We elected a new government in 2022. 'We like nuclear energy' and 'We don't like crime' were understandably popular. So, just this week, the minister for migration is announcing that we had the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997. And net emigration (not immigration) for the first time in 50 years, with Syria, Iraq and Somalia among the places where more people left for, rather than come from.
There are a number of topics in Sweden that have long been and still are considered public (political) taboos. Immigration is one of them. Others have historically included nuclear power and hydropower. There are more. All of them are politically charged.
Besides making it difficult to obtain statistical data for research, public people attempting to discuss these topics could be ignored, made “unpopular” or tacitly banned from accessing the media. These topics are swept under the carpet not to shake the boat until the boat is on the brink of capsizing.
There is an opinion that such attitude is due to the local cultural norms that impose and celebrate a not-showing-off behavior which can foster cowardice to voice an opinion that is different and willingness. However this seems more of an institutionalized behavior rather than simply a cultural norm. If so, then it seems to be a differentiating feature of the Swedish democracy. How democratic it is is up to each one to decide.
As you may know, an article in a top econ journal ran into a similar taboo studying Swedish immigrants-- the author was clear about the conditions imposed upon his research. Still an excellent paper despite the partial ban on inquiry.
With a little digging someone could connect the dots.
Seems we have all too similar problems in the USA. Here journals have been reluctant to publish anything pointing out negative differences in our immigrants--much less of racial categories in the general population. To study such distinctions—example IQ—as a university faculty member is a career ender. Nonetheless crime statistics have been commonly published using such data.
To read that there are “prosecutors” examining such studies’ findings, under any circumstances, is completely alien to this American. Although our legal system is admittedly in the process of collapse, heretofore the “truth” was legally considered the ultimate defense against slander.
It would seem to this (naive) American that ignoring truth to placate “feelings”, or achieve some sort of political objective, can end in no good for science or the nation. Good luck with that.
I am glad you included the detail that the person who made the complaint, trying to ruin the researchers careers because they said the truth, was female. Yes, one could question the relevance of this fact, but I appreciate your bravery in including it. The trend toward totalitarian thought control that your piece explores is an example of the feminization of society. It is not all women, or only women, but /is/ an example of feminization of culture.
This is political kitsch in the domain of sociology, a metaphysical ban on "shit" (cf. Kundera), a trait of communist regimes which insist on living in the la-la land of ideology in defiance of actual reality, especially the reality of ideology, such as the consequences if certain immigration policies.
People who mention "shit" in a world supposedly devoid of it cannot be tolerated. They must be morally gulagged.
Re academic complaints like that against Khoshnood et al: it seems to me reasonable that complainants are held to the same standard that their targets are being held to. By which I mean that they also get a full investigation into all of their work, lasting as long.
By this means frivolous or politically motivated complaints would be discouraged. And standards of work would be raised.
So people in Sweden or the UK can't say things like African and Middle Eastern migrants commit a lot of rapes in the country. And yet these same people think that Russia and China are bad places because they don't have freedom and democracy.
How do people hold these thoughts simultaneously without their brains exploding?
How could you leave Joakim P. Jonasson out of your article? As a truck driver, he compiled a report on rape in Sweden showing the staggering overrepresentation of MENA migrants by country of birth. In 2017, even private individuals in Sweden could buy summaries of court judgments going back years. And in them, the offender's place of birth and mother's name were listed. Obviously Jonasson did not make the material, I believe it was the brainchild of a researcher of Balkan origin at a Swedish university, who was subsequently fired.
This piece is about the taboo of researching immigration in Sweden, it's not about what the actual data says regarding, say, immigration and crime in Sweden. That's because I have an entire different article devoted to that which, among many other things, mentions the report by Jonasson.
It's clear. But Jonasson's material, who took the statistical analysis on his name, shows precisely that no one in the research-university teaching community dared to take on this analysis on his name alone!
One more thing. It's not Sweden, but Denmark, but the case of Professor Helmuth Nyborg would also belong here: he published an article in 2011 on how the MENA migrants to Denmark would cause the Danish human capital to deteriorate fatally. It cost him his emeritus professorship to publish the article. In addition, a Danish government committee tried to get the editors of the scientific journal to withdraw the article. They argued that Nyborg could not do the model calculations and that his article was only one author's work. The editor refused the request because Nyborg could prove that the statistician who had done the model calculations had himself requested not to be listed as a co-author because he did not want to get in trouble!!!
Fascinating. Perhaps try to bring this to Elon Musk's attention - easier said than done, I realise, but it's a topic which interests him, and he has the clout to give it greater coverage. Good luck!
