Tag Archive | Sweden

Manchester terror attack 2017 and the previous terror drills (one in Sweden)

ManchesterAnother terror attack following a drill

This time the terror attack happened in Manchester, UK, which means that we must (apart from being horrified) ask the relevant question if there was a drill prior to the attack as usual? That is because most terror attacks follow one or more terror drills. Sometimes the drill takes place days or weeks prior to the real terror attack, and sometimes even the same day or even the same hour, when terror drills suddenly go live, as is the case with the London bombings 2005. I believe the terror attack in London was a false flag, but people die also in many false flag attacks and I certainly believe this is true when it comes to London.

Yes there were drills prior to the Manchester terror attack as well. Last month in Sweden (three days prior to the Stockholm truck attack April 7th) there was a terror drill involving the Stockholm and Uppsala Police force, and the theme of the drill involved youth being affected by a terror attack at a disco (resulting in serious injuries and I assume also deaths). About 60 youngsters were involved, including specially trained British crisis actors as well as actors with amputations – all from a British company. It must have been a very advanced drill considering that crisis actors had to be flown in from England. A disco with lots of young people is of course a very similar scenario to a concert with lots of young people, and it is of course possible they trained for a ”disco concert”. (Is it not more likely that a terror attack might happen in a modern concert rather than in an old-fashioned disco?)

(There were of course also other terror drills in Sweden prior to the April 7th attack in Stockholm, like a major one the day before focusing on precisely the same street and the same Åhléns store as where the real attack happened.)

I am afraid you need to google translate the section below or read the article itself (in Swedish or google translate) in the newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning, which is part of mainstream media).

”– Scenariot var ett gymnasiedisko med någon form av terroristverksamhet där Uppsalapolisen och Stockholmspolisen skulle göra ett tillslag. De hade äskat sjukvårdsstöd av försvarsmakten för att ta hand om eventuella skadade, förklarar kapten David Bergman. Medverkade på övningen, som avslutades sent natten mot onsdag, gjorde även ett 60-tal ungdomar som så kallade skademarkörer. Även specialiserade, och amputerade, skådespelare från ett brittiskt företag var på plats.

– De är personer, ofta soldater, som förlorat en arm eller ett ben. De sminkas så att deras sprängskada ser ut att nyligen ha inträffat. I sådana här övningar eftersträvar vi största möjliga realism och påfrestning för att sjukvårdarna ska kunna klara sin uppgift under de absolut svåraste förhållandena, säger David Bergman.”

There was also a terror drill last year in Manchester itself, in a shopping mall:

On top of this there was another drill one month prior to the terror attack (unless it was the same one as the one in Sweden). We know this thanks to a film clip where we can see Queen Elisabeth talking to some rescue workers, and when the queen asked them if they had practiced (a strange question in itself), she got an affirmative answer from a female rescue worker who said they had indeed practiced ”a month ago” and it worked like clock-work.

It is very common that terror attacks are known in advance, and the Manchester terror attack is no exception. Here we can see a police officer talking about the terror attack the day after (May 23rd), and yet the youtube clip was posted May 22nd.

If you want to learn more about this attack, I can only suggest that you stay away from CNN. They have the most information, but not reliable information.

There are reports that people read about the news (for instance in Canada) hours before it happened. Also the Greater Manchester Police tweeted in the early hours of Tuesday morning (before the attack): There will be a controlled explosion in Cathedral gardens shortly if you hearing anything don’t be concerned.

”Rachel says someone used a photo of Gemma in a fake profile on Twitter claiming she was a friend lost in the tragedy in Manchester.“I have been calming fears all over the internet since that Gem was safe and nowhere near the event. I just thought, Why? What purpose does that serve?”Rachel said she would never understand the bizarre process of pretending to be someone else online, nor the awful tragedy at the concert aimed at ripping families apart.”
/The Courier Mail

Controlled explosion:

”More than 5,000 soldiers could be deployed on the streets of Britain in the wake of major terrorist attacks, under a secret Government plan, it has emerged. The troops would be sent to guard key targets in major cities if Isil or other terror groups launched multiple attacks on UK soil, under the plan, codenamed Operation Temperer. Details of the operation were disclosed by the Mail on Sunday after accidentally being uploaded to the National Police Chiefs Council website last week.”

From The Telegraph 2015

Terrorattack med lastbil i Stockholm 2017 – false flag NATO-övning eller äkta fake?

stockholm-attack

Denna bild finns i ett par olika varianter med identisk bild av läkaren i förgrunden samt olika bakgrunder. Varför har någon fejkat bilder?

Terrorattack i Sverige – kan inte bevisas eller motbevisas

stockholm-attack.jpg

I bakgrunden syns en kvinna som vi känner igen från attacken i London Mars 2017

(Om terrorattacken i Stockholm längre ner i dokumentet.)

Med tanke på att en del tidigare terrorattacker visat sig vara false-flag (en del med äkta dödsfall och andra med fejkade) så är frågan relevant hur det står till med attacken i Stockholm april 2017. Främst går tankarna till attackerna i Nice och Berlin just eftersom en lastbil var inblandad även i dessa. Terrorattacker duggar tätt så det är svårt att läsa in sig på alla, men jag gör här gärna en jämförelse med Berlinattacken.

Eftersom ”ögonvittnen” skulle kunna vara t. ex. CIA-anställda, dolda journalister eller köpta på annat sätt (FEMA-skådespelare), så kan tyvärr inte ögonvittnen användas som bevis åt endera hållet. Jag säger detta eftersom folk stenhårt accepterar vad som helst som visas i media om det handlar om personer som presenteras som ögonvittnen. Men det kan handla om sanna ögonvittnen eller falska. Framför allt är det CNN som man ska undvika för att inte hamna i centrum av lögnproduktion, där Anderson Cooper ofta arbetar som intervjuare av just ögonvittnen till terrorattacker. Han är enligt uppgift före detta CIA-agent, men sanningen skulle också kunna vara att han fortfarande är det.

Berlin December 2016 – lastbilen som INTE körde in på julmarknaden

Berlinattacken kan omöjligt ha gått till som den officiella historien kräver. På filmerna syns tydligt att lastbilen inte kör in på julmarknaden utan dundrar förbi rakt fram som resten av trafiken. Ändå ser man en del människor i samma veva tokrusa därifrån. Varför springer de? Om föraren skulle ha kört in på parallellgatan (julmarknadsgatan) som krävs för att historien ska fungera, så skulle dessutom bodar, stolpar, granar, dekorationer, etc, vid ingången ha drabbats betydligt hårdare än utfallet. Om lastbilen skulle lyckats med att forcera stolphinder och annat så borde den nedre fronten på lastbilen ha blivit totaltdemolerad (och bromsat in hans framfart), men utfallet visar att det snarare är glasrutan (övre fronten) som blev totalkrossad – måhända av den mjuka julgranen som man kan se sticka ut ur rutan… ?

Det verkar som om lastbilen aldrig befunnit sig på julmarknadsgatan utan endast backat in vid den tänkta utfarten, bl a därför att bilderna visar att lastbilens baksida står precis mitt emot en av gatans pelare – som hindrar lastbilen för att backa längre än vad pelaren medger. Om lastbilen skulle ha åkt på julmarknadsgatan med totalkrossad framruta, så kan man undra hur föraren lyckades att styra in fordonet precis mellan en bod och ett annat hinder, och utan att skada pelaren som står i vägen? Hur kommer det sig att nätet med ljusdekorationer fortfarande hängde kvar efter lastbilens framfart, trots att de hängde på lägre höjd än lastbilens? Kröp lastbilen under? En film strax efter händelsen (när lastbilen fortfarande står inkilad vid utfarten), visar inga som helst tecken på skadade eller dödade. Det borde vara ett blodbad efter 12 dödade och 56 skadade, men av detta syns inget. Däremot ser man människor som strosar runt med shoppingpåsar och kaffemuggar som om det vore vilken dag som helst. Märkligt. Även att anhöriga valt att köpa ljuslyktor i just rött och vitt som var uppställda på ett flertal olika minnsplatser. (Eller var det kanske inte anhöriga som ställt dem där?). Kom alla överens om att köpa just de färgerna?

Det går att berätta om fler anomalier och märkliga tillfälligheter gällande terrorattecken i Berlin, men min poäng är bara – att om denna lastbilsattack visat sig inte stämma med den officiella historien (m.a.o. stödjer den snarare false flag), så är det väl logiskt att vara öppen för det alternativet även gällande andra attacker? Eller får man inte ens tänka så? Om man inte ens FÅR tänka i de banorna vid något tillfälle så innebär det väl att det är fritt fram för CIA, MI5, MI6, SÄPO, Försvaret, etc att köra med vilka fulingar som helst för att de kallt räknar med att folk på gatan hjälper till att tysta ner de som tvivlar och ställer obekväma frågor? Är du medveten om att även förekomsten av koncentrationslägren under andra världskriget började som en konspirationsteori – men som visade sig vara sanning?

Vad skulle motivet vara för en false flag attack?

Främst har det använts i historien för att motivera krig. Ibland kan detta motiv vara väldigt tydligt, som det faktum att Syriens krigshetsare (Obama & Co) vinner på att utsätta Syriens president för en false flag attack för att visa världen varför en sådan grym barnamördare måste störtas och landet tas över av väst. (Assad själv skulle ha allt att förlora på att använda sig av syraattacker på sina egna.) En false flag skulle också kunna användas för att motivera anslutning till NATO, skattehöjningar och satsningar på projekt som står eliten nära, liksom att motivera lagändringar – som tyvärr innebär mer Big Brother och mindre frihet för invånarna. I USA har false flag använts för att åstadkomma lagändringar vad gäller vapenrättigheter. I svensk press kunde vi snabbt läsa efter Stockholmsattacken att bl a kameraövervakning och hemlig dataavläsning kan vara aktuella satsningar för att bekämpa terrorism. En false flag är ofta gynnsamt för den sittande regeringen/partiledaren eftersom de styrande får chansen att visa stöd och handlingskraftiga åtgärder som kan öka sympatierna från allmänheten.

Jag kan rekommendera att du söker upp den tidigare hemlighetsstämplade ”Operation Northwood” på nätet, och läser hur en helt otrolig komplott (false flag) planerades att utföras gentemot Kuba för att motivera ett amerikanskt ingripande i landet. Notera också att det ingalunda behöver vara ett lands högsta ledare som initierar idén om en false flag och arbetar för att få den realiserad, för när det gäller Operation Northwood så var det snarare presidenten (JFK) som gick emot förslaget (och därmed blev ännu mindre populär bland hans politiska motståndare). Om flera NATO-länder och/eller Bilderbergpolitiker gemensamt bestämt sig om false flag operationer i olika länder, så kanske en svag statsminister inte vill gå på tvärsen mot så stora organisationer och viktiga ledare vilket kanske leder till att han/hon väljer att låta attacken ske. Javisst, det här är rena spekulationer men Operation Northwood är ingen spekulation och inte heller att false flag attacker förekommit. Det är ingen synd att spekulera om det finns fog för det, men jag tycker det är en synd att försöka tysta ner människor som gärna vill yttra sig om anomalier och konstiga sammanträffanden.

Jag känner inte till någon terrorattack de senaste 20 åren som inte föregåtts av en eller flera terrorövningar som gått ut på samma tema som den verkliga händelsen. 9/11 kanske är den mest kända, där det var ett flertal olika terrorövningar skedde samma dag. Här nedan är Peter Power, LIVE i London på Live ITV News (Managing Director of Crisis Management firm Visor Consultants), som ledde en terrorövning som baserade sig på konceptet att bomber briserade vid flera olika tågstationer samtidigt (2005). Han erkänner häpnadsväckande att övningarna blev levande. Det sägs att han fick munkavle efteråt, och ville inte kommentera saken något mer (han hade helt klart sagt för mycket). Det visade sig även att polisen ljög om gärningsmännen som de menade var helt okända för dem och ett ”vitt blad”, men sanningen var att de varit under polisens uppsikt (t o m filmade) i minst 1,5 år innan attackerna.

Lastbilsförare i Berlin och Stockholm?

Amri

akilov 2.jpg

Rakhmat Akilov, Uzbekistan, till vänster och Anis Amri, Tunisien, till höger –Båda huvudmisstänkta för terrorattentat i Stockholm April 2017 respektive Berlin December 2016, och båda sägs ha kört lastbil in i människomassor (med medhjälpare).

Stockholm, Drottninggatan, April 2017

Till skillnad från 9/11, London 2005, Paris, Nice, Berlin, etc, så lämnade gärningsmännen i Stockholm inga identitetshandlingar efter sig i fordonet. Det är annars extremt vanligt att terrorister vid stora attentat noga tänker på att ta med sig ID för att lämna kvar så att polisen lättare kan hitta dem när de sedan flytt … (ironisk). Vid 9/11 så blev tre (3) skyskrapor i princip till grus och t o m stålbalkar smälte, men pass efter kapare hittades intakta i bråten! Ibland händer det också att gärningsmännen hojtar till ögonvittnen när de springer in på ett ställe för att terrorisera, att de är från exempelvis ISIS och/eller att de är islamister. Även om inga ID:n kunde hittas denna gång i Stockholm så finns det andra återkommande händelser som vi känner igen hos tidigare terrorattacker.

