It may sound ridiculous, but at this point in time it's true. First Jews kept at home during the leftist-Muslim riot in Malmö during the Davis Cup. Now they're fleeing back to Israel. Sweden weeps anti-racist tears in the press, yet it feels guilt, because it knows it's ultimately responsible for much of the tension.

On the political arena liberals and leftists pretend to be enemies, but they always choose to take sides with what they perceive as the weak party. After WWII, the Jewish people was granted that role, and the Holocaust memory officially became the darker side of collective European history. But the diversity and mass immigration that followed that era, which Europe proved incapable of controlling, is now rapidly backfiring among sensitive groups who historically have tried to wipe each other out from the world map.

After the Palestinians and Israelis clashed together once more, and Israel with US backing boasted military superiority, the liberal-leftist camp immediately switched sides. Now the Jews were Nazis, and the Palestinians were the innocent victims of genocide. Liberals began painting swastikas on Israeli flags during demonstrations. Neutral Sweden provoked Israel up to a breaking point, escalating international relations.

Now Sweden faces the results. Its Jewish population is effectively fleeing the big metropol of Malmö to the Israeli homeland. The streets of Malmö are no longer safe, because rioting leftists and Muslim Arabs are ganging up to take control of the suburbs and communities. Swedish anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiment have escalated into Yugoslavian-esque civil conflicts. The official establishment can no longer be trusted to understand the mechanisms of multiculturalism. And I can safely re-assert my original standpoint, which stands as firmly as ever: the European Right is truly the best and only friend of the European Jews today.

Having tried out most conceivable forms of housing - living with family, living with grandmother, living alone, living in dorm, sharing apartment with friend etc., I've thought about how most young people prefer to live alone these days. In Sweden in particular people want big space, all by themselves. Pure lonewolfing. At some point you begin to wonder why.

Young people before their mid-20s, who are not yet in a serious long-term relationship, should not live alone. They grow accustomed to their own silly drama details without recognizing a larger social whole. That whole can be anything from a friend to a small collective. Everyone is busy blaming socialism for society's problems without recognizing that the reason civil responsibility is declining has to do with our housing patterns. We live lonely lives isolated from each other, demanding the world adapting to us instead of us trying to adapt and master the world.

If you can set aside the small problems that occur when sharing housing with someone, you'll find an immense richness in sharing every day moments, helping each other to mend broken things, partying together, leaving each other alone when that's needed. Collective housing strengthens community spirit, social responsibility, independent initiative and common solutions to common problems. These features are essential in any culture that wishes to escape the pacifying effects of welfare socialism.

While private space is one of the beauties of modern life, I seriously challenge all young people reading this to dare sharing housing with an interesting person, friend or "trusted stranger." Discover that sharing life with other people is more rewarding and fun than having a big, lonely apartment. The welfare State can only begin to lose its power over our lives, once we start building civil bonds and acting in the interest of a larger social whole. Sharing space with other people is a journey that enables you to develop such a lifestyle.

Multicultural governments in Europe all share one fundamental belief: that immigrants coming to Europe slowly and over time will increase their integration with their host culture and society. Of course, with evidence at hand today, we know that time span is sometimes longer than what we at first expected. In places like Britain, France and Sweden we've simply failed at large to create peaceful multiculturalism.

I don't know what it's like to be an immigrant, which is why I stay in close contact with all my immigrant friends to learn more about how they think and live. So I was baffled when my Iraqi friend suddenly decided to stop picking up Swedish girls with me:

Friend: A blonde chick just moved into our dorm. And she's well-equipped.

Me: I'm already busy on other ends, you make your moves compadre.

Friend: Nah, I'm going to try the Arab girl I met last weekend.

Me: How about doing both?

Friend: No, this one is obviously Swedish.

Me: When did that ever stop you?

Friend: I don't feel comfortable around Swedish women. I don't understand them.

Me *slightly baffled*: Okaaay. You've been living here almost all your life.

Friend: But I'm an Iraqi. I want Arab girls you know, I don't want to pick up Swedish girls anymore. I just feel at this point that my heritage matters more to me and I don't feel Swedish. I'm not a Swede, I'm an immigrant, and I want an Arab girl.

I didn't really try to talk him over, it wasn't my place to do so. Instead I was remembered of what European multiculturalists often seem to forget: people don't just abandon their heritage just because they move to a new place. Even if they learn the language, find a job and even end up in a diverse relationship, they'll have things inside that are alien. Reconciling these differences in societies that require agreement on fundamental values in order to exist at all, is one of the greatest challenges (or dooms, depending on how you see it) facing the West this century.

From now on I'll work on ladies without my Iraqi sidekick.

Martin recently bumped up this brilliant article about the job crisis in the humanities, in his post about prestige bubbles:

The follow-up letters I receive from those prospective Ph.D.'s are often quite angry and incoherent; they've been praised their whole lives, and no one has ever told them that they may not become what they want to be, that higher education is a business that does not necessarily have their best interests at heart. Sometimes they accuse me of being threatened by their obvious talent. I assume they go on to find someone who will tell them what they want to hear: "Yes, my child, you are the one we've been waiting for all our lives." It can be painful, but it is better that undergraduates considering graduate school in the humanities should know the truth now, instead of when they are 30 and unemployed, or worse, working as adjuncts at less than the minimum wage under the misguided belief that more teaching experience and more glowing recommendations will somehow open the door to a real position.

Unfortunately, during the three years that I searched for positions outside of academe, I found that humanities Ph.D.'s, without relevant experience or technical skills, generally compete at a moderate disadvantage against undergraduates, and at a serious disadvantage against people with professional degrees. If you take that path, you will be starting at the bottom in your 30s, a decade behind your age cohort, with no savings (and probably a lot of debt).

It's hard to tell young people that universities recognize that their idealism and energy — and lack of information — are an exploitable resource. For universities, the impact of graduate programs on the lives of those students is an acceptable externality, like dumping toxins into a river. If you cannot find a tenure-track position, your university will no longer court you; it will pretend you do not exist and will act as if your unemployability is entirely your fault. It will make you feel ashamed, and you will probably just disappear, convinced it's right rather than that the game was rigged from the beginning.

That's a pretty harsh thing to read for those who've already, or are still spending loans and savings on studying literature, philosophy or linguistics. There are no jobs, and the more people who go on dreaming about a future scholar position, the bigger this crisis will become. It's a disaster, not simply because society just ain't valuing the humanities as high as other fields of study, but really for the growth in unemployment and general disdain among young people.

