Friday, November 16, 2007

A short note to Charles

Charles Johnson answered to my blog post yesterday:

Here's another attack on me:


Apparently, something about my statements that I missed the invitation to the Brussels conference offends Conservative Swede (another brave anti-jihad warrior who doesn't use a real name). But it's a fact -- I saw several emails from GoV about the conference, but don't recall specifically seeing an invitation. With 500+ emails in my Inbox every day, it's impossible to read every one.

None of this matters anyway, it's just more peripheral crap to distract people's attention away from the real issues. Note that "Christine" and her friends are now scouring LGF comments for any hint of contradiction, so they can play "Gotcha!"

The issue is not whether Charles understood that the emails from Gates of Vienna were invitations or not. The issue is whether he was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang before October 19th or not. Charles claimed in the Shire interview that he was "paying attention to the story" of those emails. It seems incredible that he could have payed attention to the story, while missing that Vlaams Belang were attending. In fact, Vlaams Belang was all over the story of those emails since the conference took place in their home turf, and they took care of the arrangements for the venue and security of the conference. This just couldn't have been missed by someone paying attention to the story in those emails.

If Charles was aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang at the time he got the emails, it will make him look less than serious as an anti-Jihadist. A valid question then is why he didn't bring up his concerns as constructive criticism to the organizers before the conference took place. The way he dismisses such a valid question as an "attack" and "peripheral crap", and the way he continues to tell different stories about what happened, makes him look even less serious and honest. The issue is of course irrelevant to whether Vlaams Belang are neo-Nazis or not, but it's all relevant for assessing Charles' sincerity regarding the cause of forging a common anti-Jihadist movement. And I think this issue is important enough, and so should Charles, for his own good.

Regarding the way Christine is keeping a record of LGF comments: The thing is that one cannot search among LGF comments without having an LGF registration (by Charles' design). And most people on the other side of this argument with Charles have been banned from LGF (also policy by Charles). So this has been setup to more easily facilitate web searches. Surely Charles Johnson is a man who can appreciate the value of web searches, when investigating a matter. Or is there a special reason why web searches are unjust if they concern Charles and LGF? Is there a special reason why investigation of the statements of Charles Johnson are morally objectionable and shouldn't take place?

[End of post] Read further...

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Looks like damage control to me, Charles

Charles Johnson of LGF professes himself as a leading figure of the anti-Jihad movement. But how serious is he really about anti-Jihad resistance in practice?

The Counterjihad Summit in Brussels was the first of its kind. A very important effort indeed. Not just presentations and talking -- it was a working meeting! Networks were being built, action plans were being worked out, people could come together and feel that there are many of us, even though we are a marginal minority in each place where we operate. This is precisely the way to do it, and much needed. Of course there had been discussions before the conference of whom to invite and whom not to invite, for example it was clear that BNP or Le Pen's Front National should not be invited. No anti-Semites were invited to the conference, only expressly philo-Semitic people were attending. Apart from being repugnant, anti-Semites are the worst possible allies you could have, since they are obsessed by one single theme, all animated by hallucinational fear of ghosts, disconnected from the real world. And anyway, anti-Semites have no interest in attending "icky" philo-Semitic conferences as ours.

Charles Johnson was being kept in the loop about this counterjihad conference from the very start. He got his first email with an invitation to participate from Baron Bodissey already three months before the conference. In total he got three emails. But unlike the majority of the invitees Charles never answered a single email.
- - - - - - - - - -
It was only when Dymphna of Gates of Vienna informed him that the conference had taken place and gave him a link to what Baron Bodissey had written about it, that he acted. And then by suddenly publicly questioning of the whole thing. In his first post about the conference the immediate sneering smackdown, from some commenter of LGF who calls himself "Dave of Sweden", was put on the front page of the post itself. And since then he has continued an ambitious campaign against the conference, more resembling a witch hunt than anything else. All about guilt-by-association charges (mostly using highly questionable sources) most of which were completely faulty, none of which he admitted or corrected, and the remaining ones still just "by association". Gates of Vienna was de-linked from LGF, and Dymphna and Baron Bodissey banned. Fjordman became banned too. A whole bunch of people were banned for not toeing to the line of Charles Johnson.

