Thursday, February 02, 2012

Socialists on Ice

Our newest Swedish correspondent (see “When is a Swede Not a Swede?”) returns with some thoughts about the history of socialism in Sweden, and its likely future:

Socialists on ice

The rise and fall of socialism

Some might argue that Jesus was the first socialist. Other may pick the thoughts of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as the starting point for this ideology.

When Marx argued for socialism, it was a moral view — the poor were exploited as cheap labor without having any influence over their own situation or society as whole.

The rise of socialism developed across the whole world, both in nations governed by socialists and elsewhere. Everyone benefited from the equality, the abolition of slavery, increased rights for women, better health care, and an education that made the population almost 100 % literate.

After two world wars, the world was divided into a socialist totalitarian bloc and the free world, which tried to manage with different degrees of socialism. The United States evolved into a superpower with a flavor of the free market, and the Scandinavian nations became leading role models for social engineering and welfare states.

During the 1970s Sweden, the country where I live, had completed the project. There were ice-skating rinks, swimming pools, free guitar lessons, great education, and health care.

I was a socialist back then, and many among us were proud of our achievements. We began to work on other challenges, such as improving our ice-skating skills or guitar-playing.

But this was a nightmare for some socialists. They consider themselves to be the true champions of the oppressed, and brave to take up the fight against the establishment.

What happens when socialists are the establishment and the poor and oppressed have all the privileges they could possible want? The high income tax in the welfare state has not only deprived people of the resources they need to voluntarily help others, the government has also wiped out the need for charity.

The global market was the solution. Just as in selling or buying steel, paper and shoes, there are plenty of victims and oppressors in other parts of the world.

Prime Minister Olof Palme selected the U.S.A. as his primary target. The situation in Chile and the war in Vietnam were blamed on Nixon and his herd of capitalist oppressors. This was easy, since there were only two TV channels, both controlled by government, and most of the newspapers were in the hands of labor unions. Journalists in independent media did have the courage to take an unpopular view.

One thing that was totally unexpected by the socialist rulers was that the schools had created a multilingual population with the ability to think for themselves. This wiped out any long-term advantages that control over media otherwise would provide.

While the lies about the war in Vietnam were rapidly exposed, since the war continued after US troops left, other lies were not so obvious.

The apartheid regime in South Africa, the 1967 war between Israel and the Arab states, the civil rights issue in U.S.A., as well as historical events like the Crusades and the American Civil War were poorly covered by the books available in schools and libraries.

Almost all literature available had the objective of inciting guilt among the white population in the Western world. The exception was the Jews, since although they were portrayed as the aggressor in recent wars, they were also the victims of the Holocaust.

Needless to say, the women’s liberation movement made men targets of blame for almost anything that happened to members of the opposite sex.

The well-educated people of Sweden were connected with the World Wide Web during the late 1990s, and the possibility of rewriting history to suite the government’s purposes was lost forever.

The wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan and northern Africa created a large number of refugees of exotic religion, customs, and appearance. They were the perfect targets to receive help. But instead of shipping aid to their home countries, the ruling elite came up with a cunning plan to replace the disobedient population of Sweden.

They began to bring in about 100,000 migrants a year. That’s also the number that Germany brings in, but the German population is ten times as big. Most of the migrants allow polygamy, so their women can still find a husband even if a large number of the men are spending time in jail.

In a welfare state there’s no need for the men to support their families — that is, if you belong to a group that is discriminated against. If you belong to the white population, you have to work even when you are being treated for cancer.

The tradition of these exotic groups doesn’t allow women to work or educate themselves, and kills them if they marry someone of another religion. Polygamy and forced marriage at a young age combined with the benefit of support without work create a high birth rate.

In about twenty years this new population will become the bulk of the Swedish population, creating a majority rule.

The Swedish constitution does not provide any protections for human rights. Anything that is in the constitution can be changed by vote in Parliament twice with an election between the two votes.

So if the Swedish population doesn’t do anything about it now, they will have a totalitarian regime in 2030.

Then there might be the need for a new socialist revolution. Until then, I’ll practice ice-skating.


doxRaven said...

Australia is currently considering a Referendum to "recognise" (whatever that means) Aboriginal Australians as the first Australians (whatever that means).

