What is Karma?

 In the West, there are great misunderstandings about what the word Karma actually means.

 Karma's law is "The Law of Cause and Effect". The indo-European root word is

kwer-¹ witch means to make.

 Most of us in the western world have learned that the law ofKarma is about eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But that idea comes from the Sumerian system of laws, commonly known as the laws of Hammurabi. Hammurabi's laws were written on stone pillars in Mesopotamia about 1800 BC. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

 In order to understand the law of Karma, first of all, we need to define the different spheres of existence that the individual operates in. We call these spheres of existence dynamics. They are parts of the driving force (dynamics) that life gives man - actually the immortal being (= your true self) living in a human nature  (your false self).

 Part 1 (= 1D) of this dynamic priciple is to survive as a human nature or the ego that most human beings define themselves by and which society confirms as "your existence."

 Part 2 (= 2D) of life's dynamics for mankind is the drive to exist as family. In our modern society most often husband + wife + child(ren).

 Part 3 (= 3D) of life's dynamics is the urge to exist through groups or with friends (see the article on "Friendship" at: http://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2015/03/friends-true-friend-is-someone-you-know.html )

 Part 4 (= 4D) of life's dynamics is the urge to exist through culture, civilization or as all of humanity.

 A common misunderstanding about karma is that it only has to do with the karma of your human nature (= 1D). But if so you forget that man is not a lonesam being. On the contrary, man is a being striving for togetherness. He wants to belong to some kind of community. The person who remains alone, without friends remains unhappy.

 Another misunderstanding, which is very common in Asia, is that it is important to avoid committing harmful acts to get good karma. But if you only choose to avoid all sorts of harmful actions, then the risk is great that you forget what is VERY IMPORTANT: To Perform good deeds (= actions favoring the greater majority). It is by performing good deeds that you create positive karma for your future.

 Even Jesus pointed out that it is the good deeds that make you blessed (in the Gospel of Thomas and in "Sermon on the Mount").

 If you live in a society affected by negative karma that society created its negative karma by comitting harmful actions in the past on these four dynamics. Patriarchal cultures have created negative karma for all who are connected with them. 

 If you live in a city where a clan chief has taken control of a neighborhood, you may be affected by that clan's negative karma if you only stay in the area that the clan chief controls. This is an example of negative 3D karma that can affect you.

 If you live in a civilization that has created equal rights for women and men, you will benefit from the positive karma that the enlightened women and men of that civilization has created. That is an example of positive karma on the 4D.

 Perhaps the most difficult concept of understanding what karma is to understand what CAUSE really means. The very word cause means that which creates effect. From a non-materialistic point of view, cause originates from spiritual beings, who creates effect. For the materialists of science, all cause has to arise from what can be measured inside the physical universe (consisting of Matter, Energy, Space and Time).

 The law of Karma then becomes (from a spiritual perspective) the law of how spiritual beings create effect.

 If you follow different causal chains backwards, through all relay points in the physical universe, you eventually find spiritul beingenesses as cause.

 If you meditate on this, you have an opportunity to "get to know yourself (your true self)", but doing so on your own is not easy.

 We recommend that you try to find a well-trained meditor who can help you get past the mental barriers that lock you in a fixed mindset. Check:

 https://www.duga.se/ and use google translate

 On the road to increased self-awareness, you may find that you are actually much more CAUSE than you have dared to acknowledge.

NOTE! NOTE! NOTE! It is by performing harmful actions (whether deliberately or unconsciously) the individual worsens their ability to create (= be CAUSE). That's what makes the individual create NEGATIVE karma. Negative karma is the same as lost ability to be CAUSE. Every harmful act results in the individual withdrawing himself from that area. It is when the individual withdraws himselt from responsibility that causes him to suffer from negative karma. If the individual accepts full responsibility for his harmful acts he will not suffer from negative karma.
  As the individual is not just an egobeing (1D), the individual can accept responsibility not only for his 1D but also for the higher dynamics and thus avoid negative karma even on these higher dynamics of life (2D, 3D and 4D)

Todde

Kolla även: http://axiom1b.blogspot.com/2017/11/cause-andor-effect-thinking-in.html

400 years of fear of private entrepreneurs

 Are profits in the welfare state a mistake or, on the contrary, a driving force needed for everyone's best? The current dispute has been debated since the beginning of the 17th century. This has been made obvious by a new dissertation which points to a remarkable continuity regarding both hope and suspicion.