The situation is even worse, as expected, in countries where government manages student loans, like Finland or Sweden. Here you can basically freeride directly from high school to the university and start pulling out student loans without any specific requirements, other than to actually complete the courses in time. This means a bunch of young people, confused about their lives in general, figure they like to read, or talk, or study some obscure course, and thus start living on loans.

This breeds tons of problems, and I've seen all of it. People who study because they want to party. People who study because they want to decide "later on" what to do. People who study because that's what today's culture expects you to do. People who study to pass time. And people who study, well, because they're confused and are not sure what else to do. This is easy when government pays the dues.

Now, imagine the American situation instead, even if these problems are also American to some extent. Your parents plan ahead for years that their kid is going to college one day. They save, they plan, they put away money, just so that an education will be open in the future. It's a big thing. Once that child goes out in the world to study and become someone, it damn well knows it's spending daddie's and moma's cash. You're actually studying because your parents made it possible for you. As a consequence, you're less likely to screw around, party too much and play games. It's real and you do your best to get somewhere in life.

Student loans are dangerous when they're made available to anyone at any consequence, and especially if the government pays the dues, because governments tend to be uniform, hence indiscriminate. It doesn't make any demands that you do something important with that money. And yet, debt piles up. What's worse, often highlighted by Charles Murray, society nowadays expects you to study at a university, while the truth is that only a smaller percentage of a population should need to. It's an elite institution, not a community center. We pile up debt and broken dreams on top of academic illusions. The humanities, bless its disciplines, doesn't offer us much in the way of jobs. So what does it offer? Dream jobs. We need to rethink our academic culture completely in the West.

At the pharmacy, buying overpriced medicine, I walk to the end of a looong queue. Only one person is serving customers. Suddenly she just walks away without saying anything to anyone. Being Sweden, no one complains or riots. Everyone remains quiet, except...

Old man: Government management...

Me: That's right.

Old man: Pardon me?

Me *turns around*: I agree.

Old man: *chuckles* They're probably on their lunch time or something.

Me: And we're standing in a neat, government managed queue.

Old man: If this was privately owned, we wouldn't be standing here in the first place.

Other people looked at us, no one said anything. They were thinking the same thing. What if we'd let competition do its job? How about lower prices on important medication, shorter queues and more personal expertise? When will Scandinavia treat its citizens, not as byproducts of a gigantic bureaucracy, but as private adults with individual needs and desires?

"Immersing yourself in a virtual world is just as superficial and weak as immersing yourself in the world of putting on airs." - Anon.

Let me tell you a story. It's a short story about a girl in her mid-twenties. This girl was living a fairly quiet student life in the city she grew up in. Like many other young people like her, she studied subjects that would guarantee you'd never get a job, but are interesting to read in contrast to the boredom of bureaucracy and entertainment in Scandinavian societies. You can do that when the government pays the dues and the teachers don't care about your future.

This girl, we don't have to give her a name just yet, spent her time either playing computer games at home, reading up on university essays, or working in a clothing shop. Pretty cute, friendly. She even had a dog. Not a party freak. But there was something wrong. Something that made her life feel empty. If you met her in that shop where she worked or in her home, with her dog, you'd never be able to tell just by the look in her eyes. The emptiness was deep inside and only really known to her.

This emptiness came from a lack of context and vocation. In the Social Democratic society she was living in, she fulfilled the norms of what would be expected of young people like her. She was studying, she had a part-time job, some friends, and an animal. And still there was something clearly lacking. Her life was a line stretched between quiet boredom and occasional bursts of curiosity. She had no personal goals to strive for, no skills to harvest, no social community of which she was a part. She was a member of society, yet so strangely alienated.

So she let her life go on as usual, slowly feeling accustomed and at peace with the kind of monotonous lifestyle she'd managed to build with student loans, computer and dog food. Every day she fed the dog, every day she played at the computer, every day she wrote on her essays, and every day she spent a few hours at the shop, smiling at customers. But who did ever smile back at her? Who would dare to challenge her as an individual? Who would giver her love and let her give love back? She'd never dare to ask these questions--what if there were no answers?

I once met this girl. Her name was Indifference, and we parted soon after we'd met. I believe, and hope, she's never been more happy in her life that what she is today.

"Why can't you stay?"

"I wanna be alone tonight. 2010 is ours. G'night."

Through the stormy, snowy, icy weather I stumble home. Under a bridge I pass two men. They've placed a bottle of champagne in the snow.

"Happy New," one man says joyfully while painting his name on the wall in urine.

Going uphill, I see a young boy and girl kissing while the snow whirls around them. They seem to have lost track of time. Like most young couples they consume each other every moment they can, as if every kiss could be the last. For a moment I share their warmth. It's not cold outside when your heart would like to explode any second.

On my way I pass groups of older people. Happy New Year. Happy New. Nice dog. Yes, it's fucking freezing, but it's not so far from home. I'd forgotten how long it takes to walk home with snow covering every step you take.

When I finally get inside, I crack open a bottle of whiskey. The smoky taste burns my throat. I look outside the window and spot a neighbor looking back at me. That same neighbor who always seems to observe me when I wake up in the morning. Is she waving her hand? This country may finally break the ice and embrace new possibilities. We don't have to be these cold-headed, socially pretentious bureaucrats who lack faith in tradition. 2010 might be the year we change and evolve.

Either way, whatever we'll leave behind, it'll be covered by snow in the morning.

Did you think feminism was a united matriarchal front in the West? If so, this may surprise you, and give you a few good laughs on the way. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Swedish-American cultural divide within the feminist movement. It all starts with Swedish feminists celebrating Elin Nordegren's assault on Tiger Woods:

“Swing it again, Elin!” wrote Jan Helin, editor in chief of Aftonbladet, the country's biggest newspaper, on his personal blog. One of the paper's top reporters, Ann Söderlund, proclaimed, “Thank God for girls like Elin. Next time, I hope she uses a bigger club."

Britta Svensson, a well-known columnist at the tabloid Expressen and a former U.S.-based correspondent, commented, “Our Swedish hearts are overwhelmed with pride, because our very own Elin didn’t take any s—. Just like a tough Swedish girl shouldn't. Elin is our heroine.”