"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are still not recognised in the Australian Constitution as Australia’s first peoples."

"Earlier this year, Newspoll found that 75% of Australians support some kind of constitutional reform to recognise Indigenous Australians."

While the recent discussion is about recognition in the constitution, Australia does have race specific legislation (a kind of socialist approved apartheid system)

Aboriginal person means a person who:

Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 No 42
(a) is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, ...

A model for Sweden (and the rest of Europe for that matter) for 2030? When the ex-socialist becomes a neo-socialist

there might be the need for a new socialist revolution.

in order to fight for the Swedish Aboriginals... secure better treatment of Indigenous Australians and stronger protection of their unique cultures, languages and spiritual connection to the land.

Danko said...

Fjordman was right. Europeans should think seriously on creating an "European Indigenous People's Movement".

The most annoying thing, however, is that socialists and marxist somehow always succeed in bringing their evil plans through and destroying well-functioning societies. It's so discouraging. Sometimes I wonder why are masses so receptive to destructive ideologies and reject blatantly what is logical and functional.

Dingo Hammer said...

Yeah, go practice your ice skating. But, your kids better practice their marksmanship.

Anonymous said...

Danko: In a word - greed.

Marxists appeal to the masses wish to get something for nothing.

Just take, take, take from the rich - except the rich Marxist leaders, of course.

Pretty soon, there are NO rich to take from and everyone is poor - except the rich Marxist leaders, of course.


Lawrence said...

Here in "the states" our greatest Socialism experiments (and the greatest cultural controversies) are embodied in the pro-Abortion movements, with the majority of funding from private as well as government agencies funneling through the Planned Parenthood organization.

So what really is the agenda behind socialist organizatoins like planned parenthood? Is it really about individual rights, or is the agenda actually about controlling the collective of society?

I have short treatise (long web post) to explain.

To the pro-abortionists the overall benefit to the collective of society is more important than the benefit to the individual. Hence individual sacrifice for the benefit of society is expected. There is a parallel here with the Biblical perspective of individual sacrifice, but the overall priorities are different. Difference is whether or not sacrificing human life is acceptable in achieving collective benefit.

Pro-abortionists believe it is acceptable, if not actually honorable, to sacrifice not only your own life in support of the collective, but to also sacrifice the lives of people you judge as non-beneficial to the collective. In this, ending the life of a child prior to birth is deemed acceptable when they are judged to become a potential burden on the collective. Same argument is made in justifying the termination of the elderly when they are judge to become a burden on the collective.

Anti-abortionists believe that individual life is of higher value than an arbitrary perspectives regarding collective benefit of society. And in that the collective benefits the most when we make the value of human life our primary priority.

In the liberal versus conservative debate, the pro-abortionist view is embraced by liberals seeking to create a global Utopia by careful engineering and control of society and of individual lives.

While anti-abortionists tend to be those embracing a religious point of view of society, wherein religion (especially Christianity) contradicts the Utopian ideologies of this mortal world. Christians and like-minded people view the entropic chaos of the world as inevitable, and seek to achieve a sends of order within the chaos, rather than try to defeat the chaos.

Jesus was very clear on these points. He values human life above the cause of the collective, as well as values the death of the Faithful. Jesus spoke against the efforts of the Jewish leaders to achieve a mortal Utopia via their own works and personal efforts, instead reminding us of the failed chaotic nature of our sinful world. The very chaotic nature we expressed in terms such as entropy.

Jesus is clear that mortal entropy and chaos can only be reversed by God Himself, and will indeed happen at some point. The consequence will be the end of this world and a re-born existence, rather than the achievement of a global Utopia in the world we now know.

If we step back a minute and take a wider perspective, we see why the agenda of Liberalism in achieving global Utopia embraces a pro-abortion stance. While those who embrace a Conservative agenda of achieving a semblance of order among the chaos embrace a pro-life stance.

Liberals generally view life as an obstacle if that life doesn't properly support their idea of collective benefit.

Conservatives generally view life as the priority for which the collective is responsible to support.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Reading through the article it looks like the Swedish elites have decided to wipe out the native Swedes via mass importation of 3rd world people IOW genocide through demographics.

Sadly it's no difference from what the U.S.A is facing. Conservatives and Democrats are going full out to keep our borders open and give out all sorts of free benefits to all the illegals coming in.