 "These entrepreneurs do not undertake the task unless they are able to make a good profit themselves, and they are not interested in the wealth of the nation but rather want to create benefits for themselves at the cost of the people." Such opinions are very politically correct today. But these words are not pronounced by a contemporary politician but (in modernized language) written by Axel Oxenstierna (1583 - 1654).

 In other words, our view of private entrepreneurs and profits is not new, but seems to be typical of the political culture in Sweden. Even though the country in the early 1600s was very different in many respects, there were obvious similarities in attitudes and values.  A young historian at Stockholm University, Mr Linnarsson, has taken onto himself the task of examining how Sweden has regarded profit for a longer period of time, from the 1600s to the present day. Despite the extensive time span, Linnarsson has succeeded in summarizing the "Problem of Profits" in an essay: "Public and Public Duty Debates for 400 Years" (Nordic Academic Press). He has, of course, been forced to neglect lots of possible perspectives and insights. The source material has nevertheless been overwhelming.

Another student, Mats Hallenberg has in a earlier study - "State Power for sale", (2008) thoroughly elaborated the attempts by Axel Oxenstierna and the government leadership in the early 1600s to outsource tax collection. It proved to be a sensitive subject and aroused so much local dissatisfaction that it was soon abandoned. Linnarsson has chosen four instances in history, but he confined himself entirely to what has been negotiated in parliament.
 Common denominator of the four instances has been that they concerned the choice between government and private operations and that discussions always included the question of which choice would best benefit the public good. Oxenstierna's opinion is characteristic: the finding that the entrepreneurs wanted to make a profit was clear, but the core issue was whether this caused nuisance or loss to the general public. The answer was never obvious.  When the government had chosen to outsource the collection of taxes to a contracted private company, this was conditional upon the tax revenue for the state thus becoming larger and more secure. The public reaction against these "collectors" overly nitious and effective administrators, paradoxically, made this arrangement for political reasons impossible.
 Linnarsson, in his interesting survey, found out that the lines of debate were strikingly formulated on the question of what used to be the general rule. Although, in ancient Rome, the idea of ​maximum benefit (salus populi) for all citizens had been formulated (summum bonum), that was something that tore away with the imperial era and the Roman empire's later dissolution.  With the renaissance humanists' feedback to ancient culture and literature, this thought was again raised, even though it was not reflected in political reality as quickly. It is therefore of interest to note that such thoughts became natural in the Swedish parliament in the 17th century. Although you might include much less and narrower in the term public interest in the 1600s or 1700s compared to what we now do, the very fact that the term was also related to concrete choices between public and private matters.

The first example in Linnarssons study is about a debate in the first Swedish period of parlamentarism (1718-1772) around the general collection of customs duties. This had since 1726 benn outsourced to the private General Legislative Society. Customs and taxes are rarely popular. When the matter was discussed in the Parlament in 1765, the question was whether the state should take back the right to collect duties or if private entrepreneurs should continue to do this. In the latter case, it would mean, for the private entrepreneur, i.e. the General Legislative Society, a fixed lease to the Crown, regardless of how much this then practically entered into customs duties. The more duties that could be collected, the greater became the profit for society. It was basically the same system as Oxenstierna and the state had created for the collection of taxes in the 1600's.
 In our days, such a system would hardly have been possible, but paradoxically, one of the reasons that in 1726 the redemption of customs duties had passed to private administration was the crown's dissatisfaction with the efficiency of recovery. Several politicans therefore argued in the debate that the state would actually benefit by continuing to let private companies collect. Then you could also be sure of the size of the customs income. The result, however, was that the state took over the collection.  One could say that this 250-year-old parliamentary debate created a pattern for the following debates for and against profits in matters of relevance to the general good. On the one hand, there were those who claimed that private activities are most favorable in the long term also for the state or citizens. Others claimed, however, that private profits in practice drain the treasury and thus favored that the state collects taxes and duties.  Linnarsson has also downloaded a parliamentary debate from the 19th century and one from the turn of the century - 1900. The first was the extension of railroads, the other concerned the proposal to create a national telephone network.
As far as the extension of railroads are concerned, the question was promptly addressed to either party, state or private actors who would best serve the public interest. There was a lot of uncertainty about whether the state had sufficient competence and therefore should choose foreign railway builders. The decision was nevertheless that the building of railroads should be handled by the state.