Beat your man down if he's cheating on you--good idea. Of course, feminism using its funny logic, I don't suppose it would be valid for a man to beat down his cheating wife? This is the question a nervous American feminist asks herself:

If Swedish cultural commentators want the world to know that Swedish women stand for divorcing cheaters, I think that’s fine—if a bit odd. If they want the world to know that Swedish women stand for beating the cheaters and then divorcing them, I think that’s a fucked up standard to set for an entire country of girls and boys. Plenty of Swedish girls will grow up to be cheaters, too—do we want their future spouses to grow up thinking it’s empowering to physically assault them for screwing around?

What you gotta be aware of here is that the people cheering Elin's golf swinging aren't all hardcore feminists. No, they're simply ordinary public journalists. Yes, this is the Swedish cultural climate anno 2009. And the American feminists cannot believe what they read. But if Swedish feminists make American women upset, how about when strong, independent women from America--the kind of women Swedish feminists worship, come to visit Sweden? The fun never ends. I present to you Anna Anka:

Anna Anka had an interview published on the Swedish web site newsmill.se where she expressed her wish to be considered a role model for Swedish women and that Swedish men are to equal and should not become diaper- changing house maids they should instead become more like American men, who according to Anna know how to treat a woman but cannot spend more than 20 minutes with their kid without having a panic attack.

Anna Anka’s comments have caused some upset feelings in Sweden, the country of “lagom”, just enough, and “jamstalldhet” equality between the sexes. Obviously it is not politically correct to claim that being a so called house wife can be the goal in life for a Swedish woman. To also claim that such a person would be a role model for Swedish women is of course provocative.

Are American feminists reading this? Yes, it's not a joke. Suggesting that being a housewife is a good thing creates public uproar in Sweden. Not among feminists, but among millions of ordinary Swedish women. Anna Anka became such a huge media figure because of her comments that she ended up at Swedish television during Christmas prime time for several hours. How evil can this woman be? Let's look at what upset so many people, including Swedish feminists:

Anna Anka: “I want to become a role model for Swedish women. In Sweden it is allowed to let oneself degrade, as soon as one has caught a man. I feel sorry for Swedish men. They marry beautiful women that quickly turn unattractive, dress themselves in rags and ignore their husband’s needs.”

I don't know if this is specific for Swedish women, but we all know it's true. Swedish women have been told they're candy forever and only need to look after their own needs. No wonder we cannot sustain happy marriages anymore.

Anna Anka: It was so nice to come to a country [USA]where men know how to treat a woman. Here men take care of the economy, anything else would be an insult to the woman and to the man in the relationship. Overall, American men have so much more style than Swedish men. If you go to a business lunch it never happens that the woman pays, while a Swedish man does not hesitate to insult the woman by allowing her to look for money while he himself is calculating his part of the bill. American men know how to woe a woman. They are very romantic and buy expensive gifts.

Swedish men refrain from paying for dates for two reasons. One, they aren't allowed to, because that would upset their dates, who wouldn't feel "independent" enough. Two, they're afraid their dates will just screw them over on food and drinks. I bet the cultural climate here differs a lot from conservative America.

Anna Anka: Then we have the dads. Swedish dads are pathetic, changing diapers and their equality. A real American man panics if he is alone with his kid for more than 20 minutes. American dads do not cook, they do not iron their clothes, they work and support their families.

I'm not sure American men are that impotent, but what we do know is that Swedish men do everything to try to be equal. And no, it probably doesn't turn women on anyway, so it's just a waste of time.

Anna Anka: American men however, appreciate their wives, they are very romantic. They write little notes, call and leave love messages on the phone. Swedish men never do that.

Leaving notes at phones? Swedish women would call the police. They'd probably file a lawsuit about gender discrimination as well to make some cash.

Anna Anka: and the Swedish people are upset over the fact that I am married to an older man......Remember that people that try to make you look small, are really trying to drag you down to their own level, and that people have the ability to focus on the negative. No one puts up a sign saying Watch out for the nice dog!

She's hilariously clumsy, but she's right: Why are we beating down on her for working out at the gym and trying to look attractive for her husband? Why do women dress out at clubs and parties in the first place? To attract mates. Why would that condition change just because they get in relationships? This is basic evolutionary knowledge, but Sweden missed the train.

Anna Anka: Here [in the USA sic] the mums do not nag on their daughters about education and going to college, instead they encourage them to find an athlete or a celebrity! Isn’t that wonderful?

Well, in a way it is, because right now every Swedish girl growing up is told that she needs to become a college genius. Most of them will spend their time chasing careers, but missing motherhood at the age of 40. By that time they either go to Denmark to buy sperm or cyber date any random man coming along that's up for the task.
Of course, Anka says all of this about Hollywood to piss Swedish women off; what she says is half-dumb, half-true.

Anna Anka: What I would like to say is that in the USA it is all about service. It employs a lot of people who otherwise would have lived in poverty. If the Swedish people had learnt from the USA the Swedes would have time for each other. Now they come home and are in a bad mood and need to clean the house and iron clothes. There is no quality time. Then we have a gigantic problem with the new Internet generation. It is uneducated and cheap, and their lives on blogs and twitter are pointless.

Now you understand why this woman pisses Sweden off. She pushes buttons. No one wants to be told that their life is shit. But if our government-managed jobs really suck, we really don't have that much money after taxes, we really feel our family life is a drag, and if our children are already lost in cyber space and lagging behind in school--why do we try to shoot the messenger?

All of you reading are now sitting on one final question: How could Sweden get this bad? Novaseeker over at the Spearhead answers that question brilliantly:

What “works” in Sweden (even assuming it does so there … chat with some Swedish men about that … I know I have and what I have been told is not very complementary) would not in a million years work in the large, ethnically and culturally diverse Anglosphere countries. But the left, being filled with dreamy idealists, can’t see that reality beyond the end of their own upwardly-turned noses.

Like liberal democracy, socialism and Apple computers, Scandinavian feminism "works." But it won't last. We, aware citizens, are part of a once great civilization. It's sinking. We have to make sure we do not go down with it. Joyfully we anticipate the decline, because we are the few who will rise above.

HT: The Spearhead

Milton Friedman argues against drug prohibition:

One of his more interesting arguments: If we ban drugs because they might harm people, why is it in principle wrong to ban overeating or smoking? The video producers then list a bunch of stuff that could become illegal in America. The funny part: most of it is already regulated or banned in Sweden.