As far as the difference between Conservatives and Socialists go. There isn't any anymore as far as working and middle-class are concerned. Both groups are for globalization and importation of 3rd worlders.

Anonymous said...

There is no "collective benefit" in the spiritual and moral enslavement to the State that is Socialism's true goal.

The premise is false.

Danko said...

Egghead: Yes, that's correct, I forgot it. Communists nationalize everything, they stole from the rich "Pig head" Bourgeoises and kulaks (as they were called in the west after WW2) in order to "give it to the people", in a way that all stoles goods are in the hand of the "people", or the "state", that is, in THEIR hand. As one crazy old communist told me once, Goods are the property of everybody, so if a land has 10 million inhabitants, every person owns a tenth million part of a hammer, a tenth million part of a TV, etc... It made me shudder.

Lawrence said...

So, having said that, contrast that with Obamacare intended to control our medical system.

The Abortion industry controls the early stages of life, while the new medical system controls the end of life.

Part of the Obamacare ideology is to judge (and ration) who is not elligible (not worthy) for medical treatments near the end of life.

Who wants to live in a society in which the goverment basically dictates the rules for who should live (via the abortion industry) and who should die by rationing medical care (via the health industry)?

The only people I know who truly want this, and embrace this ideologiy are liberal socialists and communists.

The rest of us would rather protect the live of the new-born, or almost to be born. And provide as much aid and comfort to our elderly as we possibly can.

Liberals will say they want this, but the agenda they pursue behind their words doesn't jibe with their words.

Danko said...

Communists stole all properties from our family in Hungary back in 1945, including machines of a small factory, tools, etc... Which since that day belonged only to the "people". That is, to them. If anybody resisted from handing over his factory or other way of living to them, he was simply shot dead like a dog. Sadly we know them too well... One who knows them well is simply horrorized of seeing what happens nowadays in Sweden and other western countries.

Anonymous said...

Lawrence: I agree with your two comments, and I want to add that Obamacare is intended to control EVERY time and facet of people's lives.

Obamacare will control young and middle aged people using diet restrictions. The state will control what and when you eat - and exercise - to 'prevent' you becoming a 'burden' to the collective healthcare system.

The liberals literally INTEND to STARVE the people. Before you scoff, read about the biosphere project which FAILED because the scientists MUTINIED because they were literally being starved by the leader. After this expensive experiment in the extraordinary health 'benefits' of starvation, I read an extremely detailed article about the deep bitterness of the professional staff who did NOT agree to starve themselves!

WHO gets to decide the ideal diet for humans anyway?

WHAT fun will life be when we are all forced to starve for our own 'benefit'?

Michelle Obama currently shills for diet control.

This week, the ladies on daytime TV were extolling the benefits of government control of sugar as a drug.

'New' science is re-classifying sugar as an addictive substance.

And yet, the liberals who are so against sugar also fully INTEND to legalize drugs.

Anorexics use drugs to control their appetite as they starve themselves to death.

Years ago, I lived with a senior lady who was paid to participate in a 'starvation' study (my term) at Virginia Commonwealth University. She severely limited her caloric intake and exercised excessively. She lost a lot of weight and told me that doctors considered her to be a great success. I always wished that the doctors would survey me because that women was an absolute MISERY to live with during her 'starvation' and exercise periods. The woman was a completely different - and much saner and nicer - person when she ate a regular diet and stopped exercising excessively.

The New World Order Agenda 21 'Utopia' is to stick all of the 'little' people in large cities - without freedom of association - with minimum food - and with a constant drug haze hanging in the air. Starvation, stress, and inhibitions lowered by both voluntary and involuntary drug use are an ideal combination to create social destruction. Some 'Utopia' we are being set up to experience in the name of being 'green' and 'saving' the earth!


Biosphere 2

Lawrence said...


That is the plan for those who resist the collective agenda. If you play ball they'll find a place for you. If you resist you get put in retraining in those large cities.

Obama was pretty clear on this when he said, "‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

That is what USSR did, is what N.Korea does, and what China often achieves, in various ways.

We may be tin-foiling a bit on this, but Obama's rhetoric parallels the liberal rhetoric of Europe, which quite often parallels the leaders of North Korea and a few other nations.