Exempel på märkliga sammanträffanden i Stockholm 2017 – ja, allt här nedan kan vara rena sammanträffanden och alltså inga bevis för en false flag:

  1. Terrorövningar dagen innan attacken med flera aktörer – Polisen, SÄPO, militären, försvaret, sjukhusen, flygplatsen, etc. (Polismyndigheten hävdar förstås att det är en slags årlig övning, men det stämmer inte att så många aktörer har dylika övningar varje år. Vidare ändrar det inte på det märkliga sammanträffandet och självfallet har terrorövningar tidigare aldrig handlat om temat med terrorattacker i just centrala Stockholm och vid just Åhléns). Om terrorövningar sker var och varannan dag så borde väl detta annonseras på Polismyndighetens hemsida var och varannan dag? (Vilket inte sker.) Eller är det bara om det sker en riktig terrorattack efter övningarna, som de annonseras?
  2. Sjuksystern Agnetha säger i Expressen (10/4) att hon i en övning den 6/4 anordnad av Stockholms läns landsting tillsammans med krisstödjare i form av läkare, psykologer, kuratorer, diakoner, präster och sjuksköterskor tränade på en terrorattack vid Åhléns. Dagen efter övningen skedde en terrorattack vid just Åhléns!: ”Under torsdagen simulerade vi en sprängning på Åhléns. Det var ett fiktivt scenario med medierapportering om att någon placerat ut en bomb i Åhléns city–” När jag fick höra vad som hade hänt kunde jag knappt tro att det var sant. Det var ju precis som det vi hade övat på, säger hon.” 
  3. Det var även en övning på Arlanda flygplats den 7/4. Flera av tullens anställda hade vapenträning och ett beslut om att de skulle beväpna sig fattades av polisens yttre befäl. Men kort efter kom en kontraorder; att de skulle arbeta obeväpnade. All obeväpnad tullpersonal skickade sedan hem. (SvD 12/4).
  4. Det verkar ha tagit endast 15 minuter för polis och statsminister att förstå att det handlade om en omfattande terrorattack mot Sveriges land, snarare än ett dåd av t. ex en berusad/narkotikapåverkad person.
  5. Tidningen Nyheter Idag mottog information om en kommande attack i Stockholm ca 2 veckor innan den inträffade. Visserligen i tunnelbanan, men det visade sig senare att tunnelbanan verkligen utrymdes i en hast, samt att folk hört skottlossningar på flera olika ställen i centrala Stockholm såsom T-centralen och Globen (som polisen menar inte har något med attacken att göra). Informationen till Nyheter Idag gick ut på att SÄPO skulle ha informerat ambulansansvariga (och därmed anställda) om kommande terrorattacker. Betyder det kanske att de berättat om kommande terrorÖVNINGAR, med betydelse att ambulansledningen därför inte behövde stå till tjänst med ambulanser dessa dagar? (Eller endast några på förhand utvalda ambulanser med kända vårdare.)
  6. stockholm 4Omfattande byggarbetsplatser och avspärrningar runt attentatsplatsen innan händelsen inträffade. (Vanligt förekommande vid false-flags, eftersom man kan spärra av ett större område och förbereda platsen, filma och fotografera långt i förväg.)
  7. Enligt flera vittnesmål så hördes Åhléns brandlarm innan lastbilen körde in i huset och personal ombads att lämna byggnaden. Vittnen har berättat om att de blev uppskrämda av poliser som intensivt manade kunderna att lämna byggnaden pga risk för bomber. Vad var orsaken till att polisen befarade bomber? Det finns också vittnesmål om hur kvarvarande kunder blev inlåsta i närliggande affärer under en väldigt lång tid. Kan det bero på att det var något de inte fick bevittna? Om en lastbil kör in i en byggnad så kanske den första tanken är att det handlar om en olycka, snarare än ett terrorattentat som folk måste gömma sig för.
  8. Enligt flera vittnen så var fyra helikoptrar i luften precis ovanför området ca en timme innan attacken. Eskilstunakuriren kontaktades om detta. Tidningen fick först inget skäl till helikoptertrafiken vid förfrågan, men tog sedan bort artikeln tillfälligt när de trodde på Dan Eliassons ord att det inte hade något med attacken att göra utan var en ren slump. (Det kanske han hade sagt även om det var 7 helikoptrar.)
  9. Enligt flera olika ögonvittnen som kontaktade media, så hördes skottlossning utanför Åhléns, vilket är vad som fått människor att börja rusa. Det rapporterades även om skottlossning vid Hötorget tidigare samma dag (Expressen 7/4), och en del andra platser. Polisen förnekade att det förekommit skottlossningar. Det borde finnas en orsak till att människor börjar rusa på flera gator i en viss riktning, och en lastbil som kör in i en byggnad långt därifrån kan inte vara svaret.
  10. Manipulerade bilder i media (se bilderna ovan). SVT och Expo beskyller utan bevis alternativmedia (eller ”högerextremister”) för att producera sådana bilder utan att ge exempel. Vad gäller den välbekanta bilden med den vitklädde läkare (se ovan foton) så måste man även fundera på var de orangeöverklädda kropparna bakom honom kommer ifrån, med tanke på att kropparna (eller spåren efter dem) INTE finns på på andra motsvarande bilder/filmer gällande exakt samma plats direkt efter händelsen (och med samma vårdpersonal). Har de dragits dit för att komma med på bild?
  11. stockholm 3

    Bildvariant utan den hijabklädda kvinnan. Se jämförelse i bildmaterial.

    stockholm 6

    Denna kvinna från Londonattacken har blivit photoshoppad in i en av varianterna på bilden till höger.

    Ytterligare ett annat foto från Drottninggatan visar återigen en hijabklädd kvinna som bär på en shoppingväska och pratar i mobiltelefon, med människor som springer i bakgrunden. Samma kvinna som i Londonattacken i mars. Även denna bild finns i två varianter – med och utan denna kvinna (bilder på youtubekanalen Peekay Truth). Om vi kan se att några foton är manipulerade, hur kan vi då veta att inte ännu fler är fejkade?

  12. Som vanligt strejkar övervakningskameror (förutom en?) när man som bäst behöver dem. Det är extremt vanligt med strejkande CCTV-kameror vid ”terrorattacker”, och då måste man nöja sig med stillbilder (lättare att manipulera). Eller också är kamerorna avstängda, som vid Londonattacken i mars 2017 för att ”det kostar för mycket” (precis vid parlamentet?!) Inte heller filmer från vanliga mobiler finns för lastbilskapningen och minuterna efteråt. Trots att det handlar om centrala Drottninggatan så finns inga bilder/filmer där man kan se lastbilen köra på Drottninggatan. Endast bilder på lastbilen fastkilad vid Åhléns.

  13. Filmen med lastbilen som drar förbi ett varuhus visar en mörk (kanske svart) lastbil utan bokstäver, medan den aktuella lastbilen var blå med vita stora bokstäver. Visst, vi kan försöka hävda att det beror på att lastbilen körde så snabbt att bokstäverna inte fastnade på film, men med tanke på stora blomlådor och annat så borde lastbilen inte ens kunnat ha fått upp en hög fart pga alla hinder. Nu fanns alltså EN kamera som fungerade, och som fick med lastbilen på film, och så kan man oturligt nog inte ens se bokstäverna. Synd, för därmed kan inte filmen användas som stöd för att det handlar om den aktuella lastbilen. Dessutom är lastbilen på filmen av en annan storlek än den aktuella lastbilen, vilket syns om man jämför de bakre hjulen. Med tanke på hur packad Drottninggatan är fredag eftermiddagar, och med tanke på hur fort denna lastbil kör, så borde gatan vara röd av blod efter att kroppar avlägsnats. Av detta ser vi inget bland bild- och filmmaterial. Varför är filmen inte i original utan filmad med en mobilkamera, och redigerad med suddig hytt?

  14. Hur kunde lastbilsfronten bli så totalt demolerad? Och hur kan någon ha överlevt i en så helt igenom totalförstörd hytt, utan bilbälte dessutom? (Och försvunnit obemärkt trots blödande och med glassplitter – förrän i Märsta.) Varför var det bruna kartongskivor fasttejpade på förarhytten?

  15. Var kommer all jord ifrån på gatan, med tanke på att EN stor betongkruka med blommor inte kan rymma all den jorden (och mycket av jorden var dessutom kvar i krukan)? Hur kan lastbilen undvika att missa den andra betongkrukan med blommor, med tanke på att krukan står mitt i färdvägen? Hoppade den över?

  16. På filmer/bilder verkar de enormt tunga betonglejonen fått fötter, och en har flugit iväg och landat långt från Åhléns.

  17. Varför var en stolpe nervikt och utan skador trots att den inte ens fanns på lastbilens färdväg, medan den stolpe som fanns direkt på lastbilens färdväg står intakt? Om en stolpe får ett betonglejon på ett ton kastad emot sig kan man förvänta sig åtminstone en bula, och vi kan inte beskylla lejonen för den nervikta stolpen hur som helst.

  18. Hur kunde den stora lastbilen ta sig igenom ett par mycket smala gator (varav en enkelriktad) på sin färdväg utan att nudda parkerade bilar och träd? Det måste ha varit en otroligt skicklig lastbilsförare med superkrafter.

  19. Hur i hela världen är det möjligt att en lastbil med dubbeldäck kan efterlämna sig enkelspåriga hjulspår som om det vore en bil? Och hur kommer det sig att spåren börjar oförklarligt på en gata, blir svagare/otydliga (faktiskt försvinner några meter) för att plötsligt återigen bli tydliga och obrutna samt fortsätter på den vägen nästan i det oändliga inklusive runt flera hörn? Det ser ut som spåren blivit ditmålade av en maskin snarare än ett fordon. De slutar också lika abrupt på en gata som de började. (Peekay Truth)
  20. Varför var ett skyltfönster krossat på andra sidan gatan långt från färdvägen och Åhléns?

  21. Ett konstigt sammanträffande att någon lämnar nycklarna i en lastbil och en terrorist hoppar in, placerar sprängmedel i bilen och sedan åker till Åhléns (som man dagen innan övat terrorattack på) där lastbilen precis får plats under taket vilket undviker skada (förutom rökskadan). Liksom den röda lilla kiosken med parasoll några centimeter från lastbilen. Det ser ut som någon måttbeställt både rutten och lastsbilsplaceringen. Räknade gärningsmannen med att han skulle hitta en olåst lastbil utanför Åhléns?

  22. Man kan även se på lastbilsfilmen att det var ovanligt kallt på just Drottninggatan denna dag eftersom en del folk hade både vantar och täckjackor på sig. Å andra sidan kanske det i stället var ganska varmt eftersom vi på bilder kan se vitklädd vårdpersonal arbeta i kortärmat? Är det inte snarare grönklädd ambulanspersonal i långärmat som vi borde se snarare än personer i vitt som ser ut att komma direkt från en varm sjukhuskorridor? Varför kan vi på en film se en vårdpersonal plötsligt dra av sig jackan som vårdpersonalen bredvid honom sedan tar på sig?

  23. Kenneth Lavrell, sjukvårdare i den allra första ambulansen på plats. Ett sammanträffande att samme sjukvårdare också var först på plats när det gäller Olof Palmemordet liksom Carl-Fredrik Algernon (Aftonbladet).

  24. Varför använder man Centralbadet som uppsamlingsplats för sjukvård i stället för att vanligt sjukhus som har all utrustning? Lavrell säger i Rapport att 150 personer på något sätt var drabbade av attacken och att Centralbadet valdes ut som vårdplats för personer som hade mindre skador. Vad hände med de som redan befann sig på Centralbadet? Var de tvungna att lämna? Eller var Centralbadet bokat redan innan? Skulle då ambulanser fyllas med vårdutrustning för alla skadade och åka mellan sjukhus och Centralbadet? (Om det handlar om en false flag är det praktiskt att undvika sjukhus, och i stället samla sina anlitade skademarkörer på annan plats. Vid Londonattacken samma år så inhystes de skadade på hotell snarare än att använda sjukhuset på andra sidan gatan.)
  25. Varför ställs en stege vid lastbilen? För att öppna bakdörrarna och spruta in vatten? Varför inte bara öppna bakre dörrarna? Enligt en annan film kan man se innehållet från sidan som visar att det inte finns särskilt mycket last och ingenting som exploderat. Var kom all rök ifrån bakom lastbilen? Varför börjar det brinna framför lastbilen? Varför är det en brandman som försöker släcka medan tre andra står och diskuterar på andra sidan gatan? Det ser ut som brandmannen på stegen skakar något, kastar in det i lastbilen och ännu mer rök bolmar ut. Handlar det om en brandsläckningsövning?