There are still different opinions about Vlaams Belang among anti-Jihadists. Some think we should work with them, some don't. This is absolutely a valid discussion, and we respectfully exchange the different opinions among each other. So this is not the problem with Charles Johnson and LGF. The grave problem is in how he abstained from giving any constructive criticism before the conference, and how he launched an aggressive campaign against the conference after it had taken place.

But Charles is an intelligent man, and clearly by now he has come to realize how bad this looks. He's been facing a lot of criticism, also from within PajamasMedia by Richard Miniter. Apart from the whole train of people Charles banned, equally many left LGF voluntarily since they found Charles' modus operandi repugnant and dishonest. The reaction against his behaviour has been so strong and widespread that even Charles realized that there is a world outside of LGF -- the echo chamber that he has carefully tailored for himself. He's realized how bad it looks for someone professing as a serious anti-Jihadist to not forwarding any constructive criticism to the epicenter of the anti-Jihad resistance about their pivotal conference, but instead immediately going public with it, striking a decisive blow against the whole effort. So he decided that he needed to do some damage control.

Tom Paine of Shire Network interviewed Charles Johnson this Monday. The very first thing Charles said in the interview was this:

"It actually started because the people who run Gates of Vienna were emailing me about this counterjihad conference that was being organised in Belgium. And so I was paying attention to the story, and really hadn't noticed the guest list too much until I posted something on, I believe it was October 19th, about the conference. And at that point is when I actually read the people who were included in the conference. And realized that there were problems around a couple of them, just because I've been paying attention to what happens there. And I posted that. Then I thought maybe that some of these people were hitching a ride for less than honourable reasons. And after that everything just all blew up (laughter)."
Charles here decides to immediately open with countering the impression that he was fully informed about the conference beforehand, but didn't react until afterwards. He claims that he wasn't fully informed since he hadn't "noticed the guest list too much". The essence of his claim is that he was not aware of the participation of Vlaams Belang until after the conference had taken place, and that this is the reason that he didn't forward constructive criticism to his fellow counterjihadists beforehand. Still he claims that he had been "paying attention to the story" of the emails (but apparently didn't find it important enough to answer any of them).

If we assume that Charles' account of what happened is true, here's the strange thing: even if one didn't read the guest list of these emails at all, but only payed attention to the story, Vlaams Belang is all over the story. The conference was going to take place in Belgium. Security concerns was a major issue, since these kind of meetings regularly gets attacked by leftist stormtroopers (largely egged by more or less obscure Internet campaigns where we are "framed" as Nazi-like). Therefore it was carefully explained early in the story of these emails how Vlaams Belang would take care of the arrangements for the venue and security of the conference. This since they were able to grant us access to the highly secure European and Flemish parliaments for the meetings.

Christine of CVF here gives a detailed account of what had been sent to Charles Johnson in the emails about the conference, about the "story" of the conference:
  1. The email from July 14 stated, “Paul Belien of Brussels Journal is actively involved, and Filip Dewinter, a leader of Vlaams Belang (the Flemish separatist party) is helping us out with the venue and security. “
  2. The email from July 30 stated, “Philip Claeys, EU Parliamentarian with Vlaams Belang, is helping with access to facilities and security.”
  3. The email from September 9 stated “Vlaams Belang is making the arrangements for the venue and security, and I will be in touch later with recommendations for accommodation and information about meals and transport.”
So if we are going to believe Charles, we will have to disbelieve his claim that he had been "paying attention to the story". And by now it becomes rather complex even for the most benevolent believer in Charles' claims, since it becomes apparent that not everything he said in the opening of the Shire interview could be fully true. And either way you twist it, Charles turns out as looking like anything but a serious anti-Jihadist. The most benevolent way to interpret Charles is that he read virtually nothing of the emails sent by Gates of Vienna. And how serious does that look? A "leading" anti-Jihadist falling asleep at the keyboard (three times!) when he gets emails about the most important anti-Jihad conference ever. The less benevolent interpretation is that Charles read it all, which means that he's a backstabber and a liar. Which does not only cast doubts about him being serious, but about him being an anti-Jihadist at all.