It's kinda scare if you think about it.

Anonymous said...

Danko: Thank you for your comments. :)

Anonymous said...


There is a very simple reason as to why there are immigrants in Sweden. It's because there are people who want to move to Sweden and no one has seen any reason to stop it.

That's it.
There is no conspiracy to annihilate the white race.

That some of you seriously seem to believe in such juvenile fantasies is amusing.

As a member of Sweden's ruling party I could answer your questions about our policies honestly and openly. But would you really be interested in a dialouge? I doubt it, but am hopeful nonetheless.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I find myself in the disagreeable position of having to be the first to bring up the issues of personal responsibility and individual freedom.

These two concepts are inextricably intertwined, one cannot exist without the other. If a person is not individually free, then it is impossible for them to be actually responsible for their actions. If an individual is not personally responsible for their acts, then they are not free in any meaningful sense of the term.

To be free, one must have the possibility of perceptibly different actions, which lead to significantly different consequences, and some way of knowing which consequences will follow which actions.

There are thus three attacks on freedom. The most obvious is to restrict possible actions. A person that physically cannot do something is not free to do it, and only a moron or a knave would assert that they were. The second obvious attack on freedom is to ensure that the same results occur regardless of any chosen actions. This is compatible with a kind of liberty (since liberty only means the absence of limits on action, it does not carry the implication of diversity of consequences), and so it is common for people to still argue that freedom does not require being able to effect different outcomes for oneself, only being able to choose different actions to reach the same, unalterable outcome. This argument depends heavily on the substitution of the ancient definition of liberty for the meaning of freedom...but in romance cultures the more Germanic rooted concept of a free person's sovereign domain may simply be lacking in the first place.

Still, while there exist cultures in which "freedom" is not an available concept, it should still be readily apparent that a person recommending that everyone have the same outcomes regardless of their actions is recommending something radically different from someone who suggests that people be allowed to substantially effect their own outcomes by their own actions. It should also be readily evident to the careful observer that those recommending the same outcome for everyone do not really mean it...their schemes still impose radically different outcomes on different people, but without regard to the individual actions of those people.

But the most difficult, and therefore interesting, problem of freedom is in identifying the distinguishing characteristics of knowledge of the consequences of one's actions. In the crudest sense, this aspect of freedom may be attacked by the use of deception. And of course that is quite common and should be addressed as the problem that it is. But for deception to be intentionally employed, not only must the deceiver have an understanding of the true relationship between actions and consequence in order to deliberately obscure it, but also must have an understanding of how it is that a person ordinarily gains and employs knowledge of the consequences of actions in making decisions.

Of course, the interesting part of this is of little relevance to this discussion, only the rather dull bit about the use of deception to impair freedom. But everything about leftists and collectivists can be understood very simply as opposition to individual freedom and personal accountability, once we understand exactly what those are.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2/04/2012 5:31 AM

People want to come to Sweden you say, sure they do, but that doesn't mean you have to let them in to the detriment of the native Swedes!

"no one has seen any reason to stop them" you say, are you from this planet or are you running around with a tin-foil hat?

Have you ever talked to an average Swede, I mean someone outside you own little incestous circle of likeminded friends?

Anonymous said...

"...there are people who want to move to Sweden and no one has seen any reason to stop it."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

As with the Mexican and other South Americans who 'move' to the United States, those 'people' who want to 'move' - really immigrate - to Sweden are attracted by the lavish financial incentives paid for by indigenous people's money spent by indigenous quislings who intend to buy votes with the plan to stay in power AGAINST the will of the indigenous people who would NEVER consent to being replaced - and worse yet - being taxed to be replaced. Traitor!


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said :
'...As a member of Sweden's ruling party I could answer your questions ..."

If You were a member then You should be able include the name of that party in your comment.

There is 11 000 cases of rape a year and
U.S. got 90 000 but their population are
30 times bigger.
Before there was migration into Sweden there was 350 cases of rape a year ( 1950 )

Anonymous said...

Have I ever talked to another Swede?
Yes, in fact I have. How many? Five thousand, ten thousand, fifty thousand? Impossible to say.

I am not aware of any incestous activities among my friends. Nor could I honestly call them likeminded.