Smoking restrictions: check.

Seatbelt laws: check.

Helmet laws: check.

Gambling laws: check.

Gun rights: check.

Trans fat ban: probably on its way via EU.

Driving restrictions: check.

Fluorescent bulbs: not banned, but regulated against.

Thermostat control: no idea.

Sobriety checkpoints: check.

Free speech: in effect, check.

Everyone in Sweden loves Obama. That is, everyone except me. One of my favorite trolls is to suggest Obama is a phony clown in politics. I pulled this one yesterday on a girl:

Girl: Have you read Obama's biography?
Me: Nope.
Girl: It's really good.
Me: I'm not a big fan of Obama.
Girl, slightly stunned: You don't like Obama?
Me: Nah, I think John McCain looks far more cozy and nice.
Girl remains silent.

I pull this one a lot, with different variants such as "McCain believes in peace," "McCain's daughter is good-looking," and "McCain represents the good in mankind."

Placing yourself beyond common norms now and then is good for you. People who are more social, strong, intelligent, practical or beautiful than the status quo will more easily advance in society. But the best part of knowing your own society well is that you eventually can breach its cultural norms to get ahead of others. Here's how you do it in Sweden:

• Instead of buying a lot of tools you'll rarely need, go and borrow them from a neighbor or total stranger.
• Whenever someone talks about politics, state clearly that you believe in the superiority of the Western civilization.
• While standing in queue in a store, ask the cashier out on a date if he or she is good looking.
• Occasionally accuse random people on your workplace of being Communists. Don't elaborate any further.
• If someone offers candy or chocolate at a gathering of any sort, be the first to grab a bunch and eat.
• While sitting on the bus or train, talk very loudly in the phone about how you're going to violently throw yourself on your girlfriend when you get home and sexually abuse her.
• Repeatedly state that abortion is a sin.
• If any discussion comes to revolve around America, passionately defend the foreign policy of George W. Bush and add that Obama is a scam.
• Whenever you feel cornered in a sensitive political discussion, suggest that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Sweden, and just about anyone can be a Jew hater.
• Swedes like to drink a lot on weekends but pretend to be health experts. The best way to make fun of this is to say that you believe in the State monopoly on alcohol in Sweden, which is why you go to Systembolaget (the monopoly store) to get drunk every Friday. "Then I drive home," you add.
• On the motorway, beep your horn to slow cars in front of you and then speed past them. Give people your finger if they give you angry looks.
• Be very orderly about traditions and frequently ask people if they're going to celebrate religious holidays that have been abandoned for 50 years.
• Regardless of circumstances, if you are offered meat at a restaurant together with co-workers, mention how you love meat, especially if it's bloody red and expensive. If someone adds he or she is a vegetarian, explain to them how meat tastes great.

There's a bunch of funny things to say or do in a culture, whichever it is, which will help you to dominate your surroundings and penetrate deeper into society. Only your imagination and mojo can stop you.

Sweden hates America. But why? Because Sweden regards itself as the most advanced and civilized society in the world. From a Swedish point of view, every country should pass through the same development Sweden has. Of course, that's bullshit. Swedes recognize that when they shift their view to America, the wealthiest nation on the planet, whose political and economic culture is radically different from the Swedish model. Here is a handful of ways in which America's culture pisses Sweden off:

• Two-party system: Sweden, like most of Europe, is based upon a multi-party system. We have the same range between Left and Right, but in contrast to America, these two political ends are less ideologically conservative and tend to share many policies. Yet, as Brett Steven notes, there is no evidence that America would suffer from more mob-related problems compared to any given multi-party system in Europe. The result: Sweden lacks real democratic alternatives, while America offers a limited but faithful range of political options to vote for.
• Muscle flexing: America is constantly doing what Sweden regards as a foreign policy fallacy, namely actually daring to enforce international standards abroad. Sweden believes it's a part of those standards, but resembles a handicapped activist, in that it considers belief in ideas more important than acting upon those ideas. Sweden wants peace and democracy in Iraq, yet it regards Bush's war as the most evil thing since Hitler.
• Anti-socialism: The Swedish model is basically a combination of liberal democracy and socialism. America, in contrast, is a republic constructed to limit the power of both the government and the mob. Yet, despite Sweden's socialist attempts of achieving equality and wealth, America is still doing much better than us, even during a severe recession.
• Strong private sector: Sweden has focused on building a huge public sector funded by high income taxes, while America still regards private business and free markets as keys to prosperity. I don't think I need to tell you what is most viable in the long run. During the current recession, Sweden is forced to do exactly what Sarah Palin said would happen: declining social and health services combined with a business sector slowly being eroded or exported to the East.
• True multiculturalism: Sweden consciously lies about its history in order to pretend it's always been multicultural, when the truth is that it's one of the most homogeneous nations on the planet. America, on the other hand, has a long history of different ethnic groups and cultures. And yet, despite not choosing to enforce multiculturalism by government lobbying like in Sweden, America is in general doing better at integrating its immigrants into society than what Sweden is doing with a handful of people from Somalia and Iraq.
• Patriotism: Americans are proud of their nation. Swedes are proud of their nation, but don't dare to show it in public, lest they in some mysterious way might be interpreted as racist. When Americans walk around and wave American flags on TV, Swedes regard them as fanatic nationalists with guns. When Americans see Swedish flags wave at some government-sponsored event on their TV, they become curious of their cultural roots. An America, despite being patriotic, able to embrace other cultures?
• Pop culture: Lots of polls show that Swedes regard their country as the most Americanized in all of Europe. Yet a quick glance on what's being played at clubs, televisions and radio stations reveal hard facts: Swedes embrace American Hollywood and pop culture. We like Americanization, we're just too goddamn weak to admit it to a super power.
• Conservatism: Obama may appear softly socialist in America, but in Sweden he'd be a radical capitalist extremist. Americans embrace religion, creationism, family values, guns, death penalties, tough international laws and local communities. Swedes worship science, liberal humanism, feminism, guns & drugs ban, soft kindergarten prison methods, soft "neutral" foreign policy making and huge suburbs without local culture. In short, America has managed to both become a leading nation and yet conserve traditions, something Sweden never learned to do.
• Greenist skepticism: The Bush Admin. famously declined joining the climate movement in Europe to meet green emission goals. This infuriates a greenist-crazy Sweden that believes we're all going to melt away unless we cap & trade everything in sight. Al Gore is our hero. In America, to many Americans, he's somewhat of a nut job trying to make money on something else other than party politics. America believes in the environment, but has more belief in capitalism. Sweden has a lot of nature, but not much belief in capitalism.
• Beauty: On American television you can still see beautiful women on news programs showing themselves off because they are beautiful and successful. On Swedish television you see bitter old middle aged women complaining about the obsession around the female body. Swedes are, like everyone else, interested in fashion, beauty and wealth. They're just held back by a Social Democratic moral that says you shouldn't think you're prettier, smarter or richer than everyone else.