Charles is an intelligent man, so he has realized this problem too. He feels how his world is shrinking. Initially he saw himself as speaking for the whole anti-Jihad movement, confident that he spoke for the majority. Then he declared that he had never been on the "anti-jihad bandwagon", at least not the majority conservative one. Now he's appealing only to "US anti-jihad bloggers". Not US anti-Jihadists in general, just the bloggers -- of whom he probably still imagines himself as being the leader.

So at least subconsciously, he's aware of how badly he has damaged his reputation. He's done his best to apply damage control to the situation, but his traitorous behaviour is too obvious. So the question is how many will believe in his spin, apart for the sycophants of his personal echo-chamber.


Christine of CVF, who's keeping track of Charles' LGF comments, just emailed me this:
He’s perhaps a little confused…because he also posted this AFTER the interview was recorded:


Charles 11/12/07 3:42:48 pm reply quote report

re: #813 Meryl Yourish

Actually, what I got out of it was, "Well, we invited him to the conference, and he didn't come, and he didn't say we were bigots for three months, and now all of a sudden, he says we're bigots. That's not FAY-YER."

Indeed. For what it's worth, I don't remember receiving the invitation, and may not have read it. I get 500+ emails a day usually, and it's not unusual for me to miss something. But what does any of that matter? Again, it's an obfuscation; it's got nothing to do with the facts.

Read further...

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Part 7: The New Party and how it was crushed

For Westerners living far away from Europe, it can sometimes be very hard to grasp the gravity of the political situation in particular European countries. People from Eastern Europe have in recent memory the reaction from some such Westerners, when they heard about how there was no food to buy in the food store: "So why didn't you go to another food store to buy food?" In the same manner we have recently heard across the Atlantic the (in another context perfectly sensible, but here not at all applicable) objection, that the Swedish anti-jihadists, instead of joining and co-operating with the Sweden Democrats (who everybody knows and agrees has some very problematic things in their past), should have started a fresh new party undoubtedly free from any historical baggage of real, imagined or distant neo-Nazi connections, or anything of the sort.

Of course, quite as the subject under the communist empire could get his legs moving and take a walk to another food store, a new party could have been started in Sweden. And in both cases it's not as if it hasn't been tried. But in both cases to no avail. And this for fundamental reasons built into the system. In part 4 and part 5 I have already described how power is practiced in Sweden by the hegemony, through a system designed so that the MSM entirely holds the complete power over whether a new party is able to enter the political arena, i.e. whether the existence of it will be known at all to the general electorate. Clearly a political party, which existence is virtually unknown of, is as pointless as supermarket without food.

In part 6 I told the story about The New Party and how it was crushed by the system. However, for someone not knowing Sweden from the inside, I can see how it could still be hard to fully take in the magnitude of this. Therefore I will here present a more detailed account of it, told by the founder of the party himself -- Ian Wachtmeister. I found this compilation of quotes at Jan Milld's site BGF (read it in Swedish here). My fellow countryman, LN, who often contributes to Gates of Vienna, did the bulk of the translation (thanks LN!). Then Baron B perfected the English, before I had a final go at it giving it that proper Swenglish touch.

This will provide you with all the context you need to understand the political climate of Sweden!

- - - - - - - - - -
From Ian Wachtmeister's book The Frogs (Grodorna) -- about experiences of the election campaign 1998, when The New Party tried to hold public meetings in town squares:

The Election Campaign 1998

"The Jesuits professed themselves adherent of the thesis: 'the end justifies the means'. Is the end sufficiently glorious, then all and any means can be applied."

"February 1998: Svegfors, the editor for the Swedish daily paper Svenska Dagbladet, says in front of an astonished audience at the Institute for Company Management (IFL): 'Wachtmeister does not have a chance. He will at the most reach 0.2 percent. Because we will simply not write a word about him.' On a direct question he explained that by 'we' he meant virtually all media in Sweden!"

"The election campaign of The New Party consequently started in the first days in June 1998.