The party is commonly referred to as the Moderate Party. Their youth organization is the Swedish Young Conservatives.
Our popular support has doubled in ten years, surpassed the social democratic party and now we rule. I would expect you to be at least vaguely aware of who we are. Considering that we are the strongest political force in Scandinavia, and the amount of attention seemingly paid to scandinavian politics on this very blog.

The party has no policy of ethnic replacement. Nor is it very fond of handing out welfare money.
If we do indeed "buy votes" it is through the tax cuts we make.
We are abolishing the welfare state. Not very quickly, but it's happening.
As a result, Sweden is one of preciously few Western nations that do not have a budget deficit.

To the best of my knowledge there is 5000 cases of rape reported to the police every year. This number sharply rose in 2005 when the law was changed. Number of rapists convicted in court remain at roughly 200 annually.
I am unaware of any dramatic change in migration trends during the year 2005.

You claim to be aiming at "saving Europe" through peaceful means. Perhaps your blog could use a little bit less anger and a little bit more civil debate. Less talk ABOUT other people, more talk WITH other people.
Or do you have another plan to fix the problem with "traitors and quislings"?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Moderate Party Member: Either you are lying to yourself or us - and either way Muslim immigration will still MURDER Western Sweden in the end. The Muslims will replace the cross on the Swedish flag with a murderous Muslim symbol and rename your country Sweden-istan or the like.

OK. Let's talk about Malmo.

So far, Sweden has been completely willing to replace ethnic Swedish Jews with ethnic Swedish Muslims in Malmo - and elsewhere in Sweden.

It appears that Jews living in Malmo definitely see a reason to stop Muslim immigration - and now have started their own Jewish exodus from Malmo due to severe harassment and serious death threats from Muslims.


"In 2002, economist Lars Jansson estimated that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers about $27 billion annually and that fully 74 percent of immigrant-group members in Sweden lived off the taxpayers."

The Islamisation of Sweden

Pat Condell: The Final Destruction of Sweden

FOX News: Muslim Immigration Destroying Sweden

Anonymous said...

When is "the end", Egghead?
Number of murders in Sweden has not increased in 40 years.

I don't see any calls for changing the flag. I see immigrants displaying it proudly.

For your information, the Swedish government does not tell its citizens where to live.

Your youtubelinks are well known to me. But carry little truth.
The constitutional changes Pat Condell refers to has never happened. His sources all cite eachother (this site among them) and in the end nothing of what he says can be found in Swedish law. Why anyone would even want to make up the stuff he says in that video is beyond me.

If you happen to know which paragraphs he is talking about, and if I happened to miss them as I read through the law book, please don't hesitate to tell me which pages it is.

If Sweden is truly being destroyed then why isn't the increase in crime proportional to population increase? Indeed, it seems the increase in crime isn't there at all.

If Sweden is being destroyed then why did it just record the highest economic growth rate in the western world?

If their country is being destroyed then why are the Swedes one of the happiest and healthiest people in the world?

And have you ever read an article, or seen a video about, Sweden that wasn't linked by someone else for the sole reason that is portrayed the (unapproved by you) minorities living in Sweden?

Do you ever feel that there might be a bigger picture?

Have you ever met, talked to or even seen with your own eyes an immigrant living in Sweden?

Anonymous said...

I also feel the extremely important issue of people living of welfare should be adressed.

It is an inherit flaw of the social democratic system and I believe that the ideology and costs associated with it are at the core of Europe's financial crisis.

The bloated welfare systems and the frightingly huge number of citizens depending on them was the dominant issue during the general elections in 2006 which saw the social democratic party ousted from power.
You mention immigrants living on welfare and eventhough your numbers are exaggerated and false they still don't come close to adressing the true scale of the problem.

The problem being of course that it isn't limited to immigrants but applies to the population as a whole.

The moderate party saw that the right thing to do was significant cuts in social spending, compensated by tax cuts.

When the financial crisis hit in 2008 we chose to stimulate the economy with further tax cuts.
The government refused to nationalize failing companies. It is not the purpose of the state to keep alive those who fail to compete on the free market.

We focused on the problem as a whole: people living on welfare, rather than taking the easy way and feel content with just putting the blame on the immigrant part of the population.

The result? Sweden is now in a vastly better economical situation than countries like Finland and Denmark.