The case became even more popular during the many years of debate on the telephone network. There, many MPs feared that the private company that controlled large parts of Stockholm's network could not be purchased without seriously hurting the public interests. The state simply lacked resources to buy and manage the private AB Stockholm phone business. It took many years for the state's telegraph company to reach such a level that a merger in 1918 could happen without inconvenience.
 In both of these debates it became even more clear that it was not only a matter of choice between state or private, but primarily about what best served the public interest. From the point of view of being more aware of the individual's interests towards the state, one later became more prone in safeguarding the government's interests towards the private. The modern state thus gained increasing importance for the general wellbeing. Linnarsson's last example takes us on to today's debate. He has studied the intense conflicts of the 1980s on private nursery homes, which heated the debate in all directions. In essence, the issue raised the advent of a new law "Lex Pysslingen", which intended to put a stop to government grants to private companies as  owners of nursery homes.                     Those who advocated the new law were convinced that private involvement was driven solely by the profits of the individual, which could be good for the business and also for the public. The bourgeois opposition argued instead that diversity benefitted freedom and that this in itself had a qualitative value. In other words, freedom of choice was regarded as an essential aspect of good welfare. Without it, the quality of care would be worse. There were those who argued that diversity and market would increase efficiency, but that was not the most public argument. Linnarsson's presentation reveals that the modern debate with emotional opinions is by no means new. Even far back in time, there has been suspicion against private profits, yet largely balanced against the requirement for efficiency in the business. The public good would not be served by a public system that did not work. Only mowadays has freedom of choice become an aspect of welfare. This is probably due to the fact that the concept of welfare covers many more areas than earlier. This presupposes confidence that the state always protects and favors everyone. Everyone pays taxes to get a share of the common welfare. But when you discover that not everyone gets the same quality of school, care or other services, many want to make their own choices. The nursery homes debate in the 80's and our current school debate clearly shows this. The idea of ​​the general good can of course not be justified with what we today put into our "concepts of welfare". The general good did not always mean an equal use of common benefits or the like. Instead, it was "the general best" more clearly linked to the interests of the state and only indirectly to the wellbeing of citizens. Linnarsson has highlighted a significant trait in the Swedish political discussion of centuries. The interesting lesson is not to be found in the details, which vary over the centuries, but in a suspicion that has always been present against profits for the individual  and the question on to what degree this favors or does not favor the general good. Certainly already Oxenstierna ventilated his disbeief in the profit interests of private players, but that did not prevent him from exploiting them when he thought it was good for the state. Is such a pragmatism possible in our time? 

 Erland Sellberg Professor em. in history of ideas  at Stockholm University --- The original article in Swedish is available at: https://www.svd.se/400-ar-av-radsla-for-privata-entreprenorer   Also check: http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2017/10/do-elites-have-responsibility-for.html

Do Elites have Responsibility

for Democracy?

 Today (21/10 2017) an article was published in the 

Swedish newspaper SvD 

 It was (my opinion) very well written and nuanced. 

 Enjoy the article here:

 Elites exit. It was the theme of a conference, which 

recently collected a selection of what could be called

 elite politicians, opinion makers, journalists and

 representatives of different organizations.

 So what was it about - who is leaving what?

 The fact that a significant proportion of citizens have  

felt that their dissatisfaction has not been satisfactorily 

acknowledged by the elites is the reason why the old 

left-right scale with its supporting pillars in the form  

of major social democratic and conservative parties, has

been challenged in many of western world's democracies.

 Of course, all parties are populist (one way or the other) 

- they say they want to represent the people, and rarely 

present inadequate and probably simple solutions to

complex problems.

 But unlike established parties, the newly arrived or 

transformed may argue that they are not burdened with elites 

- a competitive advantage that brought the Environment Party  

into the Swedish Parlament in 1988 and the Swedish Democrats 

in 2010. Emmanuel Macron's party La République En Marche is

another example; It was formed in 2016 - just a year later 

Macron took place as president of the Elysée Palace.

 Thus the people complain. With the space democracy allows,

they change the leaders of their country. Some citizens solve 

their perceived problems themselves through other exit 

strategies; collaborative security, burglar alarms and 

private health insurance.

