Does the Swedish monopoly on violence still exist? That’s not clear, depending on who you ask. My name is Henrik Jönsson and I’m an independent libertarian entrepreneur and commentator on social issues. The escalating violence in recent weeks has created a dazed crisis awareness in the political establishment. What can we do to stop the violence? How does one balance security and freedom? And what are the consequences of a situation, where the government’s monopoly on violence is heavily challenged? These are the questions I’m raising in this weeks video. If you like my videos and want to help me continue doing them, feel free to support me using one of the payment options on the left. Do not forget to subscribe if you haven’t already done so and click the bell-icon, so that you get a notification every time I release a new video Which I do like a clockwork every Saturday morning at 08.00 AM CET. Today, I’m talking about violence, angles and reality. Stay tuned! The term ”Monopoly on violence” is a political scientific term coined in 1919 by the German sociologist Max Weber and describes the states lone right to use violence within the nations borders. The purpose of having a monopoly on violence is to maintain law and order. Further, it is used to counteract special interest groups from establishing their own, destabilized and competing violence capital, which risks to diminish the constitutional state’s social functions. Modern constitutional states regulate the monopoly on violence by law to counteract it’s misuse, and the citizens usually just face the monopoly on violence in a bureaucratic way. Mostly in the form of The Swedish Enforcement Authority, Swedish Prison and Probation Service or through Property right-cases in court, for example. ”Ownership is violence in solid form” is an old socialist axiom that actually is a lot more wiser than it’s suggested criticism of the private ownership: If you abolish ownership, you let violence run free. If the government’s monopoly on violence doesn’t have the resources to defend the constitutional state and the agreements it relies on, competing violence interests will establish – and when more people notice that the monopoly is challengeable, they will try to establish their own monopoly on violence – with an escalating erosion of the monopoly as a consequence. Wilhelm Agrell, senior professor of intelligence studies at Lunds University recently wrote a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet, in which he argues that the Swedish monopoly on violence no longer exists. The article postulates that a nation falls when the institutions of the society are reduced to one of many violent interests. The Austrian conflict researcher Friedrich Glasl describes in his conflict escalation model how conflicts degenerate to a mutual destructive violence escalation. When two or multiple parties starts to fight each other with violence, the conflict tends to escalate. The violence becomes increasingly more frequent and more extreme, rather than receding to a lower levels of violence. In the same way as a ratchet wheel freely turns in one direction, but is impossible to turn back, the whole judicial mechanism risks needing to be rebuilt from the ground up, if the wheels are allowed to turn far too much. The question is therefore significantly more important than todays number of reported crimes, since our entire society most likely is to prepare for an even higher violence level than today. There is now a growing crisis awareness amongst politicians and authority personell. But at the same time, there’s a strong motivation to dismiss any responsibility for the current situation, and to demonstrate a sense of decisiveness and to tell everyone that the situation is under control. Or at least, that they have a plan. ”I have a plan! No you don’t. Yes I do!” Alongside the fight against the criminal violence is a politically motivated fight concerning how reality is described. For example, politicians and media portray the picture of a Malmö where the number of injured and killed in shootings has decreased. But at the same time illustrating a half-yearly-broken column – and the fact that bombings during 2019 in Region South has increased by nearly 60%, is rarely mentioned. On a certain plane there is a conflict between liberalism and authority, between freedom and security – and if you please, between community youth centers and prisons. The question is more difficult than either sides of this polarizing criminality discussion would like to admit, since freedom and security are two powers in a democracy that, much like Yin and Yang, needs to coexist in some form of equilibrium. If the demand for safety is so large that one sacrifices too much freedom, society risks to be reduced into an authoritarian police state. If on the other hand the freedom ideology renders society incapable of maintaining the common order, society is reduced to a violent dystopia where the strongest ones right triumphs the law. Perhaps a capitalistic analytical model can contribute in the decision of a reasonable balance between these two forces: FOLLOW THE MONEY. If the safety and rule are too great, society becomes homogenized at the expense of creativity, individualism and experimentalism – which attacks entrepreneurship, innovation proclivity and growth. The Social Democratic 70’s embodies, in many ways, this meaningless secure stagnation. When on the other hand the taxation generated productive middle-class starts moving away from certain areas to establish their own security solutions and forming their own enclaves, is a strong suggestion of a stability far too low, and that security must be strengthened. This segregating process is well underway in Malmö, for example. One should note that those who, due to their political stance, happily adress the fact that the city is growing in order to defend Malmö, seldom mention the fact that the city has the quickest falling taxpaying power in the entire kingdom. To put it bluntly: Those who leave Malmö are productive. Those who move in, are not. People in power who have contributed to the current situation, like the criminologist Jerzy Sarnecki and economist Sandro Scocco are now fighting, backed by Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter, for their political survival through aggressively defending explanation models who fail to explain the reality. They shift their rhetoric between downplaying the developing criminality and describe it as a result of racism, egoism and alienation. For example, Dagens Nyheter recently publicized a debate article which the author rejected active fight of crime as a violation of ”life opportunities”. The languished Scanian newspaper ”Sydsvenskan” went even further this past summer and asked everyone who didn’t have a class perspective on the shootings to shut up. They ultimately apply a form of the Marxist term ”False awareness” on their opposers, which comprehensions are rejected as a result of illicit manipulation by hostile interests. The fact that 62% of Swedes, according to Demoskop, now experience that the development of the country is proceeding in the wrong direction – where an increasing sense of failed safety in public spaces is a central component – is dismissed as populistic and alarmistic fantasies which needs to be fought even harder than the violence itself. The fact that bombings and death shootings have moved into the the city core doesn’t necessarily affect the statistics. However, it does affect the citizens, and explains the sensation of decreasing safety. This past winter, a bomb exploded in central Malmö, leaving a sleeping twelve year old girl covered in shattered glass. The front of a residential house was blown off on the 7th of June this year. Two weeks ago, a mother carrying her child was shot at an open street in one of Malmö’s most visited areas and last week, a bomb exploded in central Lund, leaving a passing girl injured due to shattered glass. Statistically you’re absolutely well off if you have one foot frozen in a block of ice and the other foot in a bucket of boiling water – but everyone outside of this spectacle sees the situation as a catastrophe. The wish to describe everything as ’under control’ and that Swedens population has never been safer is not just dishonorable, it’s outright democratically dangerous since it solidifies the picture that the authorities are lying to them. You just have to go back to the news reports of the 90’s in order to see the difference. When Tommy Zethreaus in 1994 opened fire towards the nightclub ”Sturecompagniet” in Stockholm and murdered the guests, the event was reported by state media for several months. In 1988 when Juha Valjakkala murdered three people a nation-wide alert was broadcasted. ”The police are yet unaware of any motives but has put out a nation-wide alert for a gray Volkswagen.” The Hurva Murders in 1951 became a national trauma and was later made into a movie starring Ernst-Hugo Järegård as the main character. Today, there’s nothing more than a text which shortly describes that the bomb that blew up the residential house in Linköping contained ’an unusual amount of explosive paste’. How much explosive paste is to regard as ’usual’ in a state with a functioning monopoly on violence? This is what the murder figures look like in Sweden during the period of 2009-2018. This is the figures of murders with guns. This is the rape figures for the same period. According to figures that the Swedish State Television has seen, Sweden is diverging from the rest of Europe in regards to shootings. There are countries in South East Europe who are placed higher, as well as some regions in Italy. Is it reasonable that Sweden statistically compares to mafia communities and at the same time, is described as ”safer than ever”? ”I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” When it’s no longer possible to waft these figures away with ”false awareness”, one invokes difficult-to-measure variables, like that the propensity to report crimes has increased. This implies that the crime figures has always been high, but that people lately has gained more faith for the constitutional society and therefore tend to report crimes more often. In reality, everything implies that the publics faith in Swedish authorities has diminished. Foreign journalists that with surprise report the Swedish development are rejected as illicit attempts to harm the ”Swedish Image”. This idea is most grandiosely orchestrated by Dagens Nyheter who recently claimed that critique of the Swedish society stems from a Kreml-financed conspiracy, where opponents of the idea is either duped or a co-conspirator. The time for the poststructuralistic windings are close to an end, since the semantic relativizing sense of reality can not compete against concrete facts like bombings and people being shot at in open streets. The question is rather how the Swedish society primarily is going to succeed a painful adaptation of the violence real demands. The ideological pendulum which has been drawn so far in a post-modern direction now risks swinging far past what ought to be a reasonable balance between freedom and safety. I would therefore like to urge level headedness: be BETTER than the relativists. It’s TRUE that criminality won’t be fixed with more frivolous municipality efforts or #DontGrope-bracelets. It’s however NOT true that there’s a ”civil war” or that ”Sweden is lost” A reasonable truth lies somewhere in-between these camps. Sweden has serious, real problems. A lot of people has for long strained not to be aware of them. History’s sentence over these people will likely be very severe. But if we want to handle Swedens problems constructively, we need to describe reality in an honorable, sober and sane way – not through being a reflected image of the opponents hysterical worldview. Would you rather see Sweden sober up in order to straighten up it’s problems in a balanced and pragmatic way, rather than letting the ideological pendulum swing over to a new extreme? In that case, I think that you should spread this video, share it with your friends and subscribe to my YouTube-channel. Do you have your own experiences with the development of criminality in Sweden? Please, share your experiences in the comment section down below. I appreciate all respectful and moderate communication. My name is Henrik Jönsson and I prefer balance before extremism – whatever the name of said extremism. Thank you, for watching this video.