We might not be able to match their racial purity, but at least we don't have to take loans to cover our spending, like they do.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I feel to apologize to the "Moderate Party" commentator for some of the unharmonious reception. However, first I must point out that the initial comment did invite dispute in several ways.

"There is a very simple reason as to why there are immigrants in Sweden. It's because there are people who want to move to Sweden and no one has seen any reason to stop it."

It is non-controversial that immigration to Sweden is largely voluntary on the part of the immigrants, i.e. that one simple reason for the immigration is that there are people who want to move to Sweden.

But it is simply not true that "no one has seen any reason to stop it." Very many people have seen significant reasons to stop certain people from immigrating to Sweden, and a large number of people have seen and vocally expressed reasons to stop the immigration that is currently occurring. If you are really ignorant of this...but then, you presumably are aware of this site, so you cannot claim ignorance. It is simply a bald-faced assertion that those opposed to Islamic immigration into Sweden are "no one". The assertion is fundamentally very insulting...and alarming. Asserting a category of people to be non-persons is one of the essential steps in justifying violence against them.

"There is no conspiracy to annihilate the white race."

This statement is simply not true. There are in fact several active conspiracies to annihilate the white race (I believe that I technically may belong to several of the more credible ones). To be sure, the current Jihad only can be counted as a conspiracy to the extent that Muslims practice strategic deception to counter their openly stated aims of subjugating and slowly eradicating all non-Arab races. And the primary non-Islamic movement to dilute the "white" race out of existence is not exactly conspiratorial (I suppose I belong to this movement as well, in some degree).

The actual conspiracies to really annihilate (as in, exterminate through the wide-spread application of lethality sufficient to reduce the population below viability) the white race are...well, conspiracies. Some are just silly mad-scientist fantasies without any real force behind them other than determination to have ready access to the tools to wipe out selected strains of humanity. Some are rather terrifying contingency plans of people with the will and means to end most human life on the planet. Some aim for a combination of global "fitness" testing under harsh real-world conditions followed by...well, that varies. But both the conspiracies and non-conspiracies to put an end to the "white" race do exist.

"That some of you seriously seem to believe in such juvenile fantasies is amusing."

Now, this is just insulting. I have no way to justify making any apology to you after you say this.

"As a member of Sweden's ruling party I could answer your questions about our policies honestly and openly."

But instead you chose to say things that were obviously untrue, and denigrate and insult those expressing concern over those policies. What a person actually does says quite a bit more about their character than their assertions about what they 'could' do.

"But would you really be interested in a dialouge? I doubt it, but am hopeful nonetheless."

These words I can only return back at you, in light of how you chose to 'introduce' yourself.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

"The party has no policy of ethnic replacement."

So, what's happening on cities like Malmo, Stockholm, Gothenburg and others in Sweden? The population with immigrant origin is growing fast and the ethnic swedes have much lower fertility rates than the immigrants (thanks for abortions, feminism, gay agenda, atheism, etc..). If it's not an ethnic replacement, what the hell it is?

Anonymous said...

Chiu: Thanks! :)

Anonymous Moderate Party Member: First, you REALLY need to adopt a nickname otherwise we don't know which self-important 'anonymous' you are.

Second, financial responsibility is very important - especially when such a standard is equally applied to both indigenous and immigrant - which heretofore has been lacking - with immigrants receiving more than their fair share of monies earned by other indigenous people.

There are those on this site who would fully agree that the state abolition of the federal welfare system in ALL forms - including subsidies for immigrants, poor, children, seniors, schools, health care, and ALL government services - except international treaties, national and international commerce, and national defense - well, some here would argue that abolition as a total solution to the problems presented by Muslim immigration to the West.

Others at this site realize that, while Muslims freely accept - and often demand - Western Danegeld, Muslims fight this civilizational battle for the long run - rather than short term gain. Indeed, imams encourage Muslims to embrace poverty in order to avoid the seduction of Western values like freedom, so the immediate poverty of life without welfare would tend to harm Western welfare-state-infantilized indigenous people more than Muslim immigrants with an expectation of poverty as a means to an end - that end being Muslim supremacy over indigenous people.