 Others are looking for laws of alternative societies 

and norms. And the elites - what's up with them?

 We are finding ourselves in the midst of a dramatic shift where technology again drives new power structures born out of chaos.

 The last time this culminated was in 1789. However, in those days when the people literally ”cut the heads of power” it was only a crescendo on the real change in human life that the art of printing brought about; Words and science became available to the people - the real revolution behind it, which in the history books is called the French revolution.

 Nowadays that power no longer belongs to royal courts; but the present-day elites are equally disturbed by the forces put in motion by people they can not control. The Internet revolution is already evident in the loud noise outside their castles. In the elite (which I obviously belong to), we shine our powdered noses for vulgar and uncivilized expressions in social and alternative media.

 Yes, this is both addicted and simplified. But maybe with a grain of truth?

 The French Revolution was the culmination of a technological revolution that gave knowledge and enlightenment to the people.

 Because of the fact that the elite of the media was completely surprised after the British referendum and the US presidential election, the media obviously lacked the ability to see what was going on. They failed to move along with the people. While this was going on, we (the elites) were discussing how come the populistic parties suddenly entered parlaments across Europé?

 It is a problem for our civilisatiom when the elites can not see (other than possibly with contempt) the perspectives of those who live in the real world and who have completely different experiences of, for example, globalization, digitalization or immigration. And when the elites are exiting from their relationship with the people, whether it's a dismissal of public service, a failure of the laws of society, or a moralizing tone in the media, one should not be surprised if the people choose a different dissatisfaction strategy than loyalty.

 I am not suffering from dystopi, nor do I consider that the social development of society is predetermined. I think democracy can handle these challenges. But the elites that politics and journalism make up need to pass the tests they are now facing. They need to understand that they are elites and they need to accept the responsibility that follows.

 A good and trustworthy democratic society has to be based on the fact that there are elites and that you can feel respect for them.

 When you know that you can trust your officials, when the elites representing the law are color-blind and the elected politicans are not corrupt. When the news media reports objectively and are consequently neutral. That 's the responsibilty the elites have to live up to. The social system needs to be based on meritocracy and not on birth. It is the responsibility of the elites. If we as elites fail to protect these values, we deserve to be thrown out of the castle.

 Tove Lifvendahl is political editor-in-chief at SvD.

 Maybe you would also be interested in:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/decadence-word-decadence-wikipedia.html 

 or join the  effort to create a better civilisation (use google translate) at:

https://www.duga.se/ 

IMMIGRATION, EMIGRATION, ASYLUM APPLICANTS

 The book FOLKVANDRING by Vaclav Claus has just been published in Swedish and I would highly recommend it.  Vaclav Claus was the President of the Czech Republic in 2003-2013. His book provides a much more accurate picture of the immigration crisis that hit Europe from 2015 onwards.

 Actually, there are no news that the book conveys to those who have already settled into the issue of cultural mix (Read Islamization) in our western democracies.

 A quote from the book (suggesting that the people of Czechoslovakia were forced to live under a communist dictatorship, Soviet Union, for more than 40 years) and therefore have a different reality:

 As a consequence, we have been given the ability to appreciate the true meaning of freedom, and we have become sensitive, if not close to hypersensitive to all signs of weakened and/or restyricted freedom.

 The word freedom means more to us than to the people of Western Europe and America, who already lived in freedom and therefore took it for granted.

 The book is available for purchase in Swedish bookstores

  Price at Adlibris SEK 122: -   –   https://www.adlibris.com/se  

  Price at Bokus it costs SEK 118: -   –  www.bokus.com

Todde

The atmosphere around our planet

  We breathe and live thanks to the air that surrounds us. It took a long time before our scientists realized that our atmosphere consists of different gases. It was only during the enlightenment and the scientific revolution of the 18th century that our modern western civilization made the groundbreaking discoveries that contributed to the greatest breakthroughs of our civilization.

  We Swedes can feel proud that our famous chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele was involved in the area, as well as an Englishman, Joseph Priestly. Antoine Lavoisier - one of the greatest scientists of all time – is however the individual who contributed more than anyone else to our undersyanding of the air we breath. Lavoisier was the one who ended the erronius Flogiston theory.