Americans and Swedes, do you recognize yourselves? If so, please shake hands and make up for lost times. We need a united West.

I just saw a Swedish documentary about mixed martial arts (MMA) clubs. Swedish MMA clubs, like all other sports clubs, receive benefits from the government to support their activity. Yet moralists and "health experts" now rail against MMA because it's too violent. No money from the government, they scream, this is anti-Swedish.

If the morons knew anything about martial arts in general, they'd realize that the really tough MMA matches you see on television only involve professionals. They know what they're doing, because they've been training for years. They deserve respect, not resentment. Why do we want to cut the benefits to MMA but not to other high-risk sports like hockey or football? Have you ever met a track and field athlete that hasn't been struggling with at least one serious knee- or back injury?

It's all really simple. Swedes don't hate martial arts because of its risks. They hate it because it involves two people fighting against each other. The oh-so-civilized and progressive Swedes can stand angry immigrants setting whole suburbs on fire, top political leaders supporting Communism and the end of the heterosexual family, and stand by while fanatic Jihadists demand we put an end to our freedom of speech.

But when two people fight each other in a ring, the line has been crossed. It's violent, and we want the Nanny State to ban it immediately. Let's all go back to our bureaucratic desks and shut the hell up. Life is safer that way.

Students and teachers at my university program discuss an American science report to highlight gender inequalities. The report suggests that younger women losing their virginity at young age suffer greater risk of depression. The word "chastity" in the report creates a wave of laughter throughout the room.

Male student: "Chastity"? Is this a serious report?

Female teacher: This is what one could expect from America, haha.

Me (with an exaggerated irony): Haha, yeah, good thing we all prefer to be whores in Sweden.

(Silence.)

Female teacher (still baffled): Hrm, so, where do we find linguistic gender inequalities in this report?

[In Sweden everyone thinks Americans are fanatic Christians of low intelligence who want to torture, kill and brainwash the world's population. Except Obama and the Democrats, because they resemble Europe.]

If we know anything about the Scots, it is that they like to drink. While Swedes only have one or two beers while watching football on TV, the Scots bulge down a whole local brewery before the game has even started. Yet, while it would be a big mistake to suggest that the solution to Scotland's alcohol problems lies in the "Swedish model," some insist:

Research has shown that, given the opportunity, both Scots and Swedes binge drink. Yet the average Swede consumes 9 litres of pure alcohol per year, compared with 12 for the average Scot.

"Our own research indicates that the 'Systembolaget' monopoly reduces consumption by 25-30%," he tells me. "As a consequence it also reduces alcohol related problems."

"It takes political skill and motivation to control alcohol problems," Sven Andreasson tells me. "But our policies are based on research which shows the most powerful tools to control alcohol problems in a nation involve price and availability."

The message in the article is surprisingly clear: Sweden's heavy taxation on alcohol really works. But hold your horses, because I'm about to explain why the pro-taxation arguments don't hold, and why Sweden is in worse drunken problems today than it has ever been.

Myth 1: Sweden's government monopoly "Systembolaget" helps to lower alcohol consumption

Then why are Swedes drinking more today than they have been for the last 100 years? Alcohol consumption in Sweden has increased by more than 30 % since the mid-1990s. One reason to this is the heavy taxation; instead of paying more at home, Swedes pay less abroad (mainly Denmark and Germany). Critics say this is because of Sweden's entry into EU and its liberal border laws, but that doesn't explain why alcohol consumption has also increased from Systembolaget. Swedes are simply drinking more, despite the government monopoly.

Myth 2: Tax cuts always lead to increased alcohol consumption

Another interesting example, and close neighbor to Scotland, is Ireland:

Despite having the highest tax regime on alcohol in Europe, our [Ireland's] levels of consumption remains amongst the highest.

With easier movement of people and travel a much more common pursuit, it is increasingly easier to buy alcohol from abroad- something that would only be encouraged by higher taxes at home.

Furthermore recent research carried out in Scandinavia and published in the periodical Addiction showed that consumption of alcohol fell or remained flat following cuts in taxes on alcohol in Sweden and Finland.

Apparently there's not necessarily a casual relationship between price and consumption. Even the liberal government institutions admit this. Take a look at this graph for instance:

Looking at this, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that there's a relationship of causality going on here, when experts themselves merely hint at a relationship of correlation:

There is a clear association between price, availability and consumption. But there is less sound evidence for the impact of introducing specific policies in a particular social and political context:

• our analysis showed that the drivers of consumption are much more complex than merely price and availability;
• evidence suggested that using price as a key lever risked major unintended side effects;
• the majority of those who drink do so sensibly the majority of the time.
Policies need to be publicly acceptable if they are to succeed; and
• measures to control price and availability are already built into the system.

The influence of price on consumption is complex. For one thing, there
can be cross price effects ie if the price of one alcoholic beverage increases relative
to the others, some consumers may switch to a cheaper alternative. There is also
the question of incomes. The effects of increases in prices may be reduced or
cancelled out by increases in disposable income.

Do we really expect brainless and slow bureaucracies to calculate those complex relationships? Obviously price affects consumption, but does lower prices necessarily mean people booze more? Apparently not. We also know that high prices don't necessarily limit boozing--Ireland and Sweden are two examples of this, so something is wrong with this pro-taxation argument.

