled workers barely able to string two words of English together (except the Irish, who could but nobody understood their brogue :D). They all faced ghettoization and nativist hatred. They’re all part of the community now. Enough to be doing the nativism bit themselves, sadly.
[QUOTE=RaleighRally]
No wonder the Swedish Democrats only got 5.75 percent. Not even I dared to vote for them.
[/QUOTE]
What, the multicultural Nazis have cameras in the voting booths and firing squads out the back ? :rolleyes:
Why, don’t you care about the environment? How many people does the US - one of the major poluters per capita need?
Also, the comparisons don’t stand up in the US as the numbers are far higher and the time taken for assimilation is not comparable. Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in “Falling Behind or Moving Up?”.
They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third.
If these results continue to hold, the low skills of yesterday’s illegal immigrant will negatively shape the U.S. work force into the 22nd century.
Then we should let them in legally instead of keeping them isolated; let them become citizens and so on. When you refuse to let a group of people integrate because you prefer keeping them as an exploited underclass, they generally don’t integrate. Whining about it afterward is hypocritical.
And if you conveniently lump in legals and illegals together then you can ignore the effects of being exploited as an illegal cheap laborer and pretend that any problems are because they are all brown skinned subhumans. We all know that’s what this is about, another attempt by you to promote your racist fantasies.
Except that would cause massive economic problems. Instead, we should allow a much higher level of legal immigration.
The most reliable estimate of the fiscal impacts of immigration was done by the National Research Council, NAC (the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, NAS).
Low skilled immigrants earn less than the average, pay less in taxes and receive more in public services such as health care, public housing, income aid etc. The NAC estimate is that the total net cost of each low-skilled immigrant for the US is $120,000 in 2009 dollars.
Yeah, suuuuure they do. I’m supposed to believe your unsupported claim that the people we are exploiting cost us money? And again; lumping together legal and legal immigrants is guaranteed to distort the data (which is why you do it, I’m sure).