Surely the relevant factor is that it was a female graduate that complained about the study. As far back as the 1980s feminsts in both Denmark and Sweden were angry about statistics showing a correlation between a dramatic increase in rape and asylum seekers entering their countries. White feminsts operate in a zero sum game mindset and anything that might make their own ethnicities average guy look better behaved towards them than a brown or black male is unwanted. Scandinavian males are the original cucks. I remember my late father telling me a story from 1970s Sweden where an immigrant from the former Yugoslavia who was working in a car plant was arrested by the police for keeping his wife locked in their apartment while he was at work. When he was asked why he said that he didn't want her to start copying the whore like behaviour of all the Swedish women.
It seems there is some very powerful subterfuge active in Sweden. I wonder... To what end? What type of intervention will it take to break the hold of such inimical interests? For Sweden's sake (and the whole of Europe), I hope there are some courageous efforts hidden within their midst. So that the truth may finally be set free.
Well, one theory is that hiding such things was because it would make the Social Democrats' immigration policies look bad. If that is the case it is all over -- they lost the last election largely because so many people detested these policies. There is nothing to prop up any more. And, indeed, the Social Democrats (whom, you understand, mostly don't do things because they believe the rhetoric they preach, but instead preach the rhetoric they think will get them elected) are now saying 'it was all a mistake' and 'multiculturalism has failed' and 'it was never a viable project in the first place'. So, last election, they campaigned on 'we will make the immigrants assimilate and we will do a better job of it than the right-wing parties because we are straight-up better (more competent) at governing'. Besides, they said it was all the fault of our junior partners in our government coalition, the Greens and the Centre Party. (The Centre Party, in Sweden, in keeping with the theory that the name of the political party should never say what it does on the label, is where the NGO and academia class tends to cast it's vote. And the Greens are busy trying to destroy the environment with highly polluting wind farms, which kill the wildlife, while the right wing business party is called 'the Moderates'. Be careful whom you vote for! :) )
This was a savvy political move last election time, because the Social Democrats really do have a ton more experience in governing, and the right wing parties keep making idiot mistakes, nationally and locally, which sure _look_ like 'these midwit fools are out of their depth' in their experience with local government. On the other hand, who was ever going to trust the Social Democrats further than they can throw them? The people who believed in the principles that the Social Democrats renounced can rightly feel betrayed by them, while the ones who like the new-look Social Democrats can all see how quickly they were to change their coats. Plus the Social Democrats are really lousy at apologies. They always end up saying something like 'we are so sorry that we made understandable errors, which has resulted in our learning ever so much so that we are now superior in our wisdom, most excellent, and ah, what was I supposed to be saying again?'
The right wingers said 'we are going to Denmark for advice' and now have an immigration policy where you have to made over a certain threshold in salary, and where citizenship takes longer, and where much less in the way of 'family reunification' is allowed as a reason for immigration. They are working on language and Swedish culture requirements.
So, ah, the effort isn't that hidden any more. And the left-leaning newspapers are having a fit this week about how popular net emigration is. They are beating the 'aren't you ashamed you feel this way, plus isn't it bad for economic competitiveness?' drum, but people are writing back letters to the editor and opinion pieces mostly saying 'not a bit' rather than 'well-said'.
However, I live in a precinct that has voted Moderaterna and Christian Democrat for many decades, so my sample of _how_ popular this is may be biased. Around here the answer is 'very'. To the point that people are celebrating it along with the crayfish (it is the season for crayfish parties) and the perseid meteor showers (best viewed last night and tonight).
Very good. I hope there will be more reason for you and your compatriots to celebrate in the near future. Finally, some sanity prevails in Sweden. It always troubled me whenever I heard such disturbing and egregious news coming out of Sweden over the years. I wish your country well.
I find this deviously subversive: 'aren't you ashamed you feel this way, plus isn't it bad for economic competitiveness?' Though, I think we've all seen enough of leftist treachery to know that such is to be expected from the likes of them. I find it quite risible that they still persist in holding that trite and tired economics argument as their sword in the immigration debate.
Thank you very much for your time. You've written for us a lucid window into your part of the world. It was a most interesting read.
We elected a new government in 2022. 'We like nuclear energy' and 'We don't like crime' were understandably popular. So, just this week, the minister for migration is announcing that we had the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997. And net emigration (not immigration) for the first time in 50 years, with Syria, Iraq and Somalia among the places where more people left for, rather than come from.
see: https://regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/08/fler-utvandrar-an-invandrar-till-sverige-for-forsta-gangen-pa-over-50-ar/ (in Swedish but google translate does a good job). So it may be that the taboo is a thing of the past? It will take a while before we know for sure.