Just after midsummer 1998 hooligans were crashing our meetings. Vegans, communists, antifascists and whatever they call themselves, always led by the Young Left (Swedish ex-Communist Youth League) with the SSU (Swedish Social Democratic Youth League) as a detached observer. They implemented organized riots and broke all possible laws there are to protect the freedom of speech of election meetings summoned in due order. It started in Gävle and continued in Norrtälje, Stockholm, Nynäshamn, Västervik, Kalmar, Halmstad, Falkenberg, Varberg, Umeå, Skellefteå, Luleå, Linköping, Jönköping, Lund, Malmö and once more in Stockholm. To the extent that any police at all were present at least they tried to hold the hooligans at distance, but there was a dreadful noise and uproar, that I can guarantee. However, we never broke off a meeting, instead we increased the sound level on our speakers. Pia Dahlström, who appeared together with me in the majority of riotous meetings, was tough and strong. And spoke excellently. Good work, Pia!

The organized riots were reported to the police. In no case this led to any prosecutions. The legal investigations were withdrawn - if they were even started.

Do not believe that we were attacked by 'personally involved young people' (an expression that was used in the papers in Skåne!). With ready-made printed lampoons, rattles and whistles, uniformed in black and with black and red flags and with commanders in civilian clothes, who led their forces by cell phone, they tried to take over the entire meeting. By ourselves, we had to push away the hooligans with the right hand and hold the microphone with the left. Nota bene - on the entire tour the police never captured anyone attempting sabotage of the freedom of assembly, but only for direct insults and gesticulations against the police. Those who were apprehended were immediately released.

Add to all this the murder threats via letters and e-mails and one well armed person that we observed at a meeting in Nynäshamn.

Probably the prosecutors considered it unnecessary even to take our police-reports seriously. It only concerned "outcasts" from an excommunicated party!

The risk was nil that someone in the powerful right - or left - circles should care about the nonchalance of the authorities. And of course this was entirely correct. The media remained obediently silent.

There are still more remarkable elements. In multiple places it was acknowledged that school teachers sanctioned the hooliganism and that sympathetic pupils were given free time in order to be able to contribute their share to democracy. In some places, teachers even participated as conductors of the actions!!

But now just listen! In Lund, where the unlawfulness was passively backed by police who showed a clear political sympathy for them, my wife (!) when protecting herself was reported to the police for having attacked young people. That dossier was dismissed after approximately eighteen months."

"In the locale paper Sydsvenskan Eva Persson, the leader of the hooligans, declared that she was pleased beyond expectations with how effective everything had been in Lund due to the cooperation with the police. Sure, this is exactly what she said to the newspapers.

The police in Malmö dialed me immediately after the meeting in Lund and made their apologies for the disgraceful behavior of the police in Lund. They suggested that I should report to the police the police of Lund... which I did. This internal investigation, however, was dismissed. What did you believe?

Meanwhile between the end of June and the election on September 20 the bigger newspapers wrote almost nothing about these riots and nobody, I repeat nobody, dissociated themselves from them, neither our alas! so moral editors like Svegfors and Leijonhufvud on the Svenska Dagbladet, nor those leading politicians that during orderly conditions themselves could disseminate their message around the country. My friend, pastor Alf [Svensson- party leader of the Christian Democrats 1973-2004], did not say a word. I wonder what Jesus would have said about that.

As said before, September 20 was election day. An election in Sweden is a TV play. The New Party had never been presented in TV, and precisely as the editor Svegfors promised, nor in any newspapers. That obedient wife of Pär Nuder [former socialist minister of Finance], i.e. Ingrid Carlberg, journalist at Dagens Nyheter, for security's sake wrote an article two days before the election in which you could read that I had given up. The Swedish Radio news program Dagens Eko (the Daily Echo) helpfully contributed with a similar comment during ongoing election!!

Through the outcome of the election the order was restored. No new parties would disturb those dozing, already established parties. The cooperation with the media had functioned according to plan.

I had, along with a brave gang, held meetings approximately one hundred and thirty times throughout Sweden from the north to the south, from east to west. Many had listened to our message (see the introduction to this chapter). But when in the media it looked as if the party was not participating in the election, this did not bring many votes. Twenty-five thousand for certain.