Yes, the same Muslim ummah that refuses help from the Red Cross and seeks to remove the cross on the Swiss flag will make the same request about the Swedish flag and commercial products at the soonest possible convenience to them once their Muslim numbers are greater.

Immigrants want removal of cross from Swiss national flag

Swiss Companies Removing Cross-Shaped Swiss Flag from Their Products to Appease Muslims

Third, moral responsibility is MOST important - and MUST be a standard that is equally applied to both indigenous and immigrant.

The Swedish government and people bear IMMENSE moral responsibility for allowing Muslim immigrants to form parallel societies with their own Sharia Law legal systems that specifically instruct all Muslims to ethnically cleanse Jews - and Christians - and all non-Muslims from the face of the earth.

Swedes who allow Muslims to exert pressure and violence that expels Jews from ANY area of Sweden are fully complicit in an evil act that will rebound on indigenous Swedes as Muslim numbers increase - and Muslims cleanse indigenous people from all of Sweden.

Where will you live when ALL of Sweden is Muslim?

Where will you live when ALL of Europe is Muslim?

Do you intend to convert to Islam, or will you live as a dhimmi slave under Sharia Law?

Do you care that you are likely to be murdered so that your women and children may be assigned as sexual concubines to the slaves of Allah?

Who do you care more about violent Muslims than peaceful Jews?

Why do you care more about Muslims than your own indigenous people?


Anonymous said...

Make that: Why do you care more about violent Muslims than peaceful Jews?


Sagunto said...

From the article:

"Some might argue that Jesus was the first socialist."

Yeah, some idiot might argue that. What an odd way to start an article.

"After two world wars, the world was divided into a socialist totalitarian bloc and the free world, which tried to manage with different degrees of socialism. The United States evolved into a superpower with a flavor of the free market [..]"

False, one hundred percent.
If anything, after WW-II, the US moved away even more rapidly from what was left of the free market of the nineteenth century.

Already at the end of the nineteenth century, "socialism" (called "nationalism") in the US had such a stronghold on education, that the sordid socialist ritual of state worship, called the "Pledge of Allegiance", was mandatory practice in all govt run schools. It came with the strong-arm salute, later copied by notorious European socialist modernizers. During WW-II, it had to be officially abolished by Congress because it had become an embarrassment to see Roosevelt being greeted by American citizens with the "Hitler-salute".

The US form of fascist socialism has its roots in the typically US "Progressive Movement". It became part of the system that funded the corporate progressivist US state after the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
Thus Americans were familiar with fascism (as a political movement) even before Europeans. It was called Progressivism. Today it's called the "bipartisan consensus" or simply corporatism.

"So if the Swedish population doesn’t do anything about it now, they will have a totalitarian regime in 2030. Then there might be the need for a new socialist revolution."

Excuse me? Not at any time will there be any need for a socialist revolution. So that's a bad start and a bad finish, with some mildly interesting but still thoroughly leftist stuff (foreign aid) in between.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /,

Danko said...

The "moderate party" commentator is the best example of a completely brainwashed marxist creature who would deny even that the sky is blue if the leader told him to do so. It's shocking to see that one can meet such mentalities in the west after having experienced this kind of behavior for a long time in a former soviet colony like where I lived for so long. There's no point in wasting comments on people like this. Such indoctrination is marked in the mind just as the symbol of a given ranch is burned on the skin of a cow. There it is, and there will it remain forever.

Nevertheless it was an interesting experience.

Anonymous said...

Our resident Swede has left us before he could explain the following article:

Swedes should work until they’re 75: Reinfeldt


Anonymous said...

Hi I am the "Socialist on ice"
Thank You for Your comments on my article.

I am not serious about ice-skating while
waiting for another socialist revolution.

I try to do something now like debate this issues at work and many people do agree.
But lots of people are so brainwashed
by politically correctness so they argue
that I'm a racist.

Did You notice that the 'Moderat' claimed that there was 'only' 5000 rapes and
'...Number of rapists convicted in court remain at roughly 200 annually.'

Is a 4% rate of conviction acceptable for such crimes?

The pc media never ask these questions.

Danko said...

Egghead: good point. He could also explain this much-telling videos:

It would be pointless to seek a coherent answer from a fellow like him, but nevertheless it would be interesting. People kile him would say that everything is OK even if they were sitting on a pile of ruins which before was their home.