Sweden is now exposed to a unique number of bomb attacks. Why? What does this mean for Sweden? – and what should one do about the situation? During September, October and early November, the number of bomb attacks in Sweden has increased with over 30 blasts, and bomb protection analysts say it’s absolutely incredible that no one has died yet. What is a rational approach to a situation like this? How do you avoid both alarmism and normalization? These are the issues I address in this week’s video. My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I am an independent, libertarian entrepreneur and social commentator. Your contributions allow me to continue making these videos. Please support me through one of the payment methods on the left if you want to help me continue making them. Also, don’t forget to click the subscribe button, and click in the “bell icon” – so you get a notification when I publish new material, which I do with mathematical accuracy every Saturday morning at 8 AM CET. Today, I’m talking about democracy, demagogy and detonations. Stay tuned! So far in 2019, the national bomb squad has been summoned to over 100 bomb attacks in Sweden. In 2018, the same figure was 39 attacks. According to the criminologist Amir Rostami, the situation in Sweden is unique to a country that is not at war or any form of armed conflict. National Police Chief Anders Thornberg announced in a live press conference that no “equivalent to the situation in Sweden internationally is seen.” This astonishing conclusion is confirmed by the national bomb protection, whose evidence shows that the wave of blasts makes Sweden unique among rich countries in peace in Europe. According to the bomb protection’s own analyst Ylva Ehrlin, Sweden can now be compared to northern Spain during the Basque terrorist organization ETA’s bombing offensive. “They can’t stop the bomb now.” The situation is so remarkable that Sweden’s unique development of violence now arouses great interest abroad, where they study Sweden to learn how to avoid similar developments in their own countries. And don’t get me wrong: this is not a question of a malicious and manipulative Russian attack on an otherwise brilliant Swedish image, it is an internationally unique and observable situation. In France, Germany or the UK, three bomb attacks in the course of two hours would’ve topped the news for several days. But in Sweden, the frequency of attacks is now so high that everything coalesces, that more and more people turn in their beds when they are awakened by a bomb, that fewer and fewer people click on the headline of another explosion in a residential area that is not close to themselves. That the bomb attack starts to be considered as part of everyday life. And it is neither an “aging population” nor a lack of community youth centers that is behind the emerging situation. And it has not always been this way. The situation is new. The situation is internationally unique. For a country so deeply invested in the “Sweden image” one wishes to project, the situation is obviously troublesome, and the reactions are, to no surprise, polarized. The situation can be described with two extreme reactions: ONE: an apologetic, class analytic and relativistic model of explanation, and TWO: a critical, authoritarian and alarmist analysis. On Sunday, Swedish Television devoted a significant portion of its program “Agenda” to the apologetic explanation model, the arguments of which can be summarized as follows: ETT – Crime is an exclusion problem: Exclusion forces crime, and demand for recreational drugs drives the current development. “It’s a way to escape poverty, to escape misery.” In light of this deterministic class analysis, it should also be reminded of the large number of low-income citizens who do not fall into armed crime, and the fact that the availability of drugs in northern Europe has generally increased over 20 years without driving the violence that we see in Sweden. TWO: An increasing number of drug seizures are cited as evidence of a growing drug trafficking – which is blamed for the rising level of violence. “Here we can see 11000 confiscations made in 2000” The Crime Prevention Council believes that the increased seizures should instead primarily be attributed to a more generally repressive drug policy. In addition, several European countries with similar legislation have higher drug use, but significantly less crime than Sweden. THREE: This figure claims that a decadent and irresponsible but powerful group of privileged citizens is to be blamed for the unfortunate development that is ultimately expressed in the form of bombing and violence. “And those who do drugs at party’s in Sweden, and more and more adults do it, “They need to understand that their actions also grows this crime development” There is no evidence to support the thesis that crime is increasing in countries with more rich people. Nor is there any support for increased acceptance of recreational drugs to increase the level of violence in society. Several European countries have significantly higher drug use, but lower crime rates than Sweden. FOUR: Further efforts in social services and school should be made to curb the development of violence. “Instead of letting the crime policies answer the gang problems, I wish that it was other departments entirely who would answer those questions. If it was social services, employment services and schools.” One does not question the fact that Sweden already has one of Europe’s most well-developed social security systems, with greater investments in both school and social services per capita than countries with significantly lower crime rates than in Sweden. In this case, the arguments put forward in SVT’s Agenda have a clear left-wing character, and it is not mentioned that the criminologist who has chosen to interview is also on the Social Democrats’ list of parliament. Furthermore, the reasoning is exactly the line that has characterized crime policy for several decades. And led us to today’s situation. The question ultimately becomes: is it reasonable in one of the world’s most equal and well-developed social security countries to cite lack of social security initiatives as an explanation model for an internationally unique development of violence? “Ridiculous.” The excuses and political evasions aimed at strengthening the class perspective, and the desire to shift the burden of crime development to privileged groups, appear