The New Party's election campaign was despite all difficulties carried out in a very good mood and I am eternally grateful to everyone who lined up. Eloquent, spirited and brave young ladies expressed their messages and were encouraged by the manifest support of the real audience. The truck, with drivers and co-workers, that patiently went on working, despite repeated sabotage, graffiti, pierced tires, smashed windshields, drove on through the country."

"But then, ladies and gentlemen, half a year after the election, the chief editor of Dagens Nyheter (DN) began to speak. On March 15, 1999 he published a signed editorial asking: 'Is a party leader allowed to speak in Sweden?'

It began like this: 'Why didn't anybody react against the systematic disturbances of Ian Wachtmeister's election meetings? Björn Elmbrandt (of Swedish Radio) asked us in the Media this conscience question in his inaugural lecture for the DN-professorship in journalism at the Stockholm University. Elmbrandt's starting point was the defense of democracy. Representatives for a political party have all rights to speak on general meetings during an election campaign.'

Hans Bergström establishes that the only true police investigation that was started, and that was linked to The New Party's election meetings, was a preliminary investigation initiated against my wife because she defended herself against those who disturbed a meeting. This despite the fact that the party had reported meeting disturbances in fifteen towns to the police.

Hans Bergström then reports with a picture of the leaflet that was disseminated by Jenny Lindahl's Young Left activists, the very worst outrage, that in Lund.

He establishes that 'no organized disturbance of a meeting can become clearer than this. Eight organizations, including the youth association of a leading parliament party, have printed posters that urge people to rally round in order to physically prevent a party leader from speaking to the voters, because his views about taxes and labor legislation (according to what is explained in a folder) are not liked. Ian Wachtmeister reported also this disturbance of a meeting to the police and the prosecutor. Since the most apparent evidence was in printed form, the prosecutor submitted the dossier to the Chancellor of Justice (JK) that has to monitor infringements of the press law. The Chancellor of Justice, Hans Regnér, quickly cancelled the dossier with a written justification so miserable that it should be reproduced as a whole.

He starts by saying that it can be difficult to get copies of the poster (despite its apparent existence) or facts concerning to what extent it had been disseminated. The Chancellor of Justice, however, admits that "probably a printed script is involved". Still, the case should not be investigated "because a continued investigation in order to clarify the questions would require significant costs". Furthermore, the sanction would probably not become more severe than fines, the Chancellor of Justice gives as an excuse. Admittedly "one must look seriously upon urgent requests to disturb freedom of assembly as guaranteed by the constitution. This applies especially when it is question about extra-parliamentary methods that aim to disturb or to prevent political parties from expressing their messages in connection with general elections", but -- the Chancellor of Justice continues his excuses -- some more systematic campaign it does not seem to have been. (How does the Chancellor of Justice know that without an investigation?) Therefore, the Chancellor of Justice decides that a preliminary investigation will not be initiated. "The dossier is hereby closed." Instead, a preliminary investigation is initiated by the prosecutor against Lena Wachtmeister half a year later!

And Hans Bergström continues: 'this is unparalleled for a democracy and a state governed by law. Fifteen coarse meeting disturbances. The worst in Lund. Broken campaign trucks and fifteen murder threats against a political party in the middle of an election campaign in Sweden did not result in one single preliminary investigation. In the majority of places the police remained entirely passive. In some cases they put up gigantic riot barriers that also hindered the holding of an ordinary political meeting. Everything in order to avoid having to intervene against political hooligans having no understanding that freedom of assembly belongs to democracy.

Had corresponding meeting-disturbances hit Olof Johansson [then leader of the Center Party], Göran Persson [then leader of the Social Democrats], Carl Bildt [then leader of the Moderates], Gudrun Schyman or Birger Schlaug [Left and Green] it is self-evident that the police would have acted in an entirely different way; probably the Chancellor of Justice had done it also. Now, it was about a small party, nevertheless with a former parliament member as party leader, one could not expect the same general understanding. At this point the state governed by law is put to the test.

Like Björn Elmbrandt I am as a publicist ashamed that we did not react more strongly already during the election campaign in 1998 against the systematic attacks on The New Party's right to speak. The party and the party leader will not line up in the election to the European Parliament now in July, to a large extent because of what happened in 1998. It might be the correct conclusion, but it is drawn off a wrong reason. We cannot have order in the Swedish democracy where police, prosecutors and the Chancellor of Justice accept that hooligans and mobsters prevent party leaders from speaking to voters-to-be in election times.

