Hat tip Samnytt. Translation by Fousesquawk.
The below article in Samnytt, an alternative news publication in Sweden, was written by Kent Ekeroth, a former Sweden Democrat party politician who writes for Samnytt. In the article below, Ekeroth explains why Swedes are far more receptive to the current wave of Ukrainian refugees as opposed to the largely fake refugees who have been flowing into the country from the Middle East and Africa in recent years. Many on the left are accusing ordinary Swedish people of being racist or having a double standard because they are supportive of Ukrainian refugees, almost all women and children fleeing from a real war, over Middle Eastern and African refugees, who are overwhelmingly young men of unknown background arriving without families. In addition, many of this latter group have shown no gratitude and have contributed dramatically to crime and social welfare costs-to say nothing about Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism.
https://samnytt.se/ekeroth-inte-konstigt-att-svenskar-foredrar-ukrainare/
(Kent) Ekeroth: "Not strange that Swedes prefer Ukrainians"
March 11, 2022 18:30
Lead Editorial: In the last few days, I have received two questions from two different newspapers about my editorial position about real refugees. They wonder why I, the Sweden Democrat party, and critics of immigration now have a completely different view on Ukrainian refugees compared to those from the Middle East and Africa (MEA). They also seem to think that we have changed our minds(!) and wonder why. But their surprise is likely fake or they have not listened to what we say.
A question I got from Aftonbladet was the following:
"You have previously had a critical attitude on asylum-seekers to Sweden- Has what you experienced (now) made you change your mind, in which case, why?
And:
"You mention Swedish cultural similarities with Ukraine, (but) what do they consist of for you? There is, of course, a large difference between, for example, our churches, language, traditions, food....In which way are we more alike than say, Swedes and Turks or Bosnians?"
Another question from DN (Dagens Nyheter) reads like this:
"Countries and individuals who earlier opposed refugee immigration from, among others, Africa and the Middle East have pointed out cultural differences between Sweden and these countries. Do you see Ukraine and Sweden as having cultural similarities? What cultural similarity is it that makes it easier for Ukrainians to assimilate in Sweden?"
The phenomenon of not seeing the difference between (one) immigration and (another) immigration is not new for left-liberal journalists, or, for that matter, left-liberals in general. How many times have you not heard them try to draw parallels to Finnish immigration? Also Norwegian, Danish, or English:
"What, do you have anything against a Norwegian immigrating?"
This has been heard many times. What their questions imply is that they are blind because (one) immigration and (another) immigration are not necessarily the same thing. The fact is that this often involves radically different things. Deep inside, I think they understand this, but either they are actively playing dumb to push the left-liberal propaganda, or they have buried their reason under so many layers of empty phrases that their consciousness has no direct contact with this reason, which, with a little luck, perhaps, lies buried someplace.
Most recently, we have seen immigrants who complain about the different treatment MEA people receive compared with Ukrainians.
"When thousands of others from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria fled to Sweden, nobody opened their summer cottages as they are doing now. That is hypocrisy and double morals," writes Arif Sulimani, Chairman of the Association of Unaccompanied (Minors) in Stockholm.
Sulimani doesn't get it. Swedish (mainstream media) journalists don't get it.
But just as I said to the two newspapers, neither I nor SD has knowingly changed any opinion at all. We have had a consistent line: nearby area, cultural similarity, (and) real refugees, etc. But in the (traditional) media's world, this is something new and startling to the point that many of them are now writing articles about this. This just shows their ignorance.
Open your real hearts
Sulimani, in the debate article I cited above, is appalled when Swedes "open their summer cottages". That is not just complaining about the actions of the State, but he is complaining about the actions of private Swedish people. But it is just this, just the radically different welcome Ukrainians seem to get from ordinary citizens is in one way, the ultimate proof that the Swedish immigration policy has had no (basis of support) among the people.
Of course, they have silently accepted it because Swedes don't dare oppose it. As everyone knows, the Swedes' biggest fear is being branded as a "racist". But beneath the surface, they have opposed it. We see that now when Swedes truly "open their hearts" for the Ukrainian women and children who are coming.
This is nothing ordered by the State. This is happening automatically, willingly. In fact, it is even in conflict with what the State is saying. Remember (Prime Minister ) Magdalena Andersson, who said that we will not take in Ukrainian refugees.
Seeing through the fraud
One factor that now shocks the left liberals about the conservatives' welcoming attitude for Ukrainians is that they always believed, or, at least, imagined themselves, that conservatives are evil, unsympathetic, and selfish. That is what they believe-or, at least, try to make people believe. The fact is that, without a doubt, we are more empathetic than all the left-liberals together.
The difference is that we are sensible and see through the tear-jerking shams like "unaccompanied refugee children". We see through it when hordes of young, angry men flock to Europe, leaving behind their women and children in the alleged "war zones", refuse to leave our countries when (the situation) has calmed down, and thank us with welfare dependence, violence, and ingratitude. That is what conservatives see.
But at the same time, we also see when real refugees come. We see when the Ukrainian people actually try to protect what is most valuable; women and children. We also see the gratitude from those we help. We see that the Ukrainians, even if there are differences, also have a great similarity with us. We are not dumber in that we see that it might not be problem-free, but we also see the likelihood that they will be assimilated is immensely higher than for the MEA-immigrants we are used to. Or that they actually go home again, which should be the starting point.
Is it unreasonable?
So when the leftist journalists are appalled over the empathy, help, and welcome from the Swedish side, when Sulimani & Co. envy the reception, they should think about their own actions.
Is it unreasonable that Swedes prefer better immigration over worse? Is it unreasonable that Swedes prefer gratitude, assimilation, real refugees who are culturally closer? Is it unreasonable that Swedes tire of violence, chaos, ingratitude, and separate cultural phenomena?
Studies from Sweden and abroad have long shown this: People search out those who are similar to themselves. Swedes move out, for example, when as little as about 5% immigrants establish themselves in an area. This does not refer to Norwegians or Danes, but to immigrants whom Swedes see as immigrants.
Because there IS a difference between (one) immigration and (another) immigration. Many might not dare say it, but the expression, "vote with feet" can be applied here. Swedes perhaps, don't dare say it, but it shows in action.
So no, it is not strange that Swedes prefer Ukrainians. It is completely natural.