  26. Vart tog den enorma mängden brandsläckningsskum vägen som syns på film?
  27. På filmer och foton kan vi se 1) det brinner duktigt från lastbilens last och en brandman väljer att inte öppna bakluckorna utan sprutar in vatten i springor, 2) bild visas där lastbilen bogseras ut från väggen och inga brännskador syns bak på lastbilen, och 3) slutligen ser vi lastbilen efteråt där lastbilsinnehållet visas från sidan och man kan tydligt se hur lastbilen är helt fri från brännskador både inuti lastbilen samt baktill. Hur kommer det sig att en sådan rejäl eldsvåda som brinner väldigt länge inte lämnar några spår efter sig? (Youtubekanalen Peekay Truth).

  28. Dan Eliasson menar att gärningsmannan bränt sig på den hemmagjorda och medhavda bomben? Hur kan en sådan skada skilja sig nämnvärt från restan av mannens skador från krocken?

  29. Bilder visas när polisen griper ett antal personer. Varför greps de? Vem var det?

  30. stockholm 2Som vanligt en oskarp och grynig bild av gärningsmannen, och killen verkar hålla sin gryniga pappmugg på ett konstigt sätt med en halv hand. Bilderna visas i viss nyhetsmedia spegelvända. Ändå var denna gryniga bild med person i huva en hjälp för Circle K personal som kände igen honom. Fast då hade personen åkt kommunalt ganska länge via Arlanda, Märsta station och Valsta centrum – blodig och med glassplitter.

  31. Som vanligt är gärningsmannen känd av polis eller myndigheter innan attacken. SÄPO har t.o.m blivit varnade för gärningsmannen från hans hemland.
  32. Gärningsmannen sägs förresten ha gripits nära min egen bostad där jag passerar nästan dagligen. Historien om hur han hamnade där låter konstig. Han lyckades alltså att hamna på Arlanda med Arlanda Express tidigt på eftermiddagen trots att han även hann med att missa ett tunnebanetåg och att irra runt utanför centralen där han lämnade blodspår efter sig. Polisen hävdar att medresenärer noterat hans blod. Gärningsmannen ville ta sig från Arlanda förmodligen för att han inte ville bli igenkänd, men varför fortsätter han då att storpendla hit och dit? Mannen uppges ha tagit Buss 583 till Frejgatan i Valsta (Märsta) men 583 trafikerar inte Valsta. C. För att komma till Frejgatan krävs bussbyte vid Märsta station och om han där bytt buss till 580 skulle han ha hamnat i Valsta C (Frejgatan) och därifrån ska han alltså ha gått tillbaka någon kilometer för att komma till Circle K. Där ska taxichauffören Yousef Djioui ha känt igen honom ca 19:15 (Aftonbladet 17/4) och ett annat vittne (?) ska senare ha krypföljt efter honom i bil mot Steninge allé medan han kallar på polis, och där haffas han efter 7-8 minuter. En film visar polisbilar ila mot området när det fortfarande är ljust och knappt har börjar skymma. Hur kan det komma sig när det är kolsvart redan när gärningsmannen står vid Circle K? Och varför greps han inte förrän ca 20.30? Eftersom mannan lätt lät sig bli omhändertagen så fanns det gott om tid att även studera terrängen runt Steninge allé om det var något som poliserna letade efter. Ändå kan vi se hur poliser går runt och letar i allén i totalt mörker. Men de körde ju dit när det var just? Vad letar de efter och varför så sent? Om gärningsmannen velat till Steninge slott (inte säkert) så hade han gått exakt det motsatta hållet från Frejgatan och kunnat gå dit på promenadvägar nästan i ensamhet. I stället väljer han att promenera på den absolut trafiktätaste gatan i hela Märsta där trafikanter i bilar och bussar kan betrakta honom, liksom cyklister och gångare.
  33. Man får sällan se några skadade/döda vid false flags (går att pixla för att slippa semannequin.jpg det värsta) men ibland visas ändå ett fåtal konstiga bilder som måste tolkas. Här bredvid ser vi ett påstått dödsfall gällande attacken mars, 2017 i London. Bussen är utrymd, chauförren är inte längre kvar, och ingen har anständighet nog att hjälpa personen (även om död) bort från denna position. Kan vi verkligen lita på att vi ser en bild på en död människa bara för att polis eller media hävdar det? (Den här bussen åkte dessutom runt med reklam för en mötesserie som endast var aktuell i februari, trots att attacken inträffade i mars.) Vad gäller Stockholm så finns en bild på en människa som blivit separerad från sina båda ben. Inget blod på vare sig kroppsdelar eller underlag trots att kroppsdelar ryckts isär. Bilden är ryslig, men utgör inget bevis på dödsfall. Ole Dammegård om bilden på Drottninggatan: ”A doctor with 30 years experience has stated to me personally that the torn bodies in the street were NOT authentic. There should have been a massive amount of blood on the site.” Med tanke på att man i terrorövningar (framför all i USA) sminkar träningsoffer på ett sådant sätt att skadorna ser otroligt autentiska ut (har sett exempel), så kan tyvärr lemlästade kroppar inte anses vara bevis på att attacken var autentisk. (Motsatsen kan givetvis inte heller bevisas.) En false flag vinner alltid på att använda sig till övervägande del av utländska omkomna och utländska vittnen.
  34. Enligt UNT (22/3 2017) gjorde Försvarsmakten en övning med avslut sent tisdagen den 4/4, som inkluderade ett 60-tal ungdomar som fungerade som skademarkörer. Även specialiserade skådespelare från ett brittiskt företag var på plats (en del amputerade). Hade de även en funktion att fylla några dagar efteråt (för att göra passande bilder/filmer) när de ändå var i Sverige? UNT: ”De är personer, ofta soldater, som förlorat en arm eller ett ben. De sminkas så att deras sprängskada ser ut att nyligen ha inträffat. I sådana här övningar eftersträvar vi största möjliga realism och påfrestning för att sjukvårdarna ska kunna klara sin uppgift under de absolut svåraste förhållandena, säger David Bergman.” Vidare: ”Syftet med den veckolånga övningen, som har utgått från Ärna, har varit att samöva försvarsmaktens sjukvårdsresurser från armén, marinen och flygvapnet med polisens sjukvårdsresurser från Uppsala och Stockholm.”
  35. Varför kan man på Drottninggatan efter händelsen se en man dela ut gula reflexvästar till ett antal civilklädda personer i närheten, som sätter på sig västarna och börjar visa auktoritet i form av att ropa till folk att backa iväg och sluta filma? Varför kunde västarna inte sättas på redan när de blev kallade till platsen, och vad hade dessa personer för funktion innan de fått på sig västarna?
  36. En vanlig fredag eftermiddag på Drottninggatan är det totalt fullpackat med folk. Om en lastbil åkt den tänkta sträckan hade föraren kört över massor med folk som dels skulle lämnat ett blodbad efter sig, och som dessutom skulle ha bromsat in lastbilens framfart betänkligt. Av detta finns inga spår när vi ser på filmerna direkt efteråt, och lastbilsfronten är totalt demolerad som om fordonet åkt 100km/tim rakt in i en betongvägg. Det enda vi kan se på filmerna är en förmodad skadad som verkar ligga ner på gatan med några hjälpande personer runtomring. Varför är denna skadade person långt in på andra sidan gatan och inte ens på samma gata som lastbilen tagit? Har någon dragit personen dit?
  37. stockholm 5En bild visar en grupp människor släpandes på en kvinna utan synliga skador, där kvinnorna gör det tyngsta jobbet. Denna bild är tagen ca 400 m ifrån stället där lastbilen kört in i Åhléns. Varför släpar man runt på en skadad kvinna på ett ytterst märkligt sätt flera hundra meter från skadeplatsen? Den skadade borde väl in i en ambulans, snarare än att släpas runt i centrala Stockholm? Samma grupp människor finns på flera bilder (hyggligt av polis och militär att eskortera hela vägen), varav en där personen de hjälper ligger ner på gatan. Man skulle kunna förvänta sig att bilden därför är taget i omedelbar närhet av lastbilens färdväg (det är väl därför personen slagits till marken?) men icke. Denna grupp befinner sig på Klarabergsgatan, flera hundra meter ifrån lastbilens färdväg. Gruppen har gått nästan 3/4 varv runt hela Åhlénskvarteret till ingen som helst nytta. Som om inte detta var nog så hittar vi även denna grupp ändra borta vid Kungsgatan. Har inte poliserna annat att göra än att vandra bredvid denna grupp som är ute och går med en människa som anses ha en fotskada? På en film ser det onekligen ut som en trafikant stående framför sin bil erbjuder skjuts, men gruppen visar totalt ointresse och mannen återvänder till förarsätet. (Youtubekanalen Peekay Truth)
  38. Hur kommer det sig att den stora klockan på valvet ovanför ovan beskrivna grupp visar på 10.23 enligt denna film, då lastbilen körde in i Åhléns strax innan kl. 15.00? Handlar det återigen om ett enormt konstigt sammanträffande att en klocka av denna dignitet går fel – eller handlar det snarare om dagen innan under Åhlénsövningen (till skillnad från Åhlensterrorattacken)? Men hur ska vi i så fall förklara att Peekay visar i sina youtubefilmer att gruppen (klädda på samma sätt) först stöter på den skadade kvinnan på Drottninggatan med en skadad fot, bland kalabaliken efter lastbilens framfart? Då måste det väl handla om terrordagen trots allt?
  39. Ole Dammegård nämner vittnesmål om att en massa engelsktalande personer filmat och fotograferat på Drottninggatan kort tid innan attacken (dagen innan). Flera ögonvittnen berättar om ökad polisiär aktivitet vid Drottninggatan dagarna innan attacken. Det var också utländska media (CNN och BBC) som förmedlade nyheten om attacken innan svensk media. (Det verkar också ha varit en konferens i Stockholm just denna dag, under ledning av en känd holländare, med temat hur media bör reagera vid terrorattacker.)
  40. Det kan också vara lämpligt om folk pratar engelska till sina filmer så att de kan spridas lätt även till andra länder. Vi kan se filmer tagna inifrån lägenheter där filmarna av en händelse talar engelska, trots att deras accent är tydligt svensk. På en film tagen långt ifrån attentatsplatsen så ser vi människor springa (okänd anledning) i en rikting och vi hör en person som nämner ”lastbilen”. Hur kunde filmaren veta att det var en lastbil inblandad?
  41. Det var stora problem gällande mobiltelefontrafiken som delvis slutade att fungera, det rapporterades att kommunikationssystem på sjukhus slogs ut och Räddningstjänsten i Stockholm upplevde stora problem med kommunikationssystemet Rakel. Enligt de ansvariga (MSB) så var det dock inga problem med nätet (SR/SVT). Dylika kommunikationsproblem är ytterst vanliga ingredienser vid false flag. Dagen innan var alla bankomater i hela Sverige ur funktion i 1.20 timme.
  42. Ögonvittnen/drabbade har ofta bakgrund inom media/kommunikation, politik och skådespeleri/kultur, vilket passar in på ögonvittnena Linda van der Pol, Linda Flood, Niclas Carling, Nathalie Stuers, Johan Ådahl, Alexander Pärleros, Brandon Sekittom, den omskrivna rumänska tiggerskan Papusa, och många fler enligt Ole. Maïlys Dereymaeker (journalist) var en av de omkomna. Vidare är Carina Wigholm och John Backvidd med i samma liga enligt youtubekanalen They’re Distorting Our Rhythm. Martin Svenningsen benämns också som vittne i TV4 (och säger att han är utbildad för för sådana händelser).
  43. Ole nämner att en vecka före attacken så blir en bror till ögonvittnet Julian Firpo, nämligen Alejandro Firpo, ny statssekreterare vid finansdepartementet.
  44. En ”bästa vän” till den brittiska omkomne personen ses i en film berätta om vilken otroligt fin människa och kompis han var. Varför måste han läsa detta i ett manus? Man kan tydligt se hur han blickar neråt och läser innantill – och när kameran zommar ut ser man t o m pappret i hans hand. Kan också nämna att inte bara Photoshop är användbart som verktyg gör manipulation, utan det går även att förbereda Facebooksidor för att få dem anpassade för gärningsmän och avsaknad vänner.
  45. Varför bar poliser gasmask och dirigerade trafik med dessa på? Förväntade de sig ett behov av sådana gasmasker innan något sådant hot inte förelåg, och är det i så fall inte bättre att vänta med att sätta på dem för att arbeta effektivare?
  46. Som vanligt kan man hitta googlesidor om händelsen daterade innan den inträffade. Artiklar är från 7/4 men google daterar ett par brittiska artiklar 3 dagar tidigare (youtube).
  47. Vid false flag attacker är det ytterst vanligt med minst en tillgänglig buss i närheten så att terrorskådespelarna kan transportera sig lätt mellan terrorplatsen och sitt högkvarter. Se exempelvis klippet med denna kvinna i Norge, som trots att hon fått ett ”horn” inborrat i huvudet hjälps på bussen i stället för en av de många ambulanser som står i närheten (och en ambulans följer efter bussen!). Även vid Stockholmsattacken syns en passande buss parkerad i närheten.
  48. Hur kunde Ramón Uribe Soto (Stockholm) lägga upp foton på Facebook, på ett terrorangripet Drottninggatan ca 30 minuter innan terrorattacken en inträffade? (Youtubekanalen Sky Watcher Tommo).
  49. Varför motiverar en trolig lastbilsolycka att man spärrar av flera gator i Stockholms innerstad, utrymmer T-centralen och andra byggnader, stoppar all trafik till och från Stockholm, och rent allmänt orsakar maximalt drama och rädsla? Men trots alla inställda tåg så kunde alltså den blodiga och glassplitterprydda terroristen utan problem traska till T-centralen, missa ett tunnelbanetåg samt resa till Arlanda.
  50. Hur det troligt att en polisman parkerar sin polisbil under en längre tid i Stockholm och tillåter att människor placerar blommor på den – som polismannen alltså inte tar bort (samt tackar och lägger inuti bilen) utan låter ligga kvar? Samt tillåter att ännu fler människor gör likadant, vilket gör bilen obrukbar? Förmodligen handlar det snarare om att arrangörerna hjälpt till med att lasta blommorna på bilen, för att sedan låta den fotograferas (gärna med små barn) i syfte att glorifiera polisen och polisstaten.

    stockholm 7

    Samma? Logisk fråga eftersom crisis actors ofta återanvänds.