Myth 3: Tax cuts is the primary factor in limiting alcohol consumption

Since there's no clear causal relationship between price and consumption, we don't know this, because there are several counterexamples. Other factors that may be equal to or even more important than price:

• Greater wealth: if young people began boozing more in the UK after the 1960s, we might as well point to an increasingly richer middle class, which acquires new needs with more cash in the pocket.
• Cultural attitudes: Danes are famous for their drinking culture, as are Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen. How come? Continental cultures have a different attitude to alcohol than, say, genuinely Nordic countries. Put simply, while the Continentals drink a little now and then, Swedes drink it all during two days a week. Danes often have a drink or two after work, and then they go home. In Sweden this is taboo behavior; people would suspect you're an alcoholic. In Sweden you drink nothing during work days, until Friday and Saturday, when you pour down it all at bars and clubs open to till 4 am the next day. In England whole families meet at the pub to socialize. In Sweden people would think the parents were terrible people who need government support. That these cultural differences aren't mentioned when comparing Swedish and Scottish alcohol consumption is proof of cheap journalism.
• The liberal revolution: "The birth of the Celtic Tiger led to dramatically increased disposable income, a more liberal society where values like obedience and abstinence were no longer prevalent and changes in work and commuting routines which added to changing consumption patterns." Not that hard to understand: it would be deeply scandalous if young people in Sweden began boozing and trashing the city during the 1930s or 40s. After the leftist-liberal revolution in '68, youth culture began and young people started having random sex, drinking, doing drugs and voting for more government policies. This is uncomfortable for North European Nanny States to admit, because their whole voting base is centered around the ideals from this liberal-leftist revolution. That it brought reckless drinking no longer rooted in tradition, no one wants to mention. The lack of traditional drinking (= drinking certain spirits at certain occasions under certain conditions only) has of course made people more prone to drink when they feel like it, which was rarely the case back in history.
• Existential crisis: it's not news that Europe's populations don't feel well. Suicide rates are sky-rocketing among young people. When you feel your life is shit, it's easy to start drinking or doing drugs. But governments don't know how to treat social or cultural problems, so it's much easier to point to bureaucratic figures like prices and spend all energy beating down on that instead.
• Globalization: of course EU and the process of globalization in general has led to increased binge drinking across the chart. But this is the development we're seeing today and suddenly enforcing protectionist policies against alcohol trade over borders don't seem like a realistic solution. In fact, it would go against everything else that Sweden and Scotland supposedly stand for.

I can think of more, and so can you, I'm sure, so let's just agree that price obviously not is a lone factor in this equation, and most likely not the primary one, considering what we already know.

Myth 4: If you don't support the Nanny State, you support the evil alcohol industry

Here we go. This same argument always comes up with the tobacco industry as well. OF COURSE, alcohol industries want to sell their products. Why wouldn't they? Interestingly, so does our governments, because the tax increases help bureaucracies expand their interests and services. So we have two "bad boys" playing against each other, rather than some innocent governmental institution against some evil industry complex against public health. This whole argument is ridiculous for two reasons:

1. Reputation: Why would the alcohol industry really want out-of-control binge drinking? The more problems with alcohol and public health/safety, the more the press will stress the dangers of alcohol and thus hurt profits for the industry. Industries don't like to get bad reputation. This is especially true for local breweries who see their mission more as a cultural one than as an economical one.

2. The industry pours in money to health organizations and frequently warns about health dangers associated with binge drinking.

The alcohol industry wants to make money, but it's hardly evil, and we'd be quite mistaken if we assumed the government is any less irresponsible. In fact, our governments are currently making money off of drunk people doing stupid things, yet this way is somehow supposed to be better than if the money landed in the pockets of industries who at least create job opportunities.

Myth 5: If you believe in individual responsibility, you are a careless person

From New Zealand's Drug Foundation page:

Firstly, alcohol is an addictive substance. Addiction and dependency seriously impair the ability to make rational decisions.

This is not an argument against the belief in individual responsibility. No one claims alcohol isn't addictive or doesn't affect you. On the contrary, if this substance really is so bad, people need to think about how they use it.

Secondly,consumers find themselves in an environment in which several millions of dollars are spent on alcohol marketing.

They do, but do they drink because of the ads themselves, or the culture they're in? Ads might trigger behavior, but that behavior is already there if you look at a specific culture. In other words, we need to look at the cultural environment and not just prices. This is still not an argument against individual responsibility, or the belief that the industry should be able to promote its products.

Another important aspect to keep in mind is that harmful alcohol use is rarely an individual problem. Rather, it impacts on family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues and, ultimately,society as a whole.

Individual responsibility and individual problems are two different things. It's still possible, without any contradictions, to hold the belief that promoting individual responsibility will benefit the social whole. The argument also overlooks pure facts like the increase in Swedish alcohol consumption despite price control.

Contrary to the widely held misperception, alcohol harms are not confined to the heaviest drinkers in a population but are much more widespread. For example, recent research from Finland found that the majority of problems occurred in 90 percent of the population consuming moderately, compared to the 10 percent of the population drinking heavily.

Of course they did--do you really think 10 % of a population can top the riot of 90 %? The majority of a population who drink moderately is naturally expected to cause more general trouble, which may be related to alcohol, but probably involve a range of other factors. For instance, if I had a beer one night at a bar and later got into an argument with my girlfriend and began fighting her, I would be a part of these statistics. Yet few people would suggest the alcohol was to blame at all. It'd be like saying the majority of sane drivers get involved in more car accidents than drunk drivers. So?

Myth: Raising prices has no effect on heavy or binge drinkers. This myth is widely disseminated by certain sectors and frequently cited in media reports. Yet the evidence shows the opposite is true. Price increases and a set minimum price have a much greater effect on heavier than on lighter drinkers, with modest or only small extra financial cost to lighter drinkers.

But if the heavy drinkers cause minimal problems compared to moderate drinkers, why should we care? The conclusion remains: we punish a great majority for a minority's drinking problems. But the minimum prices are so "modest" and only mean a "small extra financial cost" to light drinkers, you say? If they're so small no one should care, why do you claim people do care and actually lower their alcohol consumption? There's clearly both confusion and hypocrisy behind the central pro-taxation arguments.

Myth 6: Legislation is effective in changing cultural behavior

Is it? NZ's Drug Foundation continues while drawing parallels to smoking:

While legislation alone won’t change our drinking culture, its role in shaping behaviour should not be dismissed outof hand. Our view is that legislation has a crucial role to play in influencing the drinking environment, which is currently oriented towards ease of access and excess. We also believe there are important parallels that can be drawn from the success of anti-smoking legislation, where a substantial culture change has occurred following the enactment of smokefree legislation. There has been a significant shift in attitudes towards smoking in public places since the smokefree legislation.