  See the program (it is in English with Swedish subtitles) at:

 https://www.svtplay.se/video/5186416/sanningen-om-var-atmosfar/sanningen-om-var-atmosfar-avsnitt-1

Todde

Also check out:

Democracy becomes populism

 when the people think wrong

Our politicians today do not want to represent the majority’sperceptions and interests. International political careerattracts more than the national and politicians prefer tofollow international elites along, writes Jan Tullberg.

 In the case of groups with social problems our politicians

prefer to treat them as helpless victims. 

A problematic situation is by no means impossible to get out of. However, the person may

instead have trained him/herself into inability. He/she can no 

longer help him/herself but hopes for help from others.

 Responsible people in important positions for the social system

should not suffer such helplessness, but we see more signs of 

how that happens. The EU Commission President Jean-Claude 

Juncker summarized his view in this way:

 We know what everyone needs to do, but we do not know how to 

survive as politicians if we do."

 According to their analysis, the error is not in the leaders 

but in democracy. From the citizen perspective, one is struck 

by the many destructive ideas of the politicians. To a large 

extent, they make decisions that counteract what they declared 

themselves willing to do.

 Migration contains a number of systematical errors. The UN 

Refugee Commission, with constant lack of money, takes care of 

refugees for SEK 5,000 per person per year. Different 

governments have bureaucratic asylum systems that take care of 

migrants for 200,000 per person per year. Only the Swedish 

migration system costs more per year than the two largest 

international systems cost together (UNHCR + World Food Program). 

 The latter take care of real refugees who, in actual sense, 

"move to safeguard their lives". Sweden instead addresses 

resettlementers who want to upgrade their existence to a higher 

standard. In general terms, if you talk about effective help and 

helping those with the greatest needs, you are opposed. Calling 

the system humanitarian and generous is empty advertising chat.

 If you want to solve a problem, it's wise to start early before 

it has grown into a big problem. Moroccan street children get 

older and violent, but both police and social authorities are 

apathetic concerning permanent criminals who should be handled 

before being recruited by criminal leagues. In the suburbs it 

becomes increasingly difficult to get witnesses. The “dialogue 

police” is increasingly emerging as a retreat policy. Citizens 

are forced to get used to coexist with the criminals. It is 

becoming increasingly apparent that the police fail to maintain 

their violence monopoly.

 Despite large allocations to the armed forces, a number of 

European countries are unable to defend their borders from an 

invasion by unarmed immigrants. The principle "no more violence 

than necessity demands" is replaced with "no violence even if 

required." In Sweden, coercion may only be used against those 

who are in the "custody" for expulsion. The parliament has also 

decided that children should not be put in the custody, which in 

practice means that families with children can penetrate "with 

us unable to do anything about it".

 Did nobody understand this when the situation developed? At times our politicans realized that something might be wrong, if there was no difference between getting yes or no on an asylum application. The definition of "a regulated immigration" is, of course, that a NO must also mean NO. Another stupid rule is never to send a criminal to his homeland if he is at risk of death penalty for his crime.

 Swedish authorities do not want to be involved. Sweden, however, is involved by the presence of criminals and violent people who walk freely around here until the day their home country agrees to the Swedish code of conduct.

 In order to prevent people from drowning in the Mediterranean, rescue operations such as Italian Mare Nostrum and the Swedish Coast Guard were started. But when people in sea need are picked up, they are strangely not sent back to their port of departy, but into Europe.

 We are following the smugglers' plan. The asylum seeker now hopes for the cooperation between the smugglers and those charged with stopping illegal immigration. As a result, the operation becomes completely counterproductive.

 More people get a free ride into Europe and more die during transit. Even though it's not only wrong, the "rescue policy" continues. The consequences for Swedish society are ignored in favor of a series of insignificant procedural rules and the peoplesmugglers.

 In an American TV movie, the villain is released if the police failed to read his rights or if the search query was incorrectly written. Today's spokesmen are no problem solvers, but opportunists who care for themselves and they take no risks of tramping other rulers on their toes.

 Problems need not be resolved but can be denied. In today's globalized world, a host of events take place that the authorities do not consider themselves able to control, but it seems like the situation with an alcoholic, who prefers to give up when confronted with the temptation to escape from responsibility. If he thinks that the rent is an unforeseen expense, it's good to invest that money in a purchase of more alcohol.