Jag har valt att inte länka särskilt mycket, så du får helt enkelt googla namnen på personer och tidningar som jag nämnt. Jag har märkt att konspirationslänkar ofta blir brutna, så det är bäst att du söker på egen hand. En del av informationen (vad gäller filmer och bllder) kommer från youtubekanalen Peekay Truth. Jag drar mig för att ens nämna namnet eftersom denna australiensiska man använder grova ord i nästan varje mening, och jag håller inte med om en del av hans analyser eller politiska åsikter. Men han gör onekligen ett grundligt detektivarbete. Han är dock inte den enda som ser ett mönster vad gäller false flag och därför gör det arbete som gammelmedia borde göra. Peekay har liksom många andra ”konspirationister” fått sina youtubekanaler avstängda utan legitimt skäl.

Varför bry sig?

Tydligare stöd för en false flag kan mycket väl dyka upp efter ett antal månader när bilder och filmer kan analyseras bättre, och när mer information finns tillgänglig. Exempelvis tog det nästan ett år, gällande Londonattackerna 2005, att inse att gärningsmännen definitivt inte kunde ha rest in till London med det morgontåg som den officiella historien kräver, eftersom tåget var 100% inställt! Ändå hade man photoshoppat fram CCTV-foton på grabbarna vid ”fel” tidpunkt, och vidare så innebar ju denna nya information att grabbarna missat de tåganslutningar som drabbades av bomber. Tåg exploderade alltså utan att de var ombord! När grabbarna insåg att de var patsies (syndabockar) och inte deltog i en terrorövning, så är det inte svårt att tänka sig deras skräck. Vem skulle tro dem? Endast en nyhetsbyrå nämnde sedan hur några killar senare samma dag blev skjutna till döds på en gata nära ett kvarter med många mediekontor. Sedan hörde man inget mer om den nyheten. Om detta kan man inte läsa i gammelmedia utan man måste vända sig till andra källor. (Kan rekommendera Nick Kollerstroms bok om Londonattackerna även om jag definitivt inte håller med en del av hans övriga åsikter.)

Ibland kan en terrorattack innehålla märkliga sammanträffanden, men annat är helt oförklarliga anomalier. T. ex när en BBC-reporter berättar att den tredje byggnaden WC7 (Solomon building) har rasat, trots att man kan se byggnaden bakom reportern – 22 minuter innan den nämnda byggnaden mot alla odds faktiskt rasar (eller rättare sagt förvandlas till grus och damm redan innan det rasar). Ett annat exempel är när rättsläkaren vid Sandy Hook händelsen i USA kan ses på bilder tidigt en morgon framför skolan några timmar innan gärningsmannan Adam Lanza kommit dit för att skjuta. Man kan se att fönster är intakta och med plastband kring vissa områden. Han står tillsammans med andra personer som luktar false flag. Likaså är det svårt att lösa mysteriet att David Wheeler inte bara förlorade ett barn den dagen utan också arbetade som FBI-agent med full mundering. Det går inte att lösa det med att det var hans tvillingbror eftersom även blemmor och rynkor är identiska med pappan David Wheeler (skådespelare, gift med en annan skådespelerska). Likaså är det svårt att förstå CIA-kopplade Robby Parker som skrattande vandrar fram till filmkameran inför en intervju och skämtar om han ska läsa fusklappar, innan han sedan skrynklar ihop ansiktet och visar upp sina skådespelartalanger som en sörjande förälder. Få föräldrar skulle orka med att ge en intervju två dagar efter att deras barn blivit mördat, eller orka med att be en familjemedlem att starta insamlingsidor på internet – och framför allt inte dagen INNAN mordet skedde (!). Men om detta får du studera mer vid intresse. Det finns massor med filmer även om Sandy Hook-attacken.

Jag tror att något som är gemensamt för ”konspirationstroende” (som jag är) är att vi fullkomligt hatar att läsa och se på filmer om konspirationer. Så varför då lägga tid på det? Ja, är det inte värt att lägga tid på sådana övergrepp som false flags där barn ofta är involverade? Det är väl fruktansvärt? Personligen har jag möjlighet till sådana studier när jag cyklar, springer, lagar mat eller nattarbetar. Jag förstår att inte alla har samma möjligheter men det kan också förklara varför vi kommit till olika slutsatser. Jag litar inte ett dyft på gammelmedia pga alla lögner och manipulation, och därför tvingas jag vända mig till andra källor. Jag har lovat mig själv att inte dra likhetstecken mellan konspiration och lögn innan jag först noga studerar argumenten även på konspirationssidan.

Vill du se på filmer om konspirationer så kan du se en del på min youtubesida. Det finns dock många brutna länkar eftersom Youtube ganska snabbt tar bort ”känsligt” material som de inte vill att allmänheten ska få se. Jag säger inte att jag tror på alla konspirationer eller allt som sägs i dessa filmer. Jag kan tvärtom säga att i princip alla filmer så finns det något (ibland mycket) jag inte håller med om, men uppenbarligen finns något som är intressant i filmerna eftersom jag sparat dem. Bara att känna till vilka konspirationer som finns kan ju vara intressant i sig – men listan är långt från komplett.

Christianity in Sweden and the fear of Christian Sweden Democrats (SD)

nazi-2Naive Swedes who live in a pretend world

Criminals are dangerous, but so are people who are way too naive for their own good and live in a pretend world. The small Christian community in secular Sweden needs a lot of prayers these days. Churches in Sweden are more or less victims of political correctness and you will even see ”the Swedish state church” making a 2016 Christmas call for us all to get back to the generous immigration laws which applied 2015 and earlier (when Sweden was overwhelmed by about 165,000 asylum seekers – even more than the record numbers previous years). Never mind if we have the means to accommodate that large amount of people or not. When it comes to the serious reality it is not ”the heart that counts”, because God never told us to jump off a cliff and count on him to save us from the problems that we ourselves have caused. The Bible even advises us to not place ourselves in debt if we can avoid it because then we are not really free. A good advice for a household as well as for a whole country, is to not live beyond our means. If we have to borrow money in order to afford our new inhabitants, and raise the world’s highest taxes to an even higher level, then something is wrong. This has nothing to do with skin color.

We will not be able to help anyone if the whole country go bankrupt, and of course it does not make sense to decrease our financial aid to the third world (where people are in desperate need of help and have no chance to collect enough money to pay smugglers who can assist them in getting to Sweden) in order to spend the money mostly on young men who seek asylum in Sweden for economical reasons. We must face the fact that we cannot be a welfare contributor to the entire world and its needs. So far we have pretended as though we can, but what we get in return is a country collapsing under its own burden – and the deterioration is getting increasingly worse. It is truly dangerous to go out at nights in many areas in Sweden, and Malmö might already be a lost city due to the crime statistics and the large amount of people living on welfare (the most common name for newly born boys in Malmö is Mohammed, and Arabic is now the second most common language in Sweden before Finnish.)

We should not blame immigrants for wanting to come to Sweden since we promise milk and honey for them and their families for as long as they live (particularly if they are minors which they are therefore encouraged to be). It is our politicians we should blame – those who have decided to ruin our country by promising more stuff than we can deliver.

We hardly have any national defense left (hence the interest to join NATO and promote globalism), people are fleeing from service jobs in hospitals, schools, the police force, etc due to the heavy work loads and in some cases also a hostile environment. More and more public areas must be protected by guards, like shopping malls, libraries and indoor swimming pools. Every single week you will read about cars set on fire, thefts, shootings, rape/gang rapes and murder. Statistics (and court accounts) show that people from the middle east and northern Africa are over-represented in the crime statistics, and particularly when it comes to the more serious types of crimes. Sweden has about 55 no-go zones (some feel that we should not use these terms because they might be offending to those who live there), and about half of them are too dangerous for the Police and emergency vehicles to enter due to the risk of being stoned or attacked in other ways. Lawlessness has taken over. Policemen are also frustrated to see criminals getting away with crimes in court (if they even get to court), and if they do get a sentence they are soon out on the streets again in a few weeks/months to continue with their crimes. Immigrants are rarely expelled to their home countries. There are examples where immigrants have gang raped a minor and still not been expelled, due to the ”poor treatment” they might expect to get in their home countries.

If you dare questioning multiculturalism and mass immigration, you will most likely be labelled a racist which means that there are people who must keep their deep concern for our country to themselves.

The famous article which caused a lot of division among Christians

There is a certain famous article published in the Christian newspaper DAGEN (and also elsewhere) December 2014, and has been shared and talked about in the Christian community ever since (together with articles and even a book from the same author in the same subject). It’s authored by Stefan Swärd and Sven-Gunnar Hultman, and signed by a large number of pastors and church employees (exactly who can be seen here). What is it about? It is about a warning concerning the political party ”Swedish Democrats” (SD) and consequently also the views by those who vote for this party. The authors point out that it is not possible to be a Sweden Democrat and a Christian at the same time (albeit not in those exact words). They claim SD is all about racism and that the view of man that SD holds is far from Christian as well as extremely distant from the word of Jesus.

I vote for this party together with about 25% (probably more) of the Swedish voters according to polls. Have 1/4th of the Swedish voters suddenly turned racist? Anyone can read what SD stands for on their website and you will not find anything remotely tied to racism, unless you purposely misrepresent the text. SD rightly points out that we are all different depending on our genes, culture, traditions, environment, upbringing, social level, etc, and yet people go ballistic when they read this, being totally convinced that SD promotes racism simply by stating the obvious.

It is quite noteworthy that Stefan Swärd and Micael Grenholm (the authors of a book published 2016 where they lash out against SD and frequently use SD:s opponents as a source) do not write books and articles warning about the Swedish communist party but focus on SD alone. (They must accept that Sweden Democrats might want to defend themselves against their attacks.) They might tell you about scandals made by SD politicians (some are misrepresentations but some scandals are sadly valid) but I could tell them about scandals from politicians from every single Swedish political party. Some of those who hate SD might claim that politicians from SD win the race when it comes to scandals, but when I ask for the statistics they can provide nothing more than examples. Are Norwegians dumber than Swedes if I provide one example of a dumb Norwegian? How about 10 examples, or 20, 40? Come on! Let us not make generalizations if we cannot prove they are actually accurate. What does the Bible say about spreading rumors and falsehood? And about judging others with different weights?

Prov. 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Prov. 3:30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.

Prov. 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

Prov. 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.

Prov. 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good.

Lev. 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Ex. 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

Nowhere in the Bible will you read that Israel (or whoever) are obligated to support strangers (and their families and relatives) for the rest of their lives if strangers cross the border and would like to live with you. From the parable of the the good Samaritan we can extract that he helped one person who was almost dying, who he happened to find on his way. The good Samaritan financed this help with his own money which he probably did not have to borrow. He did not promise to finance the other person’s and his family’s living conditions for the rest of their lives – and particularly not with other people’s money.

As a Christian I believe we all derive from the same couple: Adam and Eve, and later on Noah and his wife. I believe this to be the literal truth. We all have the same blood and God doesn’t want anyone to perish. Hence, there is no skin color which is superior than the other.

The article has caused much division in the Swedish Christian communitydivision-2

My point is that this article which spread throughout the Swedish Christian community has done a lot of harm, and it has caused a great division among Christians in Sweden. Christians are separated into the 1) the good Christians who are FOR mass immigration and 2) the bad heartless ”Christians” (the racists) who are against it. So which side are you on?