Yes, it will be interesting to see the developments in the next few years.
There are a number of topics in Sweden that have long been and still are considered public (political) taboos. Immigration is one of them. Others have historically included nuclear power and hydropower. There are more. All of them are politically charged.
Besides making it difficult to obtain statistical data for research, public people attempting to discuss these topics could be ignored, made “unpopular” or tacitly banned from accessing the media. These topics are swept under the carpet not to shake the boat until the boat is on the brink of capsizing.
There is an opinion that such attitude is due to the local cultural norms that impose and celebrate a not-showing-off behavior which can foster cowardice to voice an opinion that is different and willingness. However this seems more of an institutionalized behavior rather than simply a cultural norm. If so, then it seems to be a differentiating feature of the Swedish democracy. How democratic it is is up to each one to decide.
Thanks for this writing, very interesting!
Thanks for writing this.
As you may know, an article in a top econ journal ran into a similar taboo studying Swedish immigrants-- the author was clear about the conditions imposed upon his research. Still an excellent paper despite the partial ban on inquiry.
With a little digging someone could connect the dots.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/univ-board-in-sweden-suppressing-research-on-immigrant-income
Oh, thanks! Hadn't actually seen your piece on this. I actually mention exactly that part from Andreas Ek.
Seems we have all too similar problems in the USA. Here journals have been reluctant to publish anything pointing out negative differences in our immigrants--much less of racial categories in the general population. To study such distinctions—example IQ—as a university faculty member is a career ender. Nonetheless crime statistics have been commonly published using such data.
To read that there are “prosecutors” examining such studies’ findings, under any circumstances, is completely alien to this American. Although our legal system is admittedly in the process of collapse, heretofore the “truth” was legally considered the ultimate defense against slander.
It would seem to this (naive) American that ignoring truth to placate “feelings”, or achieve some sort of political objective, can end in no good for science or the nation. Good luck with that.
I am glad you included the detail that the person who made the complaint, trying to ruin the researchers careers because they said the truth, was female. Yes, one could question the relevance of this fact, but I appreciate your bravery in including it. The trend toward totalitarian thought control that your piece explores is an example of the feminization of society. It is not all women, or only women, but /is/ an example of feminization of culture.
This is political kitsch in the domain of sociology, a metaphysical ban on "shit" (cf. Kundera), a trait of communist regimes which insist on living in the la-la land of ideology in defiance of actual reality, especially the reality of ideology, such as the consequences if certain immigration policies.
People who mention "shit" in a world supposedly devoid of it cannot be tolerated. They must be morally gulagged.
Re academic complaints like that against Khoshnood et al: it seems to me reasonable that complainants are held to the same standard that their targets are being held to. By which I mean that they also get a full investigation into all of their work, lasting as long.
By this means frivolous or politically motivated complaints would be discouraged. And standards of work would be raised.
So people in Sweden or the UK can't say things like African and Middle Eastern migrants commit a lot of rapes in the country. And yet these same people think that Russia and China are bad places because they don't have freedom and democracy.
How do people hold these thoughts simultaneously without their brains exploding?
How could you leave Joakim P. Jonasson out of your article? As a truck driver, he compiled a report on rape in Sweden showing the staggering overrepresentation of MENA migrants by country of birth. In 2017, even private individuals in Sweden could buy summaries of court judgments going back years. And in them, the offender's place of birth and mother's name were listed. Obviously Jonasson did not make the material, I believe it was the brainchild of a researcher of Balkan origin at a Swedish university, who was subsequently fired.
https://archive.org/details/SexualbrottslighetKalldataOds
This piece is about the taboo of researching immigration in Sweden, it's not about what the actual data says regarding, say, immigration and crime in Sweden. That's because I have an entire different article devoted to that which, among many other things, mentions the report by Jonasson.
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/immigration-and-crime-sweden
It's clear. But Jonasson's material, who took the statistical analysis on his name, shows precisely that no one in the research-university teaching community dared to take on this analysis on his name alone!
One more thing. It's not Sweden, but Denmark, but the case of Professor Helmuth Nyborg would also belong here: he published an article in 2011 on how the MENA migrants to Denmark would cause the Danish human capital to deteriorate fatally. It cost him his emeritus professorship to publish the article. In addition, a Danish government committee tried to get the editors of the scientific journal to withdraw the article. They argued that Nyborg could not do the model calculations and that his article was only one author's work. The editor refused the request because Nyborg could prove that the statistician who had done the model calculations had himself requested not to be listed as a co-author because he did not want to get in trouble!!!