 The modern decision maker looks at migrant flows and crime with the same impotence. One journalist proposed a "power of attorney investigation" to highlight the inability of decision makers.

 The former social elite could also make bad decisions, but they were still driven by an interest in making the best for the Swedish people. It seems clear that today's elites lack that interest.

 Todays representatives want to serve their own interests, not those they represent. Revolt may not be the correct word for the behavior, the word "betrayal" fits better.

 Politicians do not want to represent the majority with their perceptions and interests. An international political career attracts more. Why can’t the voters just be silent and applaud?

 Another task is to appoint him/herself as a representative of a minority, claiming that it must be protected against the prejudices of the national majority.

 It is becoming increasingly clear that democracy must either be abolished or that the term must be interpreted differently.

 Of course, it is not just a new macro perspective that is behind the new attitude but also more personal factors. A hundred years ago, a retailer in our parliament was a representative of the bourgeoisie and a social-democratic raillroad worker remained a worker even though he had a parliamentary place. Now their successors are broilers who are molded and shaped in various youth organisations. They represent no group other than their own.

 Having children of your own is a project that takes a lot of time and effort that could otherwise have been invested in your own political career. Not having children can therefore be an advantage in the competition and it is not surprising that a number of European top politicians are childless. For example: German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron, Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, Scottish Deputy Nicola Sturgeon, British Prime Minister Teresia May and Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven.

 However, the benefit of the childless career can have a negative effect on how to handle the mission. Having children and grandchildren may create an interest in community development in the longer term.

 Will the society be tolerable for the decendants of the politicans? Missing that perspective increases the risk of longterm liability. There are, of course, childless people who show a great social responsibility and parents who miss it, but there seems to be a reasonable hypothesis that parenthood has an impact on decision-makers' societal views.

 Clearly, democracy is not a stable indestructible system. It can be threatened and fall. It is not only threats from small extremist groups, but also threats from the top (elites).

 The political leadership can be benevolent for democracy when the people agree, but they change their attitude when people have other plans for the future than the political elite. Then democracy loses its charm and is called populism.

 JAN TULLBERG Jan Tullberg is a writer and lecturer in business administration. He is the author of the book

 The original article in Swedish at:

http://www.friatider.se/demokrati-blir-populism-n-r-folket-inte-h-ller-med

Todde

Also check:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2017/08/why-does-mass-media-in-sweden-and.html 

Why do Swedish mass media not want to publish statistics from BRÅ (Council for Crime Prevention)?

 Mass media in Sweden (and elsewhere) talk about "fake news" and claim that they themselves publish the truth - as opposed to "populist media".  It's time to scrap the political correctness (PC) and put it in the trash basket where it belongs.  On this link you will find statistics from BRÅ (article is in Swedish, but you will find a free translation to English below) as politically correct mass media refuse to publish:

http://www.friatider.se/d-rf-r-v-grar-regeringen-utreda-invandrarnas-brottslighet 

Todde Also check:

http://freedomoutpost.com/brigitte-gabriel-muslim-woman-claims-majority-muslims-portrayed-badly-peaceful-majority-irrelevant/

 Why the government of Sweden refuses to investigate the criminality of immigrants

 COLUMN. The government today refuses to let the Crime Prevention Council (BRÅ) make a new study of immigrants' crime. But if you update the statistics for criminals of different categories from the 2005 study, it appears that people with immigrant background now seems to commit most of the crimes in Sweden. Economist Jan Tullberg in this article writes about these facts that all the major newspapers in Sweden (including DN, SvD and GP) choose not to publish.

 The government believes that we do not need to investigate the criminality of immigrants any further. Everyone seems to be in agreement that they are overrepresented in crime, but that the difference is reduced when taking into account various socio-economic factors. According to the government, we should not investigate the criminality of immigrants any further, but instead focus on helping them to better their socio-economic circumstances.

 The contest in the Crime Prevention Council's (= BRÅ) 2005 report was to compare the crime rates of different immigrant backgrounds - foreign-born, Swedish-born with two foreign-born parents, and Swedish-born with one foreign-born parent - with those who have two Swedish-born parents. The Swedish group's crime rate was given the value 1.0. The foreigners' crime rate was estimated to be 2.5, that is 150 percent higher than the Swedes. For Swedish-born with two foreign-born parents, the overrepresentation was 2.0 while those with one foreign-born parent had a crime rate of 1.4. This concerns crimes in total, but when you investigate gross violent crime such as robbery, abuse and rape, the overrepresentation of different immigrant groups is considerably higher.

