Courtesy of a Swedish newspaper (it’s translated so pardon the syntax; also emphasis added).
The 28-year-old Iraqi was so unhappy with the standard asylum in Finland that he chose to go back to Sweden and raping a Swedish woman on the night train. The woman did not at first notify the man because of his refugee situation. But now convicted rapist to imprisonment and deportation of the district court, which notes that he is not at all a refugee.
Selwyn Duke at the New American writes (emphasis added).
If you had to pick a contender for rape capital of the world, Sweden wouldn’t likely come to mind. Yet it now has the second-highest “official” rape rate of any country. It’s 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants is five times the United States’ rate and is only surpassed by Lesotho, a tiny nation in the middle of southern Africa.
It wasn’t always this way. Once an extremely safe land, violent crime in Sweden has increased 300 percent since 1975. That year, write Scandinavian journalists Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard, “421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.” Why is 1975 significant?
Because that’s the year the Swedish government decided to adopt an immigration regime that would transform Sweden into a “multicultural” country.
This is also significant because 77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, “foreigner” is generally synonymous with “immigrant from Muslim country”). And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
I just have one question to ask you dear readers: How many progressive/leftist libertarians do you hear screaming this? You know, the same ones who screamed about a nonexistent rape culture in the United States? The same ones who bitched about white male privilege with Bitcoin? The same ones who are advocating that we have open borders with a welfare state? The same ones who said that discrimination constitutes aggression?
Do you find that odd? Illogical? Irrational?
Only if you think their objective is a truly free society or the advancement of libertarian principles.
If you think the objective of the Left, libertarian or not, is the destruction of Western civilization, then it all makes sense.
Consider this statement from Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto (the Unabomber; also, emphasis added).
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.
A terrorist he was, no question, and his manifesto is rife with numerous fallacies or erroneous conclusions, but as Roosh V recently noted, he nevertheless perfectly encapsulated the Left’s true objective in statements like these.
With this in mind, it makes sense for them to oppose immigration restrictions without any concerns when the current immigration trends are bringing in non-Western men, or when the welfare consumption is highest among non-Westerners. It makes sense for them to hyper-focus on eliminating borders of Western countries while totally ignore the highly restrictive borders of non-Western countries like Japan or Saudi Arabia. It makes sense for them to rail on about mythical rape culture here in America but completely ignore actual rape cultures, or even enable it themselves. It makes sense for them to encourage young women to falsely accuse Western men of crimes they didn’t do and insist they take classes lecturing them about their privilege, but be reluctant to report real rape when the crimes are committed by non-Western men, or just pretend it isn’t happening at all. It makes sense for them to declare that white Western men are a deservedly dying demographic and need to get out of the liberty movement (or say nothing in protest) while shouting down anyone who has the slightest bit of concern for importing people from countries where libertarian values are not exactly in vogue or how it might be reflected in the political scene when you live in a democracy. It’s why they launch all-out literary campaigns to convince Western countries to accept immigrants from non-Western countries yet say nary a word when Western families (or friendly to Western culture) are almost deported specifically because of their religious and political convictions. It’s why they cry racism and bigotry and xenophobia at Western men who don’t want to be victims of state violence, but are silent when non-Western men declare, after gaining state power, “Today we show the Polish and everybody else.” It makes sense they turn a blatant blind eye to state-coerced cultural diversity that in reality means nothing more than undermining any culture that poses a threat to the state itself, chief of which is Western civilization, the same one that produced libertarianism, Austrian economics, and classical liberalism.
It make sense why they display total cognitive dissonance when looking at state violence. It makes sense they talk about a stateless society but openly oppose any kind of violent resistance and ostracize any libertarian who dares to say otherwise. It’s why they sound radical but behave more like controlled opposition that, rather than be controlled unwillingly, they actually actively seek their owns submission and insist others submit as well.
It really does make sense when you ignore what they claim to be advocating and just look at their actions.
I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that the debate, the fight, this war being waged, isn’t so much about statism versus libertarianism as it is between the civilized and the barbarians, between civilization and post-modern savagery.
We may be the new barbarians in a sense, but that is only because barbarous behavior and actions are considered to be “civilized.” It is “civilized” to not report real rape and civilized to report false rape, but it’s “barbaric” to stand up for your rights and culture rather than promote their extinction.
If that’s the case, I’d rather stand with the civilized, however imperfect their politics might be. Better than to join barbarians who pay lip service to liberty but actively promote policies that will lead to its eventual destruction along with my civilization itself.
This is why we need an institute of some kind. Such an institution would weed out these kinds of people instantly.
Something I’ve touched on before, but let me reiterate here: When we become libertarians, we don’t suddenly join a religion or cult in which the Non-Aggression Principle is the pillar of faith we must focus on exclusively in promoting. I’m a libertarian who wants to use the NAP and the anti-state philosophy to advance my culture, traditions, values, language, beliefs, and religion, so whenever I see actions by the state that cause harm to these things, I’m absolutely against that policy. Any protests to the contrary by fellow “libertarians” are just distractions intended to keep me from noticing how those like me are being politically cuckolded because state violence serves the interests of others who would love to achieve those ends without the state but are perfectly willing to let the state do it for them while they’re at it.
That is the frame of the discussion. That is how it has to be.