Part 3: It's a riddle

A popular riddle when I was a kid was the one about the frog and the stream. The frog has to pass the stream, but he may not jump over the stream, and he may not swim. Furthermore, he may not build a tunnel under the stream, or get himself a frog-size helicopter to fly over it, or anything of the kind. To cut it short, he may not in any way pass under, over or through the water. Neither may he walk around the whole stream by tracing it back to its origin.

So how can he pass the stream?

- - - - - - - - - -
How do we act when all possible options are forbidden and we still have to do something? The answer to the riddle is: He jumped anyway!

Purists will object to this method and claim that all possible actions hadn't yet been exhaustively explored, and that the frog should have tried things like Star Trek teleportation or by taking a time-machine back to a time when the stream didn't exist. The frog however was a practical man, and needed to get back to the other side where he had his home, his food and his loved ones, He simply didn't have time to listen forever to the unrealistic speculations of theorists. He knew that the only way was to jump, even though he was forbidden to do so.

Sweden is an almost perfectly sealed system of PC tyranny. Quite as for the frog in the riddle, for anyone in Sweden wanting to oppose Islamization and mass immigration, all possible ways to pass the stream are blocked, by a combination of "soft" means and "hard" means. The first hurdle is how people are mentally caught in a PC maze of smoke and mirrors, in a medial theater staged by the establishment. If they find their way through the smokes and mirrors of this mental PC maze, and manage to find an exit out of it, it will be guarded by a Nazi troll: "No, we cannot say, do or think so or so, then we would be seen as racists/fascists/nazis; we would become like him -- the Nazi troll." Good and decent people will back off to avoid ostracism. Some of them take one step out through the exit, e.g. by bringing up questions about Islamization and mass immigration, and they will get "Racist!" hurled at them. If they persist and take another step, without exception they will now get "Nazi!" hurled at them. By now almost all of them will have retreated back into the PC maze.

For the few that exit the PC maze anyway -- all of whom by now already have got the Nazi-label branded at them (some of whom will actually think that they are, or have to be, Nazis therefore) -- will now face the hard means of stopping them (as if ostracism isn't hard enough). A combination of the Swedish constitution and the media situation has effectively stopped any serious dissenter to the PC hegemony, up until now. And for those that persist on opposition anyway, the ultimate unction is delivered in from of harassment and sabotage by the leftist stormtroopers (Antifa etc.), all while the media and the legal system turn their blind eye to it.

As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Good and decent people do not want to be ostracized, i.e. being socially "killed" and lose their job etc., for opposing Islamization. The do not want to have "Racist!" and "Nazi!" hurled after them. They do not want to be beaten up by leftist stormtroopers, while the establishment is looking the other way. So if we are all going to be good people, we should just do nothing, and evil will triumph, in form of Islamo-leftism.

Nevertheless, during the last two decades three frogs have tried to jump in Sweden. The first two were effectively stopped by the omnipotent power of the Swedish PC system. The third frog is the Sweden Democrats. It made a successful jump in last year's election -- after essentially having been jumping up and down for almost two decades. And next election in 2010, nothing can stop it from jumping right into the parliament.

Should we support the Sweden Democrats, or should we remain good men and let evil triumph?

It's a riddle!

In order to help you answer this riddle in an informed way, I will continue this series of posts. First I will address the Swedish constitution and how it effectively makes Swedish politics a closed system. Secondly I will write a short history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden during the last two decades (the three frogs). I will have to address the heavily distorted description of the history of the Sweden Democrats written by Truumax at LGF. And also address his main source, Expo, a state funded organization with links to the leftist stormtroopers, an integral part of the Swedish PC system. The "missing link" between the oppressive Swedish state and Antifa. Furthermore, I should also give some theoretical background to what I'm talking about. It's all well described in political science, more precisely by John Gaventa, and his three dimensions of power.

More:

Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map
Part 2: Sweden Democrats and Hollywood Nazis
Part 4: The effect of the constitution in Sweden
Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems
Part 6: Brief history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden
Part 7: The New Party and how it was crushed