 The latest report from the Crime Prevention Council (BRÅ-2005) analyzes crime in the period 1997-2001, so it may be time for an update. The immigrants have increased by one million from 2000 to 2016, which naturally increased their share of crime in Sweden, and already that change requires an update.

 An additional reason for updating is that the foreign-born today has a changed composition in terms of origin, which could have a big impact on crime rate. BRÅ-2005 compared to BRÅ-1996 and commented that "over-risk" for foreigners increased from 2.1 to 2.5. The report states: "The overcrowding of foreigners has increased due to the fact that some immigrant groups today are to a greater extent registered for crimes than 12 years ago. The increase is instead explained mainly by the fact that the number of persons in Sweden belonging to refugee groups, which has already been shown to be particularly high in previous studies, has increased (p. 11). This update has therefore also taken into account these changes in the calculation of immigrant crime by 2016.

 The analysis in 1996 contains evidence that foreigners can be divided into three groups, those with low, medium and high crime rates. If you examine the distribution between the three groups, you will find significant changes over time. The change of the mix has continued from 2000 to 2016 with a higher proportion of immigrant population who has shown a higher proportion of criminals. The proportion of foreign-born in the group with average crime rates is quite unchanged at 47 percent, while the low-crime group has fallen to 19 percent and the high crime group has increased to 34 percent, a change of about 10 percentage points. This has meant that the excess risk of crime for foreign-born immigrants in Sweden continues to increase, now from factor 2.5 in 2000 to 2.9 by 2016. Immigrant crime is increasing by the immigrants becoming a larger proportion of the population and by the immigrant group having a changed composition .

 Foreigners without Swedish National Registration Number accounted for 7 percent of the criminals in the BRÅ-2005 study. The update counts unchanged proportion of the criminals from this group. This may be too optimistic as the proportion increased from 3 to 7 percent between the two studies BRÅ-1996 and BRÅ-2005. The number of illegal persons and their criminal activity may well have increased further.

 The groups Swedish-born with two foreign-born parents and Swedish-born with one foreign-born parent are calculated with the same upper risk as in BRÅ-2005, 2.0 and 1.4 respectively. This is also optimistic. A higher crime rate in the parenting process probably draws the figures for the second generation.

 BRÅ has previously stated the (positive thinking) that second-generation immigrants in Sweden are less criminal than the first generation, while the relationship in many other countries is the opposite. The major social problems in immigrant areas can be interpreted as signs of increased crime in the second generation of immigrants. But in this article we do not count on increased crime per person, only the two populations have grown. If we update market shares for criminals of different categories from BRÅ-2005, we will get a new picture.

 Of course, it would be best to do a new study.

 Please, one inspired by the 1996 study, which is more ambitious than that made in 2005. Before such a future study is presented, updates should be used as in this analysis, instead of using figures from BRÅ-2005. The survey has a historical interest, but now the best date has passed a long time ago. It should also be stressed that the statistics relate to the number of criminals, not the number of crimes. On average, these people have been linked to almost two crimes per person. However, the number of reported offenses is four times more than those that have been linked to a suspected one. A large part of the offenses with unknown perpetrators have reasonably been committed by persons who are "already known by the police". However, this article does not seek to allocate the total amount of crime but stops at BRÅ's goal of invoking the group of criminals and distributing it among different population categories. Generally, overrepresentation for immigrants increases if you investigate specific serious crimes such as robbery and rape. There have also been a series of new crime categories with very high immigrant involvement: group violence, car fires, attacks on police and other blue-light personnel - and perhaps the most worrying: terrorist attacks in Sweden.

 But even for a wide array of different crimes, coarse and less serious, people with immigrant background commit themselves to judging most of the crimes in Sweden. This article up to the previous paragraph has been sent to Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgsposten, Fokus and Today's society. They have all thanked us for this attempt to provide a better basis for analysis and discussion. In many questions, the political establishment wishes ignorance and silence. The media should experience that they have a mission to counteract this veritophobia. But unfortunately, they often fend off the ideal of completing a reviewing and informative function. This is an example.

 TULLBERG