Thanks to the authors of sharing this, am swedish and crazily frustrated over this migrant woke-taboo!
Fascinating. Perhaps try to bring this to Elon Musk's attention - easier said than done, I realise, but it's a topic which interests him, and he has the clout to give it greater coverage. Good luck!
Surely the relevant factor is that it was a female graduate that complained about the study. As far back as the 1980s feminsts in both Denmark and Sweden were angry about statistics showing a correlation between a dramatic increase in rape and asylum seekers entering their countries. White feminsts operate in a zero sum game mindset and anything that might make their own ethnicities average guy look better behaved towards them than a brown or black male is unwanted. Scandinavian males are the original cucks. I remember my late father telling me a story from 1970s Sweden where an immigrant from the former Yugoslavia who was working in a car plant was arrested by the police for keeping his wife locked in their apartment while he was at work. When he was asked why he said that he didn't want her to start copying the whore like behaviour of all the Swedish women.
It seems there is some very powerful subterfuge active in Sweden. I wonder... To what end? What type of intervention will it take to break the hold of such inimical interests? For Sweden's sake (and the whole of Europe), I hope there are some courageous efforts hidden within their midst. So that the truth may finally be set free.
Thank you for what you do.
Well, one theory is that hiding such things was because it would make the Social Democrats' immigration policies look bad. If that is the case it is all over -- they lost the last election largely because so many people detested these policies. There is nothing to prop up any more. And, indeed, the Social Democrats (whom, you understand, mostly don't do things because they believe the rhetoric they preach, but instead preach the rhetoric they think will get them elected) are now saying 'it was all a mistake' and 'multiculturalism has failed' and 'it was never a viable project in the first place'. So, last election, they campaigned on 'we will make the immigrants assimilate and we will do a better job of it than the right-wing parties because we are straight-up better (more competent) at governing'. Besides, they said it was all the fault of our junior partners in our government coalition, the Greens and the Centre Party. (The Centre Party, in Sweden, in keeping with the theory that the name of the political party should never say what it does on the label, is where the NGO and academia class tends to cast it's vote. And the Greens are busy trying to destroy the environment with highly polluting wind farms, which kill the wildlife, while the right wing business party is called 'the Moderates'. Be careful whom you vote for! :) )
This was a savvy political move last election time, because the Social Democrats really do have a ton more experience in governing, and the right wing parties keep making idiot mistakes, nationally and locally, which sure _look_ like 'these midwit fools are out of their depth' in their experience with local government. On the other hand, who was ever going to trust the Social Democrats further than they can throw them? The people who believed in the principles that the Social Democrats renounced can rightly feel betrayed by them, while the ones who like the new-look Social Democrats can all see how quickly they were to change their coats. Plus the Social Democrats are really lousy at apologies. They always end up saying something like 'we are so sorry that we made understandable errors, which has resulted in our learning ever so much so that we are now superior in our wisdom, most excellent, and ah, what was I supposed to be saying again?'
The right wingers said 'we are going to Denmark for advice' and now have an immigration policy where you have to made over a certain threshold in salary, and where citizenship takes longer, and where much less in the way of 'family reunification' is allowed as a reason for immigration. They are working on language and Swedish culture requirements.
So, ah, the effort isn't that hidden any more. And the left-leaning newspapers are having a fit this week about how popular net emigration is. They are beating the 'aren't you ashamed you feel this way, plus isn't it bad for economic competitiveness?' drum, but people are writing back letters to the editor and opinion pieces mostly saying 'not a bit' rather than 'well-said'.
However, I live in a precinct that has voted Moderaterna and Christian Democrat for many decades, so my sample of _how_ popular this is may be biased. Around here the answer is 'very'. To the point that people are celebrating it along with the crayfish (it is the season for crayfish parties) and the perseid meteor showers (best viewed last night and tonight).
Very good. I hope there will be more reason for you and your compatriots to celebrate in the near future. Finally, some sanity prevails in Sweden. It always troubled me whenever I heard such disturbing and egregious news coming out of Sweden over the years. I wish your country well.
I find this deviously subversive: 'aren't you ashamed you feel this way, plus isn't it bad for economic competitiveness?' Though, I think we've all seen enough of leftist treachery to know that such is to be expected from the likes of them. I find it quite risible that they still persist in holding that trite and tired economics argument as their sword in the immigration debate.
Thank you very much for your time. You've written for us a lucid window into your part of the world. It was a most interesting read.
Everyone knows the answer or reason but they don’t want to point out the obvious