increasingly tactless and clueless. When the Löfven government’s group leader Anders Ygeman in 2017 cited the black market’s hairdressers as one of the reasons for the rise of organized crime, or when Prime Minister Stefan Löfven portrayed Danderyd’s drug-inducing party-youths responsible for the escalating crime – then one only grows the disdain of politicians and mistrust towards society’s institutions. The city of Malmö, which is worst hit by bomb attacks throughout Sweden, this week said that the social emergency service is now at the service of the citizens who are worried about the ”recent events in Malmö.” This is a formulation that should be awarded a medal for this year’s most Orwellian language. Namely, it represents a definitive broken social contract: a welfare state that provides tax-funded support calls for those who are afraid of bomb attacks, but who are unable to prevent the bomb attacks from spreading. The increasingly peripheral but noisy group that persists on relativistic grounds in the story of Sweden as an increasingly secure country does so without regard to humanitarian costs. In September, a young student got part of her face blown away by a bomb attack in central Lund. In April, a 12-year-old girl was taken to hospital after a bomb on the centrally located Nobel Road in Malmö spread glass-shatters over the bed she slept in. In this context, it does not appear like a masterclass in fingertip feeling to trivialize these events and people’s concerns – “If you want tact, call a tactician. You want an ass nailed, you call Gus Petch.” under the pretext that there is a greater risk of getting a brick boiler in the head than being blown up in the air. Because now, we have BOTH the tiles and the bombing to worry about – and an active malicious intent is a far more dangerous element of a society than natural forces. “I am something much more evil.” On the contrary, this type of relativizing rhetoric very likely propels very dangerous and seriously authoritarian counter-reactions. The critical, authoritarian and alarmist response is seeking other scapegoats, in the form of migration, moral decay and the need for tougher surveillance. The reaction is understandable, but the basis is clear: the crime trend in Sweden has as little to do with the 2015 migration wave as it has to do with exclusion. The reason for the critical situation Sweden is in now, is that the handling of organized crime has been mistreated for several decades. It is political incompetence and ideological unwillingness to let go of the idea that higher taxes and more social secruity are the solution to all problems. Existing explanatory and solution models have focused almost exclusively on welfare initiatives to break exclusion, where criminals are considered victims of exclusionary structures and class oppression. “But also for an guy who commits such a horrible event. What has this guy been through? Campaigns, dialogue police and low-impact response are inappropriate tools for combating armed and merciless international drug cartels. “Say hello to my little friend!” Instead, an overly idealistic and overly vigorous mobilization against hostile elements has allowed organized crime to take root and grow strong. When I myself problematized the burglary wave in a text in Svenska Dagbladet 2017, I was attacked by Malmö’s thinning local newspaper “Sydsvenskan” to “obscure the image of reality” – a reality purported to be about alienation and lack of social security. It is this perception of reality that bears the responsibility for the crime being able to spread in a way that now forces the National Police Chief to tell us that the crime situation in Sweden is unparalleled internationally. Critics of the social security-oriented crime policy that have been practiced for decades have been continually accused of alarmism, lack of empathy and have been confronted with various types of relativistic statistical excerpts as income, that the situation is in fact excellent – and that the critic is in fact an ignorant and unsympathetic rabble. The police department has not been equipped with the current development. Legislation has not been updated to reflect the development of crime. The societal analysis has not prepared the authorities for the development of crime. Even in the light of the grotesque street murder of a young woman in the late summer, the Malmö municipal council chairman, Katrin Stjernfeldt Jammeh, chose to call for a discussion on how social security can be strengthened and how preventive work can be expanded. Arguing for crime prevention when Sweden is simultaneously being assailed by an internationally unique high number of bomb attacks in central residential areas is like suggesting the installation of a fire alarm in an already over-burnt house. The central problem is that the state’s monopoly on violence no longer exists, but is now just one actor among several others who use violence for their own judicial order. Because if the real consequences of committing crimes are not big enough, that is, those who are active in these conflicts are not captured, prosecuted and put behind bars – then the result is that the violence threshold is gradually increased. The democratic, law-abiding society must now, immediately – preferably yesterday or ten years ago – seriously mobilize against the criminal violence – because a society that lacks barriers to violence, instead begins building barriers between people: Barriers between residential areas. Barriers between income classes. Barriers between the violent community and their own family. There is a reason why “The Phantom’s rough on roughnecks”, rather than making welfare efforts in the deep forests. It maintains the stability of society. To quote the 90s philosopher Ali G: “Violence doesn’t solve anything, does it? – I don’t know, it does.” “In what situation? – Well, in a violent one.” Do you think that the development of violence should not be trivialized, normalized or handled through more welfare initiatives? In that case, I think you should spread this video and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Do you have any experience of bomb attacks or crime development near you? Please share your experiences in the comments section below. I appreciate all respectful communication. My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I believe that violent attacks on democratic society should be fought with concrete confrontation. Thank you for listening!