I have become church less due to this split, and I know of other Christian Sweden Democrats who feel there is a great division in Church. Only one view is allowed, or else you are among ”them” and not ”us”. Three of the pastors in my church signed this document, and it is also quite possible that the Head Pastor might be of the same view (he feels that he should not take side due to his position). Why would I like to continue being a member of a church where so many pastors feel the need to warn other members for people like me? Maybe people will take large circles around me, when they realize that I am a person who vote for the ”prohibited” party which their pastors have officially red flagged. Why would I attend a Church when there is a risk that members and pastors might feel uncomfortable around me, thinking that I am perhaps just as awful as the picture painted in the article? If they have placed me among ”them”, I of course feel I am not included.

If the pastors would like to be consistent, they should not allow SD-voters to be members in their congregations considering that SD-voters are not saved in their view. If they protest and say that they have said no such thing, I must ask them if they truly believe a person is saved if he/she is a racist, has a world view (a view about fellow-man) which is far from Christian and very distant from the word of God (statements from the article which they have signed)? If they suggest that I have misunderstood them, then I can only say that a) why did they sign the document with those clear statements, and b) is it not rather ironic that also SD suffers from being misunderstood – possibly because those who interpret them prefer to go to their enemies to check their views rather than SD themselves. Why going to the source?

In Sweden it seems like only one opinion is allowed at a time, so it is a totally different story compared to our neighboring countries where various views are allowed concerning immigration volumes and consequences. The truth is that SD has similar political views as in all of our Nordic neighbors, so if SD must be labelled a racist party why not the parties that rule in our neighboring countries? Why do not Swärd and Grenholm write books where they warn about Christians in Denmark because of their support for their political systems?

Why the urgent need to judge SD based on the actions of a few members in the beginning of SD existence during a time when most of today’s SD politicians were still teenagers or even children? Who would like to be judged based on predecessors from a long time ago? What if there was a new pastor employed in a church who managed to improve the church greatly by getting it on the right track? What if outsiders still preferred to judge the pastor and the congregation based on previous pastors? Year after year? How much time must elapse before the pastor can be judged based on his own merits and actions? There are still some mishaps in the new church? OK, but what if there are mishaps in ALL churches? It still boils down to the same faulty argument:

”There are scandals made by SD politicians so you can’t vote for SD, because then you’re a racist! OK, there are scandals made also by politicians from all other parties but you’re still fine if you vote for them.”

This is double standard.

It was a HUGE mistake to sign that document, but I pray ”Father, please forgive them, they do not know what they are doing”. This does not change the fact that many christian Sweden Democrats do not feel welcome in Church.

sweden-3Why it makes perfect sense to vote for SD for a Christian

SD critics might believe that voting for SD or not is about helping or not helping people in despair. However, it is rather about different ways of helping. SD prefers to help more people (who need it the most) for less money, but the politics from the other parties are based on helping fewer people in a more expensive way (even if they are not aware of it). No one likes to be ascribed views to him/her that might not be true, and I know better than anyone else why I vote for SD. I vote for SD for a number of reasons, and not one of them is ”because a few of the pioneers in the late 1980’s and beginning of 1990’s were racists”. No, I vote for SD based on what they stand for today. Here are some of my reasons:

  • I prefer to help as many people in need as possible – and particularly those with the most urgent needs with no chance at all to pay smugglers who can bring them to Sweden. By helping people in their own countries more people can be helped for less money. Resulting in that Sweden will not deteriorate as a country and can continue to help people year after year.
  • SD often promotes Christian values in all areas, but particularly in schools where they feel it is beneficial for children to be affected by Biblical values from an early age.
  • SD considers children raised in a traditional nuclear family (one father and one mother) as the most ideal option. SD opposes sanctioned adoption and insemination to single people, same-sex couples and polyamorous relationships unless the adopting party are close relatives or already have a close relationship with the child. 
  • It is the only party that would like to see the right for abortion heavily reduced (as a start until pregnancy week 11 instead of current week 18).
  • It is the only party that criticizes the ”homosex lobby”, and SD is the only party that has no representation in any ”Pride parades”. SD feels that Pride parades promote promiscuity. Pride parades are particularly not safe or beneficial for children.
  • It is a nationalistic and social conservative political party and against globalist movement (not ”far right” as their opponents claim), and I feel it is good to be proud of our own country and to maintain our culture and traditions. Instead we are tiptoeing around new citizens due to the fear that we might offend them with our culture and traditions.
  • It is one of only two parties against a membership of EU (and a world government).
  • It is against a Swedish membership of NATO.
  • It seems to be the only party (except for maybe one more) FOR Israel and for the Jews which can be testified in their governmental legislation work on the behalf of Israel and Israel’s right to protect itself. When Sweden officially declared ”Palestine” as a state, only SD protested heavily and gave the idea absolutely no support.
  • SD is also vocal about the danger of some Islamic traditions, halal food in schools, child weddings, etc.
  • It is the only party that has rightly understood the danger of mass immigration, and Sweden does not have 55 no go zones and a ruined welfare state for no reason at all.
  • They have adopted a policy where they have zero acceptance for racism, and has clearly shown in practice that they do not hesitate to disfellowship members who do not live up to this rule.
  • It is the only political party in the true opposition. Sweden presently has a government to the left and so far it seems like every single decision they have made has been the contrary to what should be done. The other ”opposing” political parties (apart from SD) have united and they enable the left to be in power even though they could arrange a government to the right with the support from SD. It is unfortunate that they prefer to neglect their own voters and see the whole country going down in flames, rather than having something to do with SD which they stigmatize.
  • etc, etc

A christian person outside of Sweden might agree with all of the above and be heartily welcomed into a Church as a brother/sister – because he is not a Swedish Democrat and does not vote for them. So two people might share the very same views, and yet one is called a racist and one is a brother/sister. Again, double standard.

Swedish mainstream media (famous for being so critical against Israel) has decided to treat SD as a party tied to racism/nazism/fascism, and they are constantly on the hunt to find some dirt they can throw on SD. I know numerous people who have lost their jobs, positions in for instance a union or other group associations due to their SD commitments. Those who are responsible for this rejection often justify their actions by claiming that SD does not share the same humanistic view of man as other people. With other words they ascribe views to SD and people who they might not have and use it against them (i.e. a straw man). If the individual explains what his real views are he/she is not believed because of the SD commitment. Sadly many Christians have joined the bullies, and as a Sweden Democrats you must expect to be unfriended both on social media and in real life.

The same value for all! If you’re against it, you’re a racist!

There is a mantra that has been in rule in Sweden for quite some time now which goes   ”Allas lika värde” (the same value for all). Many have already decided that SD opposes this and therefore use it against them (whether it is true or not). It is of course questionable if all people truly have the same value. Does Stalin have the same value as Mother Teresa? If my children had the same value as other children, would I not save money in order to provide more children with a driver’s education and not just my own? And give food, birthday gifts, etc to other children rather than year after year always focusing on my own? No, I have a responsibility to feed my own children and to help them out as much as I can because I set them into this world. I am never exempted from this responsibility as long as they are underage and in my care. I simply cannot help all who are in financial need, so in this aspect my children have a greater value to me than others. This of course does not stop me from also giving aid to others, but it cannot compare to the time and the sums of money that I have spent on my own children over the years.

It is rather ironic that those who shout the most for ”the same value for all” place such a low value on Sweden Democrats who are often treated as third class citizens. Did you know that all political parties are given an invitation to the Nobel prize ceremony every year, apart from SD? It is again due to ”the view of man” that SD supposedly holds, but how come dictators from all over the world are invited? Did you know that owners of hotels, restaurants, etc, either often decline to take any bookings from SD representatives, or cancel the bookings later on when pressured by journalists?

One would think that a pastor would like to see people repenting from their sins and getting saved? So if they declare in a document that Sweden Democrats are distant from the word of God, why do they not take the chance and explain in which way? Please? What is the sin that I should repent from? Due to siding with the views in our neighboring countries and my stance against a harmful mass immigration?

Naturally all human beings are valuable, and naturally God does not want anyone to perish but to come to the knowledge of the truth. There is much joy in heaven for each person who repents.

SPANKING KIDS with a rod – supported in the Bible?

spank kidDo you spank your kids thinking ”science” and the Bible support this kind of treatment? Science investigations are at best ”inconclusive” whether spanking will increase good behavior in a child (apart from an immediate obedience) and at worst it can affect the child in a very destructive way and harm him for life. The problem with having no laws against spanking kids, is that parents could get away with beating their kids really hard by suggesting in court that ”I only meant to spank him softly but ended up spanking him harder than I intended”, and they could win the case despite severe bruises and even injuries on the child. Having laws against spanking doesn’t mean you can’t even touch the child or grab him hard around the arm and pull him away from some activity. There are also other ways to discipline a child than physical abuse.

Does the Bible say anything about giving a child a little spank on his behind by using a hand? No, IF you would like to obey Proverbs literally you should beat him with a ROD and not stop even if he cries! Do you?

We can read about disciplining a child (or rather a youngster) physically in Proverbs, and Proverbs is a book well-known for its poetry, similes, metaphors and hyperboles. So how can we be certain of that those few cases should be read literally? Do you obey these verses literally if this is your true aim? Proverbs doesn’t say anything about spanking a child gently (or not gently) on his behind but that you should BEAT HIM WITH A ROD! Do you also believe that it’s OK to not stop beating the child even if he is crying (as in ”let not thy soul spare for his crying”) and do you also do this to a five-year old child? Do you also do this even if the child doesn’t deserve to be beaten, only because you’re afraid of disobeying the words ”Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell”? Meaning that if you realize that your child is approaching his/her teenage years and you have so far not found any reason to beat your child, you must hurry up to do this for no reason at all in order to be obedient to this verse in Proverbs that you understand as literal – just to be on the safe side. All this because you interpret a verse to say that the child can risk hell if you don’t?

If we don’t pay attention to words, context and in which book in the Bible we are reading, things can go very wrong. The truth is that a good shepherd does not beat his sheep with his rod. He uses his rod to show authority over his sheep and his aim is to keep them safe and sound. This goes together well with the saying ”Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”. The fright of sudden noise can induce a shock in the sheep that suppresses fertility, so beating sheep with a rod wouldn’t serve any purpose. Dog experts advise against beating dogs for very good reasons, and they can become very aggressive if treated in the wrong way. Can we really say that it’s improper to beat sheep and dogs but perfectly fine to beat children? A rod could be as symbol for authority and correction. We can read in James that we put bits in the horses mouths so that they may obey us, and no mentioning of using physical punishment to make horses obey us. A shepherd could use a rod/crook to move a sheep should it be necessary, and something like this could be used for horses as well – but not as in a punishment but as in steering the animal and making him move.

James 3:For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

What the Bible says about spanking

Proverbs says we should use a ROD, which would be a shebet, which during this time could be a large walking stick, a shepherd’s crook or a king’s scepter. So it does not say that a parent should use his HAND but a ROD, as in a stick, bat or cane. If you want to take these verses literally, then you should not give yourself the right to switch the rod to a little twig, wooden spoon or your hand. If you can amend the verses to make them say ”spank with your hand” instead of ”beat with a rod”, then perhaps it’s an even better alternative to NOT change the verses but to understand them metaphorically as in ”discipline your kids and don’t spoil them”. Even if we don’t want to spank or beat our children, it’s oftentimes necessary to take hold of an arm and say ”NO, be careful!” or similar. Not being allowed to spank your children doesn’t mean you can’t touch them! To grab an arm can also be felt physically and it gives less humiliation than spanking the kid on his behind.

Here are the verses in Proverbs that speak about chastening youth. We should absolutely use discipline as a method to bring the children up, and ”rod of correction” could simply be symbolism for correction made by an authority. If you have found no reason to beat you kid, simply because he has done nothing to deserve it, does this mean you hate him? Must you then hurry up to beat him just to show that you don’t hate him?

Prov 22:15: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Prov. 29:15: The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Prov 19:18: Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying 

Prov 13:24: He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).

Prov. 23:12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.15 My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine.

”Chastening” doesn’t have to mean a physical punishment, and if we also understand the ”the rod of correction” and ”the rod of reproof” to be a figure of speech, we actually don’t have many verses left in Proverbs which might encourage literal spanking/beating children with a real rod. We only have one passage left that could possibly be used as support and that is Proverbs 23:13-14 above (highlighted with purple) where we can read that we should BEAT a son with the rod, and also a promise that he will not die from it. A sad fact is that children indeed have been killed by parents beating them to death with a rod, and it’s actually enough to beat a child a couple of times in the wrong place and too hard, and he can die from it. Could the ”the rod” spoken about in Prov. 23:12-14 (and also in Proverbs 13:24 and all other verses) be the same type of rod spoken about earlier – the rod of correction? This term could be figure of speech for correction, chastening and discipline, something that children will indeed NOT die from (unless we’re talking about a physical punishment) and it could also place him on the right path away from hell.

