Where females fear to tread: KATIE HOPKINS reports from Sweden Scandi-lib paradise [tr]

UK Daily Mail ^ | March 1, 2017 | Katie Hopkins

[Stentor]

I listen to Katie Hopkins’ show online on LBC. She needs to be given a slot in the US.

She does not suffer liars and fools gladly.

[Hostage]

The evolution of the problem goes back to the fall of the USSR. Many intelligent young people from the Baltics and other Soviet Bloc countries such as Belarus found their way to Scandinavia where there was a natural affinity.

Kindness and tolerance were actually needed then bringing good business returns industrially, economically, demographically. It was a great time to be alive to watch incredible refugee people from engineers to artists see for the first time in their lives what western society had to offer and how they could fit in.

Those post-Soviet migrations continued during the 1990s and 2000s with wide public approval, and there wasn’t much to complain about. It was pretty much win-win for everyone.

The Muslim problem, however, was an older problem starting with France in the 1950s. Algeria was considered the territory of southern France. In fact, the Mediterranean coast of France was and is still called ‘Le Midi’ meaning ‘The Middle’ denoting the middle of France which extended into Africa through its territory-state of Algeria.

As it was, France turned left and marched towards socialism in the latter half of the 20th century. Actually, it was inhabited by fairly hard-core communists, many of whom were Brits from London. Communists were adept at lying to the public about everything, sound familiar? And as they stepped into elected offices based on their lies duping the voters, they instituted policies of immigration that brought more Algerians, or persons claiming they were Algerians, to immigrate to France thereby buying a class of voters, sound familiar?

Today France is about 11% Muslim according to some reports. And of course, the Muslims that came to France did not assimilate to French culture. In fact, entire villages and towns went completely Islamic with language, writing, storefronts, music, etc. There are towns in France that are indistinguishable from those of Arab countries. And they are not a small number.

In order for French socialists to manage the ‘culture shock’, laws were passed that mandated under risk of criminal prosecution, a new order of political correctness, sound familiar?

Meanwhile in Germany, the same demographic evolution was taking place with the immigration of Turkish Muslims, not cosmopolitan educated secular Turkish Muslims, but the uneducated just a step above goat-herding variety. The same type of events that played out in France is in effect in Germany as well.

When the EU Commission woke up to its new charter that it could pass ‘laws’, hold trials and set policy for Europe without facing elections, it created a bonanza of things a new corrupt class quickly attached to. And of course, in keeping with the age-old tactic of divide and conquer, the EU commissars proceeded to mandate political correctness and enforce it with Human Rights Tribunals.

The regime in Sweden is but a backwater to the larger events of the EU. They are more vulnerable, however, largely because they are much smaller in size and because culturally they adhere to following rules so as not to be bothered with confrontation. That is a cultural trait that is more pronounced in Sweden than elsewhere. It exists in most other Euro-influenced nations but is more prevalent and acute in Sweden.

Americans shouldn’t mock the Swedes for their predicament, however. If Americans had subscribed to a President Hillary or a President Bernie, American law would have seen a continued expansion of the Trojan Horse known as Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States, as well as a formal adoption of ‘Human Rights’ commissions that would have made political correctness not only a political movement but a set of laws to comply with and obey. So America had not advanced along that road to hell in a distance that the Swedes had already traversed.

When Ami Horowitz showed his interviews of people on the street in Sweden asking them what they thought about the Swedish government’s immigration policies, he was in effect asking them what they thought about the ‘laws’. Policy is not the same as law.

So those interviewed on the Swedish streets who had been approached by his camera crew were seen standing like deer with their eyes caught in headlights, they immediately gave a programmed answer “Immigration is Wonderful! We can never have enough immigration!”. It was no different than going back 80 years in Germany and asking what people thought of the ‘Herr Fuehrer’. And Ami was shocked to hear these responses. What Ami, as an American, did not understand is that in America we can say publicly “It Sucks!” and the most we will experience is being called a xenophobe or some such. Whereas in Sweden, one can actually go to jail, lose government benefits, lose one’s job, be physically beaten or hunted by gangs.

America dodged a bullet on November 8. The Swedes are going to have to revolt as the British did with Brexit, cut immigration to zero, follow-up with mass deportations of any immigrant committing a crime, etc. But most of all they must abolish political correctness because os Donald Trump has said “political correctness kills”. Their first step is calling it what it is, ‘political correctness’ and then defining it.

[Billthedrill]

When Trump turned the world's attention to Sweden by clumsily referring to the effects of mass-migration on what used to be seen as the most liberal country on earth, the country was ready and waiting to blow... He provided the touch-paper to the explosive mixture of thousands of bored young migrants who were born into fighting and have brought the battle with them.

No, he didn't. I doubt if one in a thousand of those young men has any idea of what Trump said. I doubt if a problem that has been building for 25 years was kicked over by one sentence from an American politician 4000 miles away on the very next day. This isn't even decent rhetoric, it's ridiculous hyperbole.

For a doctrinaire feminist the problem always devolves to men and no further. Never mind that "men" weren't doing this when they were Swedish. Never mind that the "men" who are doing this, aren't. Never mind that it has been feminist politics that has brought them to this pass.

I want to be respectful of Hopkins for even researching the issue but she's going to have to drop the ideological blinders if she wants to arrive at a solution instead of merely complaining about the problem, however eloquently. She says herself that it was once a friendlier society. So what happened? And what are they going to do about it other than complain, deny, and cover the evidence?