No one is dismissing legislation as unimportant, otherwise we wouldn't object to it, but the fact that people smoke less at public places doesn't really mean people smoke less overall. We want to control the consumption of alcohol, not control where people drink, so this parallel is pretty uninteresting. If people smoke less today (if they do, in NZ or in Sweden) is probably more due to a recent interest in health and environmental trends than the silly warnings on smoke packages that say "Cancer can kill you" or "Smoking poses a dangerous health risk." If we put signs on cannabis packages that said "When you're high, you may lose self-control," would that reduce the smoking of drugs? Yeah, it's that silly.

Myth 7: Alcohol is a "special" commodity

The Drug Foundation adds:

Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is an addictive substance that can lead to long-term dependence. It isassociated with a range of acute and chronic health harms and has been classified by WHO as a Class 1 carcinogen, alongside asbestos, formaldehyde, mustard gas and plutonium-239.

Why would this make alcohol a "special" commodity? I know a lot of things that are either inherently dangerous, or can be misused to become dangerous. Should we raise prices on knives because some people use them to kill people instead of food? There's no clear argument why alcohol would be a commodity exempt from basic economic market laws. Creating a monopoly on something like alcohol or drugs feeds illegal markets. This is one simple law that's already come true during every prohibition in history, both in America and Europe. Why do you think teenagers buy dope from gang lords in slums? Because if an industry doesn't sell it, crack heads will.

Myth 8: Without government monopoly, the rich selection of alcohol at a place like Systembolaget wouldn't be possible

The last time I was at a bar, I spoke with the owner while sipping a Czech Staropramen Granat (sweeter than the original, recommended). He told me the local city once had a fine brewery, but it closed down a few years ago. "That's how it goes with Big Capitalism eating everything up," he finished off saying. Maybe he was right: there was no market for that product, so it had to go. As Frank has noticed, tracking down finer European beer in the States isn't as easy as it is for a Swede to walk into any Systembolaget store and buy home a rare Belgian ale no one's ever heard of.

But there are a few problems with this argument. First, do we really want that monopoly control and price fixing that goes along with being served a selection of spirits that a majority of people are unlikely to ever explore to its fullest (hilariously, when you walk into a Systembolaget store, most people cram down mediocre beer brewed by Swedish companies)? Secondly, just because you cannot survive on doing something, it doesn't mean you should have the government to back you up. That line of argumentation, if applied to most or all commodities on the market, would be insane (i.e. Communism).

Third, and most importantly, because this is what I told the bar owner: Yeah, I guess too few people bought from that brewery, but how well did they market themselves? What if they'd both sell to Systembolaget (or any bigger liquor store if we didn't have monopoly) and export to Europe? The rest of Europe is fascinated by Swedish beer. It wouldn't be hard to find customers if the product was good. Just look at Stockholm Beer Festival; local Swedish beer is going stronger than ever. It should also be noted that Swedes have lately changed from a beer-nation to being a wine-nation.

Conclusion: Nanny State control is not effective in limiting alcohol abuse

Looking at the pro-taxation and pro-monopoly arguments, we see that a Nanny State controlling people's urges through price control and market intervention is a pretty ineffective and misdirected policy. So what can we do about the alcohol related problems? As a Conservative, I propose:

• A sound (Continental) pub culture.
• Linking alcohol consumption to special occasions through cultural traditions.
• Creating alcohol societies for the public where taste and quality are central, and notions of getting drunk are discarded as immature and misdirected.
• Stronger parental involvement in what their kids do at night.
• No alcohol monopoly, but start out by keeping Systembolaget as private-run companies offering a wide range of products.
• More public health figures on TV who promote a sound lifestyle and link it to physical and mental well-being and success.
• A better social future for younger generations by embracing private-run organizations where youngsters can perform different activities involving friendship, personal responsibility and independent thinking.

I bet these suggestions combined, which don't really need the help of any government program, would do more good for many cultures than all the price fixing and monopoly creation in the world. Cheers to that mate!

A list of the prominent Swedish composers that I like the most. Nothing more, nothing less.

Franz Berwald

Berwald is most famous for his three movement symphonies, not really recognized until after his death. Maybe like no other Swedish composer, Berwald had complete control over the symphonic format. His compositions follow a very logical structure and are rooted in a German classicist tradition. Indeed, one could call Berwald the Romantic Beethoven of Sweden. His blend of Classicism and early Romanticism continues to impress listeners outside of Scandinavia.

Favorite works: Sinfonie capricieuse, Sinfonie singuliére

Hugo Alfvén

Heavy Romanticist that came to play a key role in the Swedish nationalist consciousness. Listening to Alfvén's works one understands why: motifs packed with Swedish folklore, nature and singing. Alfvén wrote dramatic, wild and ecstatic music, and mastered the instrumentality of symphonic creation brilliantly. Certainly of strong personality, yet so very national in character that most Swedes find his music capturing the Swedish mentality, Alfvén is not to be missed.

Favorite works: Symphony 1 & 4, Midsommarvaka

Johan Helmich Roman

The father of Swedish music who brought Händel and baroque music closer to Sweden. The key work is the music of Drottningholm, written for royal entertainment, but thanks to its musical qualities now belonging in every Swede's music collection. The music ranges from joyful celebration to more melancholic scenes. History was written with these notes; undeniable beauty.

Favorite works: Drottningholmsmusiken

Joseph Martin Kraus

Like Berwald, Kraus was of German ancestry, which is reflected in his music. Often (incorrectly) referred to as "Sweden's Mozart," Kraus forged a new path by embracing the Sturm & Drang era at the time. As a result, his music varies between the Classicism of the Enlightenment and the Romanticism of the early Romantic period. The tension between often solemn, light passages and abrupt, emotive motifs create a rich listening experience that deserves a whole lot more attention.

Favorite works: Sinfonia C sharp minor, Symphonie funèbre

Lars-Erik Larsson

Neo-classicist composer who wrote a lot of pastoral works containing ancient Greek motifs. There's a clear Romantic dimension to Larsson's works, which nevertheless always maintain a clear, rational structure, making it perfect for choir. Not much to say, except that he is one if the better-known composers in Sweden, and his pastoral suit is not to be missed.

Favorite works: God in disguise, pastoral suit

Oskar Lindberg

Lindberg composed on the organ, which was common at the time, and was an in-and-out Christian Romantic with strong pantheistic leanings. Pompous, heavily emotive and religious music expressing Biblical themes and evoking the landscape of Swedish nature. Vastly overlooked.

