Very few people would want to live here if they had to pay their own way. Just like Alaska. Just like Siberia. That's how it's been for the past centuries and that's what it'll go back to once our current politicians run out of other people's money.

In my opinion, immigration should be decided upon by the native population of a country, not by some globalist elite cabal that start wars in the middle east and then expects everyone else to pick up the bill when things don't work out as planned.

Many believe this whole migration operation is engineered to destabilize and break western countries so that globalists can usher in global governance as a solution to the chaos. A non-integrated, "safe zone" in Europe would become a pseudo-Palestinian state immediately and would wreak havoc upon it's neighbors due to the inherently incompatible cultures.

For the record, not all globalists are capitalists. Capitalism is merely an economic system that some have used to amass wealth and power. Globalism is an ideology promoted by elites who include writers, politicians, "scholars," oligarchs, capitalists, technologists, military leaders, monarchs and medical doctors. Many of these people do not even support capitalism, they loath it actually, and promote authoritarian governance as a way to usher in "fairness" throughout the globe.

I don't disagree that cheap labor is irresistible to businesses and capitalists. The lengths they've gone in the US to brainwash people into thinking it's creating benefits to everyone is unreal. You're automatically called a racist or bigot if you dare to oppose their illegal immigrant influx.

You're absolutely right, it's amazing how open they are about this. They must feel completely invulnerable.

@Tron

Many believe this whole migration operation is engineered to destabilize and break western countries so that globalists can usher in global governance as a solution to the chaos. A non-integrated, "safe zone" in Europe would become a pseudo-Palestinian state immediately and would wreak havoc upon it's neighbors due to the inherently incompatible cultures.

You nailed it. I hope it doesnt happen in my lifetime.

“If aggression against another foreign country means that it strains its social structure, that it ruins its finances, that it has to give up its territory for sheltering refugees…what is the difference between that kind of aggression and the other type, the more classical type, when someone declares war or something of that sort?”

~ Samar Sen, India’s ambassador to the United Nations

Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion Kelly M. Greenhill[1]

Coercion is generally understood to refer to the practice of inducing or preventing changes in political behavior through the use of threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure—most commonly, military force. This article focuses on a very particular nonmilitary method of applying coercive pressure—the use of migration and refugee crises as instruments of persuasion.

http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/11515/SI_V9_I1_2010_Greenhill_116.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Migration-Displacement-Coercion/dp/0801448719

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Please don't put words in my mouth. "Second rate dumb people" are your words, not mine. Looking at average IQ by country, I guess you would have a point though. That's on you however.

I am also acutely aware of the migrant industrial complex. Without it, none of them would have arrived at the Swedish boarder. If this is a function of socialism or capitalism depends on your point of view I guess. To me they are one and the same in Sweden. Each clamouring for the violent monopoly of the state to impose laws, restrictions and order people around or shoot them if they refuse.

Your trope about middle eastern migrants as hardworking people with western european morals and ethics that just want to work hard to put food on their table and a roof over their head is in many ways incorrect however.

After 15 years in Sweden, only 34% of migrants are working. The rest continue to live off of welfare. This will fuck over any economy in the long run.

For me as an individual, there is no benefit to taking in all these economic migrants, only costs.

We get more unemployable people without viable work or language skills in the Swedish economy. We get more strain on already failing institutions such as law enforcement, schools and healthcare, more segregation and violence (despite massive transfers of wealth from swedes to migrants).

Only benefactors are people within the Migrant Industrial Complex; politicians, law firms, bureaucrats. And the economic migrants of course. transferring vasts amount of wealth from working class people like me.

So, to recap; I stand by my point that should special economic zones be set up without welfare or minimum wage to create migrant ghettos, the migrants would move from Sweden, because the only reason they are here in the first place is for the welfare. Without the welfare most of them would be homeless and starve, as 66% of economic migrants apparently cannot support him/herself even after 15 years on welfare.

Please bare in mind I have made no comments as to the migrants intelligence nor any moral judgements, it is in many ways irrelevant, as the data that's available speaks for itself. Which probably is why all the politicians now all of a sudden changed their minds about these migrants (Angela Merkel for instance). Maybe they realised, that if they completely destroy the economy, they will be out of a job, or at least cop a severe pay cut.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I'm pretty sure you you said it ;)

"All that this people wanted is to have some home, work and live normally"

I'm objecting to your very liberal interpretation of the meaning of the words "work" and "live normally" here. I don't think living 100% on welfare as either "working" or "normal".

You also use the term "good life", which would imply a moral dimension. This I would also disagree with. A good life would be a virtuous life. I would hardly call living off welfare a "virtuous life", nor a good life. I would call it a parasitical life.

Hence I stand by my point. Without the welfare, which would not be there in a SEZ, these migrants would disappear, as they cannot make a living for themselves. They knowingly chose a country where they don't know the language, with a vastly different culture than their own, much more remote and harder to get to geographically than many other alternatives, precisely because of the welfare system. Ergo, no welfare (as within a SEZ) no economic migrants.

I would not mind a SEZ in Sweden though. Our laws and regulations makes almost impossible to be a small to medium size business. A nordic Hong-Kong or Singapore would be a welcome change. I doubt it would be a big hit with the economic migrants though. I also doubt that would EVER fly in Sweden. Our Right is far left by many other countries standards haha.

I'm also a bit curious about your definition of the word capitalist. I think I know, but I'm not sure. I'm guessing it would be the big corporations that are in bed with government in a nice fascistic symbiosis, bleeding the population dry. But what about the small to medium size businesses that have no ties and are granted no favours by government, and have no resources for elaborate tax evasion schemes? Are they evil capitalists as well? Is it the 5 man business down the street that are all equal shareholders in their own company? I'm not well enough familiarised with communist/Marxist theories to know where you are coming from.

I think you guys should read Kurt Vonnegut's first novel "Player Piano" published in the late 1950's. He predicted the new world order and the world we now live in. The novel describes very clearly how a "managerial elite" can control and suppress public opinion and wealth, while encouraging the population to consume the products of their corporate machine.