These passages presumably reflect Solomo’s parenting beliefs with respect to his son, Rehoboam. Solomo says:

Prov. 22:Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

The problem is that Solomo, in all his wisdom and knowledge about how to bring up a child, ended up getting a son who became a very hated ruler due to his evil deeds. This shows that Proverbs cannot always be taken literally but oftentimes as a ”general” truth and at other times as metaphors or hyperboles. The Father of the prodigal son is considered to be a wise Father (and he is compared with God), but this still doesn’t mean that there were no risks involved for getting a rebellious son, which he ended up getting. So Prov. 22:6 is clearly not true in all cases. As an adult, Rehoboam was vicious, inconsiderate to his subjects, had no regard for human rights, and was widely hated. He barely escaped assassination at the hands of his own people.

1 Kings 12:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.13 And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him;14 And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

There is a mention here that Solomo whipped his servants (and his son did this even more), so is this too a procedure that you would like to use on your employees? I’d rather believe that both ”chastised you with whips” and ”chastise you with scorpions” are just metaphors or figure of speech and that there were no actual whips or scorpions involved – and no literal yokes either for that matter.

God explained to King David that his son Solomon would be chastened by him (God) by using the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. Did God do this literally? No, he never used a literal rod against him but he did chasten him in various other ways. 

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men

Proverbs also mentions some other things that we would hesitate to understand literally:

Proverbs 22:He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.10 Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

Is this always true? And here too we can read ”rod of his anger”, as in a figure of speech.

Proverbs. 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.—Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.

This is a command to not eat too much and not to slit your throat. Likewise, when reading that you should beat your child with a rod, it could be a command to discipline and have authority over your child.

The Hebrew word Naár can mean  youth (young and unmarried), or literally he who shakes off or shakes himself free. Not necessarily a child under 12. But baby Moses was also described as naár and baby Samuel when weaned and taken to the temple – so as in the meaning of ”shaken off”. The word for beat is the same as for ”the sun beat down on Jonah”, as in a constant presence. We should have a constant presence of authority in our children’s lives.

If it was so important to beat a child (rather than using other forms of discipline), wouldn’t it be a good idea to state this in the law of Moses or elsewhere, instead of a book well-known for its poetry? Instead we can read instructions how to handle a son who does not ”obey the VOICE of his father or mother”, and what to do with a rebellious son with no hope for improvement (that you actually wouldn’t risk getting in the first place if Prov. 22:6 was literally true). There is no mention of beating or spanking children in the Mosaic law, but we can read about VOICE of the parents, which could make the reader believe that we ought to discuss and reason with our children and to apply various means of chastisement, but this doesn’t have to mean a physical punishment. We can read that if the rebellious son despite much chastening from his parents still refuses to obey and hearken (to their voices) THEN his parents may lay hold of him and bring him to the elders of the city. A valid reason for taking this route would be if their son was a glutton and a drunkard – so clearly not a young child but rather a teenager/youth – and it’s of course up to the parents to decide when there is no hope to ever get their son back on track. The punishment was then stoning. There is no known recording of parents who have ever taken this severe step, and that’s rather understandable knowing the outcome would be a sure DEATH for their own loved child.

Deut. 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

In the New Testament there is no mention of spanking or beating children, but we can read about chastening and disciplining them. The point being made is that we should not question chastening from our Lord because this is a sign of love and not hate. Normally fathers chasten their sons in one way or the other – because of love for them.

Hebrews 12:6-7: ”…the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?”

Moreover, Paul tells us that children must obey their parents in ALL THINGS. What about parents who teach their children to participate in theft, drug use and bullying? Clearly Paul is speaking about a situation where both parties – parents and children – obey his recommendations, and maybe that is why he says ”parents IN THE LORD”. Paul is also asking Fathers to not provoke their children to anger, and it’s common that children who get spanked/beaten feel anger and resentment, and an urge to make a revenge towards someone. Children who get beaten, often end up beating their own children when they grow up.

Col. 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

According to science, spanking/beating children can cause many negative side effectsspank kid2

That spanking/beating children is not a good idea can be seen in this document from ”phoenoixchildrens.com”

meta study from 2002 with an analysis of 60 years of scientific studies about spanking/beating children draws the conclusion that such treatments are correlated to several disadvantages and give no advantages other than an immediate obedience in the situation at hand. The experience of getting spanked/beaten could be very traumatic  for the child and something that he will never forget. It’s absolutely possible that he will not repeat the particular offence that he was spanked/beaten for, but it could lead to that he will hold a grudge against his parents for a very long time which would affect the relationship negatively in the long run, and it’s a risk that he will subconsciously like to make a revenge by pouring out his anger and feeling of humiliation on others (siblings or friends).

It’s not possible to make a law where parents must sit down to discuss and reason with their children in love, but it IS possible to make a law where spanking/beating children is prohibited. This is done in many countries and means that parents are at risk of getting reported by others if they are detected to transgress the law. In Sweden there is an organization that encourages children, through ads in media and in schools, to call them if their parents spank/beat them.

If you compare Sweden with a country where spanking/beating children is NOT prohibited, do you think that perhaps people tend to REPORT spanking/beating to a greater degree in Sweden than in this other country?

I would think that you would say YES to this question! Why would anyone bother report spanking/beating children in a country where this is legal? And who would you report this legal procedure to in the first place? Yes, ABUSE is hopefully illegal also in countries where spanking is legal, but you would still find a LESS degree of reports of ”spanking/beating children” in a country where it’s a legal method. Would you therefore be surprised if you found out that Sweden has a higher degree of reported cases of ”spanking/beating children” (which based on Swedish terms would be filed under CHILD ABUSE) than in for instance the USA?

I ask this since this entire blog post is written under the inspiration of a podcast sermon that I listened to the other day, where an American pastor claimed before his congregation and for his listeners, that science supports that spanking kids was a good way to treat children and that it was likewise bad to NOT spank children. The truth is that science does NOT say that at all. Moreover, he claimed that crime reports among the youth increased with 430% (I think he said) in Sweden the year after Sweden made it unlawful to spank/beat children. THAT IS A FALSE CLAIM! Of course I don’t believe that this pastor purposely lied, because I prefer to believe that he read this claim somewhere and chose to believe it (perhaps because it went well with his own belief) without checking the source. Sometimes we simply don’t have time to check sources but we must try to be as truthful as we can we retell stories, and particularly if we stand behind a pulpit in a church. Anyone can make a mistake, but try to place yourself in my shoes. I wouldn’t mind if I someone claimed that Sweden is the country where the inhabitants are most negative towards Israel among all the countries in Europe, because that is the truth according to a major poll! Certainly not a fact that I’m proud of but it’s nevertheless a true statement. European countries have always considered to be negative towards Israel (unlike the US who has a much better approach), but Sweden takes the prize, which isn’t that surprising considering how Swedish mainstream media has chosen to display the conflict in the Middle East. But it’s annoying to listen to a sermon where the pastor makes such a tremendous incorrect statement about the country I live in, and it makes me wonder what else he is wrong about when he speaks? There are so many sermon podcasts to listen to so I can listen to someone else. It would also be correct to say that children/teenagers are not disciplined in Sweden, because that’s often the case. I oftentimes find that children show no respect for their parents. I don’t believe this is due to the lack of spanking, but due to that atheism is such a leading star and that discipline and correction are simply lacking. Sadly this is not a problem only for Sweden.

There is actually a DUTY to report violation of the law of child abuse (which spanking/beating children is considered to be) in Sweden and since also children are encouraged to call in if their children are abusive, this will NATURALLY be seen in statistics! Based on this self-evident fact, an honest person therefore do not draw the conclusion that there must be more child abuse in Sweden than in other countries, and neither that the law against child abuse which came 1979 (Sweden was first in the world to prohibit spanking/beating children) has been seen to increase child abuse and violence among youth, because this simply is not true.

”Children have the right to proper care, a safe environment and a good upbringing. A child must be treated with respect for his/her person and may not be affected by physical punishment or other types of humiliating treatments. ” (Sweden 1979)

The good thing with this law is that it will prevent a parent to use the excuse ”I didn’t mean to spank my kid so hard, but it ended up being much more severe than I intended”, whereupon his defense attorney could use this argument as an attempt to show the prosecutor that the parent didn’t have bad intentions and didn’t purposely harm the child – meaning the parent might get away with it. With this law the truth is that the parent shouldn’t spank/beat the child at all, so no excuses are valid. Pulling a child abruptly in his arm/ shirt, grabbing his arm, or pulling him back from a situation where he harms someone/something is not considered ”physical abuse”, unless you do this with such force that he gets harmed.

According to a study by the UN, 80 % of the children of the world have at one point been affected by spanking/beating. The USA is the only country in the world – among all the members of UN – together with Somalia and South Sudan that has not ratified the Convention on the rights of the child from 1989. (USA has signed it but not ratified it.) Somalia has plans to be a party of this treaty, leaving only the USA and South Sudan as the only countries that are not party of this treaty!

The following are excerpts from a study from 2011 and can be found in this article from Karlstad Universityspank kid3 

The 2011 national Swedish studies on corporal punishment and other humiliating behavior towards children are a follow-up of earlier studies performed in 1980, 2000 and 2006. The purpose of the studies is to describe the current situation for Swedish children and trends over time concerning various forms of humiliation, with special emphasis on events at home, but also those occurring at school.

A number of smaller investigations concerning child abuse have been performed in Sweden since the 1960s, but the first representative national investigation was carried out in 1980, the year after corporal punishment was banned through the Swedish Parental Act of 1979. The investigation in 1980 was an interview of 1105 families, where the parents responded to questions about their upbringing practices with respect to a specific child during the past year

National Swedish parental studies using the same methodology have been performed in 1980, 2000, 2006 and 2011 (current study). In 1980 and 2000 the studies were performed through telephone interviews, but in 2006 and 2011 postal questionnaires were used, mainly for economic reasons .

To our knowledge no other country had been able to perform regular national studies of this kind, where both parental behavior and children’s experiences of punishment have been recorded. For this reason the studies have been of interest not only in Sweden but also at an international level.

Since the mid-1980s, suspicion of child abuse has gradually become more frequently reported to the police forces in Sweden. Due to the substantial increase in reports during the 1990s the Governmental Committee on Child Abuse and Related Issues commissioned BRÅ to study this in detail. It was shown that the increase depended on a greater tendency to report abuse and there were no indications whatsoever that severe abuse of children had increased in Sweden. 

After the great decrease from fifty percent in 1980 to twelve percent I 2000 with respect to pushing and shaking children it has gradually increased to twenty six percent in 2006 and to thirty percent in 2011. This behavior is most prominent towards children between two and nine years of age. No parent admitted to have shaken an infant. This may hopefully be a result of the intense information campaign against shaking small children carried out in the interim since the 2006 year study.

Parents born abroad state that they have beaten their child more often. Since the very substantial decrease of parents beating their children (during the preceding year) from 1980 (28 %) to 2000 (1.1 %), there has been a slight and gradual increase to three percent in 2011. It should be noted in this context that the study in 2000 was performed using interviews and that the studies in 2006 and 2011 were performed using non-identifiable postal questionnaires

Children born abroad, particularly boys, state that they have been beaten more frequently.

The outstanding risk factor for corporal punishment is, however, violence between the adults in the family. This gives a ten-fold risk increase compared to families where there is no inter-adult violence. This risk decreases insignificantly when adjusted for other risk factors such as single parenthood, weak family economy or immigrant status. If parents were affected by alcohol or drugs when the conflict with the child occurred, there was a significant risk (60 %) that the child was beaten.

As in the former studies in 2000 and 2006, children with chronic diseases and disabilities state that they have been beaten twice as often as the healthy children. They also live to a greater extent in families where family violence occurs.

Beaten children have a much greater tendency to be involved in bullying than other children. They perform less well at school, have substantially more physical and psychological symptoms and have been involved in accidents more often. There have been speculations that Swedish parents, who no longer beat their children, instead are insulting them. The statements from the pupils point to the contrary. There is indeed a very strong connection between humiliation and corporal punishment.

Parents who claimed to have spanked/beaten their children were reduced from 28% 1980 to about 1 % the year 2000. Since then there has been a slight increase to 2,4% the year 2006 and 2,9% 2011 (figure 5.1. Brottsförebyggande rådet). (Compare this with the number for ”suspicion of spanking/beating a child”.)

Brottsförebyggande rådet says that two well-known MYTHS that are common in other countries are that ”Swedish prisons are filled with parents who have spanked their kids” and ”The juvenile crime rate in Sweden sky-rocketed immediately after the law against physical punishment started to be in force 1979”. It’s particularly common to hear these myths in countries such as the USA where spanking is allowed and where individuals seek to find support for that laws against physical punishment of children are bad. This misunderstanding has been sorted out in the scientific world thanks to international cooperations between Swedish scientists and other scientists (Gilbert et al. 2009). Studies show that the rate for child abuse and violent death among children is considerably lower in Sweden than in other countries. There has always been a great focus on Sweden due to the law against physical punishment which was enforced 1979, as first in the world, and the duty to report evident child abuse. The development in Sweden has been described in detail in other international literature (Janson, Långberg & Svensson 2011) and Sweden can lean on all the national studies that have been made in Sweden ever since 1980. There are no similar studies made in other countries and that is one of the reason that Sweden has been so much in focus. Literature from Regeringskansliet, Rädda Barnen and Allmänna Barnhuset (Regeringskansliet 2010) have been of great value and translated into many languages.  More countries have enforced laws against physical punishment. Most children live outside of Europe and that means that 95% of the children of the world are not protected by any such laws.