Favorite works: Organ sonata g minor, Sorrow music, Old carol from Dalarna

Wilhelm Peterson-Berger

Very much debated and disliked to this day, Peterson-Berger was a music critic - and a very mean-spirited one, attacking just about every contemporary Swedish composer. Some still argue whether he ever really mastered the symphonic craft, especially counterpoint. What people do agree upon is that his collected piano works, Frösö flowers, is a wonderful piece of music. Peterson-Berger was a Nietzschean Romanticist, heavily nationalistic, and has remained a musical symbol for the beautiful northern parts of Sweden. No wonder.

Favorite works: Frösöblomster

Wilhelm Stenhammar

Very often played today around Europe, Stenhammar belonged to the line of Scandinavian composers who were baffled by Bruckner and Wagner, but realized that in order to not sound like Wagner, they had to invent a new musical language. Still, Stenhammar's moderately Romantic works reek of Wagner's pompous atmosphere and Bruckner's dense motifs. The unique personality of Stenhammar is his tuned-down (or "aristocratic" as it's been described) dramatic language, never really certain of itself and thus always touching the melancholic. His later works are therefore his most mature expression.

Favorite works: Symphony no 2, Piano concerto no 2

You know what characterizes a really good piece of satire? It's never on the defensive. It always offends by subtly being read, heard or seen like a piece of nasty truth made public by an asshole. This is why Alfred's latest satire will make people laugh. And why these Israelis will not:

Stockholm, Sweden - Dalahest, smorgasbord, meatballs, blonde women and IKEA. These are some of the positive things epitomizing what is typically Swedish. But when IKEA recently decided to change the layout of its latest product catalog, it sparked an international outrage among artists, political analysts and liberal lobby groups.

When IKEA made the controversial decision of switching its traditional font Futura with the more modern font Verdana, Sweden's popularity among liberals dropped by over 20 %. Political analysts describe the situation as Sweden abandoning its true progressive roots. Jens Andersen, Danish typographer and liberal, comments:

"IKEA used to represent the concept of equality in Swedish welfare society: everyone has got the indisputable right to buy the same kind of products and live the same kind of lifestyle their neighbors do. Liberals loved Sweden. Now IKEA has traded its ideals for cheap modernist leanings--it's trying to appear tolerant, but it's really full of suspect pretense."

The Swedish government quickly responded to the international criticism by sponsoring what it calls "feminist porn." This caused Sweden's popularity among progressives to decline even further, prompting feminist lobbyists to accuse Sweden of using innocent women in degrading movie projects to hurt the feminist cause of gender equality.

The situation was desperate when Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt today admitted he has begun housing ten illegal immigrants from the third world in his own private home. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who took the international criticism hardest, was last seen in Amsterdam, working on improving Sweden's accountability by dressing out as a transsexual investment banker.

There was a simple reason why I warned our readers about the swine flu hysteria back in April: I knew governments and health organizations would eventually freak out over this. I was right. Sweden is currently panicking over the 900+ cases of swine flu reported in the country. So far one person is said to have died from swine flu. Before you panic also, consider this:

• There is no epidemic in Sweden. 900 people have contracted the swine flu, but in comparison to tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, which aren't classified as epidemics in most Western countries, this is peanuts.
• We don't know if anyone has died from swine flu in Sweden--these people could have contracted the flu but also suffered from a weak immune system and coughed themselves to death.
• Cases of swine flu already began to decline in Mexico by May, shortly after it began to spread world wide.

Now, what is the Swedish government proposing we do? Of course, in the Holy name of Nanny Equality, we mass vaccinate everyone for millions of tax payers' money!

The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL) is set to recommend that the swine flu vaccine is issued free of charge for all.

"The advantage of having a free vaccine is that there will not be any groups who can claim that they can't afford it. More people will be vaccinated, which is important for society," he said.

These are the recommendations that have been made by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to local health authorities and which were presented at a press conference on Thursday.

Instead of thinking rationally, taking into account that this is yet again not an epidemic and that we're currently in a deep recession with high unemployment, we literally waste millions on vaccinations. We don't even know if the vaccine will do more help than harm, since this it is likely to reduce the power of the natural immune system against the flu. There are even legitimate concerns about the health risks with the vaccine itself:

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

I'll highlight from the article what we learned from the American swine flu vaccination in 1976:

• More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
• 500 cases of GBS were detected.
• The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
• The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
• The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.

Why isn't the Swedish government informing the public about this? Because bureaucracies are brainless entities that exist to protect and justify their own existence. The health department in Sweden would feel impotent if it didn't act upon this issue, which has been portrayed in the media as armageddon. And now we're all going to pay for this party, whether we join it or not.

I won't join it. Simple risk evaluation tells me I am better off taking care of my health and hygiene more than usual, than getting a vaccine that carries a small but notable risk in damaging me permanently. In an ideal (Conservative) world, each person would pay for his or her own vaccine if they felt like it was important. In the Swedish world, you pay for any idiocy currently in the headlines, even if it means your very fall. Let this be a warning for those who still long for a socialist revolution.

Read more about why I reject the swine flu panic here: 1, 2

While America insists on continuing its soon decade-long war in Afghanistan, many political analysts point to countries like Sweden and say: "Look, the Swedes have avoided wars for over a century now thanks to their neutrality. It's time we stop meddling in people's affairs and bring our troops home."

I can see the point of view being addressed, but I'm afraid the argument itself is too weak to even be taken seriously. There is no such thing as "neutrality." Thanks to the global, transnational world we're living in today, interdependence, boards, organizations and unions make us ever more partisan. Even if you actively try to stay out of trouble, that stance in itself (e.g. not choosing to participate in a conflict) is a message; a point of view; a partisan voice.

Sweden is not neutral, although it likes to say it is. It's not neutral to sell military equipment to Afghanistan, especially not when you're taking in tens of thousands of immigrants from that area. It's not neutral to support the independence of Kosovo, facing Serbian backlash at home.

These are small, "subtle" acts where we demonstrate our transatlantic partisanship, despite out never-ending rants about how America is to blame for all of the problems in the world. Instead it has hollowed out our army to the point where we run the errands of the big players on the world political arena, while our national defense barely would be able to scare away a handful of angry Danes at the southern border. Neutrality is a lie.