Just like when it comes to gun control, it’s a risk that people read and accept articles/film clips if they happen to say what fits a certain agenda. You can read my views about gun control here. (I have no reason to mistrust all world charts that show that countries with gun control also have a low homicide rate.)

I’ve been spanked and it did me much good?

Other children have said the contrary, and some can never forget the humiliation they had to go through. Children of course handle physical punishments to various degrees. For some children it’s enough to realize they are doing something unwise if a parent only raises an eye brow, whereas it takes a lot more than that to change the behavior in other children.

Once when my son was about 7 and playing with a friend, he had apparently driven a toy car too close to her so that she got hurt – which he didn’t do with purpose but he was nevertheless not cautious. I know that his friend was a rather ”confident” little girl (for instance she didn’t feel too concerned at one time when I made it known to her that I didn’t approve of her taking one of my skirts to smear in an expensive face cream into a mirror in our house) and it’s possible that her Father expected my son to be just as ”unconcerned” whenever he gets criticized. That could be why he upbraided him just as severely as he would do his own daughter. This father was rather surprised when I later told him that the very first thing that my son said when he came back home was  ”Mom, I’m dumb!”. I asked my son what he meant and if he felt that he had been dumb with purpose, and he said this wasn’t the case but continued to say he was dumb because this is what he had been told. He eventually explained that he had hurt his friend during the play with those toy cars. He is not normally clumsy at all and treats his friends with care, so I said that I hoped he said ”I’m sorry”, and if this is what he did he wasn’t dumb at all but just had to be more careful as he normally is. The girl’s father probably didn’t realize just how much his words affected my son, and was very surprised that my son commented on this situation as soon as he stepped into the door. Had he known this he would of course have used another tone, and he was probably just used to his own daughter who might just have shrugged her shoulders and move on right away. It’s quite possible that my son didn’t enjoy the rest of the stay with his friend at all but just longed to go back home. 

This story has of course nothing to do with the question of parents’ right to spank their children, but my point was only to show that children have various degrees of sensitivity towards punishment. For some ”No!” is enough whereas other children wouldn’t even stay corrected even if spanked. I wouldn’t be surprised if Solomo’s son was a pain in the neck as a child, because he grew up to be a very cruel leader for his people, with no regard for their well-being. Maybe this is why Solomon expressed the need to use the rod of correction (as in using authority and not necessarily spanking his son) instead of spoiling his son, because this could lead to that the son will perish in the end.

The problem with allowing parents to spank their children is that they might not always combine this with explanations and good reasons, but rather with verbal abuse. They might just lose their temper and start to spank their children and if this is not prohibited no one can do anything about it. If you say that you spank your children and they love you anyway, it’s actually not a good argument. I saw a documentary where a girl expressly said that she loved her father even though he had done despicable things to her. Children tend to love their parents.

While I’m at it, I think I will take the chance to write down a couple of other examples in my own life.spank kid4

Once when I was very little, perhaps 3 1/2, I was with my older brothers who were throwing small pebbles on my grandfather’s car. He saw it and came running towards us and we all got scared and started to run – including myself who did not participate. My oldest brother run passed by a shed, and my other brother and I ran into the shed where my brother squeezed himself through an opening in the window where the window pane was gone. He was quick but not quick enough to give me the time to do the same, and the only one that my grandfather therefore managed to get hold of was me and he gave me a physical punishment. Maybe he just pulled my hair or something together with shouting and verbal abuse, but enough to make me sad and deeply upset. I don’t have that many memories from this early age in my life but I do remember this episode because it affected me very much, and I wonder if I would have let my anger spill over on a younger sibling if I had one. I can easily understand that children who get physically punished start to build up a stock of ”anger” and irritation that they consciously or subconsciously pour out on younger siblings. This could in turn cause the younger siblings to give revenge on others that they have power over, and if parents detect this they might react with yet more spanking. A vicious circle. Anyway, many years later my grandmother reminded me of what happened afterwards and it was something that surprised her and my mother. Later that evening when I met my grandfather again for a meal in our kitchen, I told him ”Grandfather, it’s time for a talk”, and I pursued to tell him how unfair I felt that he treated me. I don’t remember exactly what he replied back, but I seem to recall it was something like ”How could I have known that you didn’t participate in that mischief?” as though it wasn’t his fault,

That would have been a similar response as the one I received from my other grandfather about the year after. I’ve had a couple of  similar encounters with him too.

Once when I was close to 5 years old I was staying in my grandparents’ house and I wanted to go to their neighbors to play with their kids. My grandparents said that it was fine but instructed me to not go anywhere because we were later going away somewhere and they made plans to pick me up at our neighbors’ house when it was time. So the last thing they reminded me of was to not go anywhere but to remain in the house with my friends. I didn’t think that would be hard to obey at all because each time I had gone over to their place, someone had always been at home and I certainly didn’t expect to go anywhere else. When I got there they were all making themselves ready to go for a walk and they asked me to join them. I told them that I was not allowed to go anywhere but to remain in their house. Unfortunately I was not wise enough to tell them WHY I had to remain in their house, and if  I had explained the reason to them, they would surely have either asked me to go back home or they would have waited with their walk until I had left. Instead they told me ”But you can join us because we will only go for a little walk near our house. We won’t be long at all”. I once again told them ”But they told me to not leave the house”, and was again assured that they would take care of me and that we wouldn’t be long at all and that there was not necessary for me to go back to my grandparents because they liked my visit. I was not mature enough and old enough to realize that I could have made a better decision, and I felt uncomfortable arguing with adults. So I felt there was no better alternative for me but to do as they said, but it was rather hard to know which adult to obey. So we left, and it didn’t take long before we saw my grandfather’s dark car on the dirt road behind us. As soon as he stepped out of the car he went straight up to me and pulled my hair, and he said something like ”Did I not tell you to not go anywhere?!”. His angry words were worse than his treatment of me, and I was told to sit back in the car. I was humiliated and I cried, maybe all the way into town. I’m sure none of my grandparents could ever understand how I could be so disobedient and unable to obey a simple rule, and I had no good answer.

At another time when I was about 4 years old I was in my grandparents house together with my brothers. They were investigating a large lamp (rather carelessly if you ask me) and I think they were among other things trying to see how they could turn the light on. I don’t remember if I joined them by free will to see if I could find the button, or if they tricked me to join them and purposely asked me to press a certain button instead of them so that I would take the blame if something went wrong. There was a button that caught my attention and it certainly looked like it could be the right one. Pressing it didn’t work, but I tried to turn it and that made the whole lamp head sink down half a meter because I had reached a button that adjusted the length of the lamp pole. I didn’t destroy the lamp in any way, but of course one should be more careful when adjusting a large lamp. As soon as this happened by brothers ran as fast as they could down the stairs in order to tell my grandfather what happened, and I remember hearing one of them whining when he realized that he wouldn’t be the first to disclose the news, for our grandfather, that would definitely get me in trouble. My oldest brother won the competition down the stairs and was the first to tell my grandfather that I had played with the lamp and damaged it (but I don’t think it was damaged), whereupon my grandfather became very angry and irritated. He found me wherever I was hiding and pulled my hair and told me some angry comments about disobedient children who played with his lamp with the risk of ruining it. I could not defend myself because I knew I was the one who had turned the button.

At another occasion, my grandparents asked me who I liked the most of the two of them, and I refused to answer. I didn’t feel it would be polite if I would favor one over the other. But they insisted, and I therefore felt forced to answer, and I of course said ”grandmother”. They wanted to know why, and I said that it’s because my grandfather had pulled my hair unlike my grandmother. They explained that this is needed when a child is disobedient. It’s possible that I responded here that there had been occasions where I’ve been innocent, and that the response to this comment from my grandfather was ”I couldn’t possibly have known that you were not involved”, or similar. It’s a good chance it’s true because I regret that I didn’t respond ”But shouldn’t you have made sure I’m guilty before you punish me?”.

I’m NOT saying here that it’s always bad to pull a child’s hair or grab a child’s arm, and I don’t think anyone would report a parent who did. My point is that angry words are often (but not always) more than enough for a child to understand, and spanking would do no good.

Maybe many who are for the right to spank their kids feel it’s fine because they follow a perfect ”dream scenario” where the child is first warned, and if no progress the child is spanked a little in his behind together with a clear explanation about what transgression he is guilty of, and when it’s all sorted out the parent and the child part with a hug. The problem is that this is just that; a dream scenario which sadly is hard to force parents to follow. It’s a LOT more likely that a child is just spanked in the heat of the situation and perhaps doesn’t even realize what he did wrong. He will then inadvertently be taught ”When a person gets irritated it’s fine to lose the temper and spank another person”. 

I’ve heard Americans say that ”It’s none people’s business if I spank my kids, or how much I spank my kids”. A Swede would normally not reason like that! I feel the responsibility to react if I saw someone spanking a DOG. Luckily I’ve never seen this happening, but I do react if I’m in a country where dogs are running around loose. A normal Swedish reaction would be to either find a home for the dogs, or shoot them! Anything but to let them running around on the streets with no food. I would also feel the obligation to report a farmer who mistreats his animals, or if I have found evidence for that someone has loads of cats which are not treated well. If we would do this when it comes to mistreatment of animals, of course we would react if we saw someone spanking/beating a child.

Arguments for gun control

For a Scandinavian it’s difficult to understand the attitude that many Americans have towards guns and gun control, but if I lived in Colombia, the Middle East, or maybe even in the US where pretty much any non-convicted adult can spontaneously buy one or more guns without much trouble – resulting in loads of guns in circulation also in the hands of criminals – then I too might feel the need to get a  gun to protect myself. But I live in Sweden and I’m only SO happy that we don’t have the same situation in my own country. I would consequently be against any kind of change towards more liberal gun laws where I live because I prefer to keep criminals away from guns. I wish Americans would understand why Europeans would dread to have American gun laws introduced to their countries. We have considerable lower homicide rates, which makes sense since it’s so much easier for a murderer to kill people if he can use firearms instead of knives, bombs (takes time, patience, skills and money to make) or his fists. I can also understand the frustration Americans have if they feel that their politicians play under different rules.

It’s truly wonderful to know that you can go out running alone late at night  without feeling you should be carrying a gun or a knife in your hand – so every change in our current gun laws would be for the WORSE.

Over here it’s hard to get hold of a gun or own a gun unless you can pass certain requirements, so I don’t feel the need to buy a gun myself for protection and I have personally never encountered a single person in my life in this country who has expressed such a need. That is surely a good thing and something we should try to maintain? There are lots of weapons over here though, and that’s because there are lots of hunters and many of them own more than one weapon (rifle). It’s of course tricky to change the laws in the US now when the harm (lots of uncontrolled guns in circulation) is already done, and it would equally be a nightmare to make the gun laws more liberal in Sweden now when we seldom need to fear guns in the wrong hands.

It’s interesting to read the arguments against gun control. I include some below:

– If one or more law-abiding citizens in the Cinema at Aurora, Colorado would have carried a gun for protection, then the damage that James Holmes did would have been reduced

So that is the goal for the nation? To reach a level where there are so many uncontrolled guns in circulation (not to mention that a person can store up 25 shotguns in his home without a single gun seller saying ”What?”)  that normal law-abiding people would feel the need to go protected even at the movies, while eating in a restaurant, on the beach, when taking your dog for a walk, etc? If there is a gun control, this could prevent criminals from obtaining guns in the first place, resulting in that we don’t need to carry guns for protection while living our every day lives.

– Criminals would get hold of guns anyway, like on the black market. They don’t stop using guns just because certain laws tell them to stop or for reading a sign that says ”Guns prohibited”. They are criminals for Pete’s sake!

This might be the case in America where loads of guns are already in circulation without much control, why there consequently is a large black market for weapons, but this is not the case in countries like Sweden. How could criminals ”get hold of guns anyway” if the laws prevent them from buying one, and when they can’t even acquire any from friends who also can’t get hold of guns? Don’t get me wrong because  there ARE guns in the wrong hands also in Sweden but the point is that the cases where guns are used for homicide is relatively low here, and especially compared with the US. I believe this is thanks to our gun control that we have had for generations.

But couldn’t persistent criminals get weapons if they really wanted through other means? Only if they have the right contacts and a great deal of good luck – both are hard to achieve. If they desperately want to cause a lot of damage and lack guns, they might want to use bombs but then they are obligated to have the know-how and to get the ingredients. They must also have the time to make experiments and willing to spend some time in jail if they get caught. This alone will prevent some people from taking such risks, but of course not all. One option is to smuggle in weapons from neighboring countries, but the problem is that it’s just as tough to get hold of guns over there, and there is a risk to get caught.

– Banning guns might create a potential risk for organized crimes, black markets and smuggling

So we should therefore make drug use and prostitution legal? No, we should make it hard for criminals to attain their goals, and if they transgress laws, they do this illegally and they risk charges. Some people think again for this reason. One way to smuggle guns into Sweden would be to transport them over the bridge between Denmark and Sweden, but how would you get hold of guns in Denmark in the first place? They have similar gun laws as in Sweden. We can only pray that no country in Europe will ever apply similar gun laws as in the US, resulting in more illegal weapons crossing our boarders (and if that happens, one could only hope for an extensive border control).

– Woman may have no means of self-defense from rape or other crimes

Women have also died from domestic violence where guns have been in use. Again, if criminals have a hard time obtaining weapons, then it will automatically be harder for them to commit such crimes and women have less need to defend themselves.

– Guns in the possession of citizens are an added protection against government tyranny. Just look at Germany in WWII!

Citizens in Sweden would of course NOTICE  and KNOW if the gun control laws would suddenly be amended to their disadvantage and to the advantage of politicians in rule. (Besides, this risk would be higher if the citizens would be voting for a person instead of a party – that normally must cooperate with yet other parties in order to get a majority rule.) Laws are not changed overnight and not without first publicly announcing them. Everything that concerns hunting, firearms, gun laws, etc is covered in the big hunting magazines, and they will naturally announce all changes which concern the world of hunting and firearms usage.

– The homicide rate is high in the US because it’s a melting post for so many different races and cultures, and not due to a liberal gun control

That is not a good argument unless you believe a certain race is more prone to commit crimes than others. If individuals and their ancestors have lived in the US for generations, then the race issue is no longer valid since they have been assimilated. What might be a factor however is RECENT IMMIGRATION (like the first and second generation of immigrants). You will find a lot of that in Europe where loads of people from a certain country immigrate to a certain country, often placed in the same city or suburb. Statistics sadly show that immigrants from the Middle East and the northern part of Africa commit crime more frequently than the rest of the population. In the last few years Sweden has received a lot of immigrants from Iraq.

– All violent crimes are not reported so the high rate in the US might also depend on this

Yes all crimes are not reported but one crime that is reported to a great deal in all countries is murder, and that’s what makes the statistics for homicide rather interesting. Countries that neglect to report such crimes would be countries that have a high homicide rate to start with. Statistics for homicide with guns would of course be the most interesting ones, but you will more often find statistics and charts where the homicide rate is not divided any further.

You can also kill people with knives, bats, etc. Should we try to ban and control those weapons as well?

It would be hard to control such objects, wouldn’t it? So totally unlike firearms which CAN be restricted and which potentially could kill more people at the same time than a knife ever could. Yes, knives, bats and bombs could also be used to kill people but this is not a factor that applies only for the US. This is a truth for all countries so the statistics are still fair. The homicide rate per country can give us a clue whether a liberal gun control has saved lives or not.

– Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!

Then it’s a good idea to prevent such people from obtaining guns! In that way YOU don’t feel the need to be protected.

– It’s my right as a citizen to own guns for me and my family’s protection. Why does the government prevent me from doing this?

It’s a government’s responsibility to make sure the citizens of a country can live in peace, and if possible (as it is in Sweden) without having to carry guns for protection. If we reach a state where we start to feel insecure due to the awareness that guns can be bought rather freely and therefore abound in the wrong hands all around us, then the government has failed with its mission.

– Anders Breivik in Norway managed to kill LOADS of people even though he was a member in a proper gun club

Yes, and I’ve never said the system is airtight. Most people kill someone they know, and those who are willing to kill strangers for no reason are oftentimes those who kill because of an ideology/evil religion or because they are totally disturbed and simply enjoy killing. Terrorists come to mind, and we also have odd fellows like Anders Breivik. He was a smart guy, he was not poor, not on drugs and he was not in a hurry. Those are not the typical factors in a murderer’s life. He had a license for three weapons; a Glock to be used in the gun club where he was a member, a semiautomatic Ruger rifle to be used in hunting and also a shotgun. The Norwegian police PST got a tip that Breivik bought aluminium powder and sodium nitrate from Poland (to build a bomb) but unfortunately they didn’t make a follow-up on the tip because Breivik had previously not been convicted for any crimes.  The idea was good though (seeking control of suspected substances) and this procedure could prevent future crime. Breivik ended up killing 77 people the year 2011. 8 of them through a bomb explosion in Oslo, and the rest (mostly young teenagers) on a little island outside Oslo. This tragic event will pull down the homicide rate for Norway tremendously. It’s impossible to always be protected against lunatics like Breivik. You would have to carry a gun around the clock and you wouldn’t be safe even then.

– Why is it so bad to be able to buy lots of guns? It is also sad that so many people are obese because of these sheer amount of forks and spoons available to them

This argument totally baffled me when I read it. So if we can’t prevent people from getting forks and spoons, then neither should we try to prevent people from getting guns? Is it possible to ban or control forks and spoons? NO, right? Is it possible to restrict guns through gun control laws and make it difficult for criminals to get hold of guns? YES! So why not doing exactly that? Isn’t the idea to save lives? Can a spoon in the hands of someone kill 10 people in 2 minutes? Can a gun in the hands of someone kill 10 people in 2 minutes? If we know that dangerous people could use guns for dangerous things, isn’t it a good idea to try to prevent such people from obtaining guns since we CAN?

– When the guns are removed from the law-abiding citizen, only criminals will have guns

Not if they are not able to get hold of guns due to severe restrictions and requirements. 

– Guns aren’t evil or the cause of violent situations. Like a hammer drives the nails, guns are the tools of these crazies

Some countries have gun control laws in order to prevent such ”tools” ending up in the hands of criminals. It seems like it’s working based on the statistics. 

– Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people

Over here they don’t disarm people, because they can buy guns for hunting and target shooting if they pass the requirements. The requirements are tough and that will prevent many criminals from getting guns. So the idea is to disarm CRIMINALS and prevent them from getting guns. This will lead to a safe environment for INNOCENT people. Hard to see why this is not a good thing in all people’s lives. This of course works best in countries which have had a history of strict gun control laws for quite some time, so that weapons already in circulation will not be in use in the wrong hands.

– You can prove anything with statistics

Maybe, and I’ve read all kinds of silly statistics for pro-gun lobbyists, usually comparing one American state with another American state, as though this  could apply to the whole world.  But if statistics are fair, they could also reveal the truth and especially if several sources get similar results. The rule shouldn’t be ”if statistics work against you, then you don’t need to rely on them because you can prove anything with statistics”. The question is if we can find any statistics for that a liberal gun control reduces the homicide rate compared to other countries, and/or if statistics show that a strict gun control law (as the one in Sweden) reduces the homicide rate compared to other countries. When we look at various statistics and charts, for instance this or this or this or this (the latter is from 2012 and is more specific concerning firearms) then the US is always listed with a very high homicide rate per capita, and European countries much further down. It’s interesting to see that Canada, which is so close in culture and a neighbor country to the US, has a low homicide rate.

– In Switzerland it’s very common to own guns also for protection and they have a low homicide rate, so this shows gun ownership is not related to murder

There are some differences between the US and Switzerland. 1) Switzerland has MUCH STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS.  All military weapons (which are long-barreled) must be kept locked up, with their ammunition sealed, stored in a separate place, and strictly accounted for. Hence it is almost impossible to use these weapons for crime without detection. 2) Switzerland (one of the richest countries in the world) has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialized countries, like drugs or urban deprivation. The US is of course also one of the richest countries in the world BUT there are still many areas which are considered poor and where drugs are in much use. 3) In comparison Switzerland is a small country both in square meters and in population, and therefore easier to control. All the neighboring countries have the same strict gun control as is common in western Europe, so there is no great danger of guns smuggled across the boarders. More info:

Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition was issued, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is not universal; only 32 percent of the general population own guns. By comparison, this figure is 49 percent in the U.S. Handguns are also HIGHLY REGULATED. Even then Switzerland has both the highest handgun ownership and highest handgun murder rate in EUROPE.  The suicide rate in Switzerland is very high. You can buy ammunition at ranges, but there is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. More here .

Brief comments about the Swedish gun laws (similar in all Scandinavia)

The two reasons for owning guns in Sweden are due to hunting and for target shooting. If citizens one day would want guns for protection then I feel that the government has failed with its mission to produce a safe environment for us to live in. Today we don’t have to live with such fear (unless we have placed ourselves in risk groups, such as being criminals ourselves or by marrying criminals) and a good guess is that it’s due to the strict gun control laws. Many criminals might want to kill a person NOW, and they don’t have patience enough to be a member of a gun club for 6 months before they do it. This alone will prevent some people to kill others in a sudden rage when they are involved in a deep argument.

Over here you’re obligated to have control over your guns at all times (when not in use locked up in certain cabinets, weighing at least 150 kilos) and not lend them to anyone unless a certain license is made for the other person who is also obligated to pass strict gun requirements. There are basically two gun categories, for hunting and for sports (target shooting). All weapons are licensed with a few exceptions and the serial number of the weapon is written on the license.

Hunting; rifles and shotguns – One has to pass the hunter exam that includes a theoretical test concerning animals and hunting, and a practical safety test including  judging distances and a shooting. You would need some sort of written declaration from others that you are a law-abiding person, and you can apply for up to 4 licenses for long guns (rifles or shotguns).

Target weapons – You need to be an active member of a gun club that competes with the weapon you want to buy. For handguns you need to be a member of a gun club for at least 6 months and shoot three ”gold series” and a ”fast series”. Your club can then certify that you may own a gun for competition only. After 5 years one has to reapply. Owning guns for protection is not allowed and such exceptions are therefore extremely unusual. More info here

Yes, extra protection in form of guns might be needed in certain countries

Again, if I lived in an area or country where there was a high risk for violent crimes and/or robberies, then I too might choose to get a gun. There are many white farm owners in South Africa who feel the need to protect themselves with guns (or they might choose to leave the country) due to the high risk of being attacked. Just the mere fact that criminals KNOW those farmers are protected might prevent them (the criminals) from making any attempts to harm them. So yes, guns might not be a bad idea in such situations. Read more about such cases in South Africa here.

In Scandinavia however it would be a VERY BAD IDEA to make the gun laws more liberal, because that would change our countries from having a SMALL amount of guns in the wrong hands into countries with LOTS of guns in the wrong hands, causing more criminals to make offenses and more people to buy guns to protect themselves, which would lead to even more crimes. An evil circle. Since the homicide rate is low in Sweden it wouldn’t make any sense at all to gamble with the situation and start amending the gun laws. If we do, then an evaluation will likely show an increase of violent gun crimes but then it will be too late to revoke the damage. Instead we would have lots of guns in the hands of criminals and there is a long expiration date for guns. They can be used again and again, and found on the black market, and if we then try to save the situation by making yet another law that guns must be turned in, then criminals will not stand first in line to return them.

In summary, I understand the situation that America is in, but I hope Americans will not reason ”Gun control doesn’t seem to work here, and people now have the need to protect themselves, so this means strict gun control won’t work in any country”. I hope they don’t believe that liberal gun laws in our countries would be for the benefit of the citizens or reduce the homicide rate because that is NOT true and the statistics seem to confirm it. If there are countries which have had strict gun laws and therefore a low amount of guns among criminals, resulting in no need for citizens to protect themselves, then it’s good to keep it that way.  America might not have gun laws that I admire, but I admire and envy the country in so many other ways.

Penalty fee of USD 26,450 for home schooling their kids

Jonas and Tamara Himmelstrand home schooled their first child since he had chronic  learning difficulties and had problems to attend the public school. Both Jonas and Tamara are both teachers/educators so well qualified for a job to home school children. They have had a very good experience with home schooling their son and wanted to do the same for their other two children, aged 13 and 7. But the municipality of Uppsala has given them a penalty fee of USD 26,450 (SEK 180,000) for home schooling their children without permission and neglecting to bring their children to the public school.

It has always been difficult for parents to legally home school children in Sweden, but since June 23rd 2010 it has been totally prohibited to do so, unless there are extremely valid reasons involved – such as the child being severely sick or both parents travelling – and then only for brief periods of time.

Jonas believes that the situation in Sweden is partly due to fear that parents will influence their children in  certain extreme religious directions. That parents and/or children are not satisfied with the public school is not a valid reason to be allowed to home schools children. Jonas says that the only country with similar rules is Germany, and they have had their present system since 1938. According to a worker in the UN, it’s wrong with mandatory school attendance tied to schools alone.

Cecilia Fors is the Head of the Youth Department in Uppsala kommun, and says that the penalty fee is set high in order to make the parents reevaluate their attempt to home school their children. When asked why parents are not allowed to home school their own children, she says :

It’s not considered acceptable in Sweden. It hasn’t been possible ever since the mid 1800’s and it has been a success. We have progressed from a country in poverty to a rich country, much thanks to the school law enforcement.

(Based on an article in Dagen, January 25th, 2012)