So far this very elucidating article by Hans Bergström.

On March 19 the somewhat pressed Chancellor of Justice expresses himself in the paper Dagens Nyheter. His contribution is so fatally illogical and contrary to the law that I do not want to tire you with it.

Hans Bergström patiently pointed out for the Chancellor of Justice that it is more than a matter of standard procedure when a party leader systematically is prevented from holding campaign meetings during the election process. It is about an attack against the vital nerve of democracy. Then the sum of the judicial system's responses should not look like what it now did: the Chancellor of Justice decided that no preliminary investigation should be initiated concerning the election posters requesting meeting disturbances, the police in Lund remained entirely passive face to face with the hooligans, nor was a preliminary investigation later initiated about the disturbance of the meeting and the Chief District Prosecutor in Malmö quickly discontinued the preliminary investigation concerning police malfeasance.

In summary: Not a single instance of the combined Swedish judicial system found a reason to lift a finger against the meeting disturbances or to investigate one iota of what was happening. What does this say about how the judicial system safeguards the Swedish democracy at work? What will the future outcome of it be: That political parties start to establish their own protection corps in order to be able to have election meetings?"

It was all completely effective. As I have already pointed out before, I was not even aware of the existence of this party until four years later, before the election 2002, when I started taking an interest in how things had gone very wrong in my country. It was at BGF I read about it.

Sweden is a dominant-party system, verging on a de facto single-party state, with the Social Democrats as the "State Party". We have read here about the role of the Social Democratic youth organization (SSU) in this. I will have reason to come back to where the Expo Foundation fits into this picture.

I think this final post of my series should make it all clear to my readers to what extent the PC regime in Sweden is a hermetically sealed system. And that at this point the Sweden Democrats is the only available battering ram to break through this wall. And the reason why it's a party with a checkered past (i.e. the officially appointed punching bag) is all part of the system too -- an integral part of it. As is indicated by my series: the more hermetically sealed the PC regime of a country, the murkier the past of the anti-establishment party. But that was the past, when the omnipotence of the PC regimes was staggering. This is all changing now.


Part 1: Counterjihadism changing the European political map
Part 2: Sweden Democrats and Hollywood Nazis
Part 3: It's a riddle
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

Read further...

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Part 6: Brief history of anti-establishment parties in Sweden

I will here tell the story of three anti-establishment parties, critical of the hegemonic (and thoroughly twisted) immigration policy of Sweden:

  • New Democracy
  • The New Party
  • The Sweden Democrats
In part 4 and part 5 I have shown how the power, in Sweden, over whether a new party can enter the political system lies entirely with the media.
- - - - - - - - - -

New Democracy

New Democracy (Ny Demokrati), founded in 1991, became a media favorite from the very start. The party was actually created in media, in a live TV debate program (Siewert Öholm's "Svar direkt"). The party had a dual leadership: Bert Karlsson, a record company and amusement park owner, and Ian Wachtmeister, a Count and former CEO of different Swedish companies. Both already colourful medial figures, and there was simply too much good stuff to write about them for media to stay away. The profile issues of the party were restricted immigration, substantial tax-cuts and red tape reduction. Their style was populistic, intending to make politics less boring and more accessible for the common man. E.g. they demonstrated, at square meetings, how governments expenses could be cut, by stacking beer cases. And railed against "crocodile politicians" from the mainstream parties, who were said to resemble crocodiles in that they were "all mouth but no ears."

This was the first anti-establishment party in Swedish history. So it fulfilled a real need, and got 6.7% of the votes and entered the parliament (passing the 4% threshold). But they would have gotten nowhere if it hadn't been for all the the media attention they got.

With its 6.7% New Democracy held the balance of power in the parliament between the socialist and the center-right blocs. The long tradition of socialist governments got it's second break since 1934, and a center-right government was formed. It was a multi-party government of four parties, but New Democracy was not part of it. They were even shunned an excluded by the other parties, and by now also by the media (immigration politics, you know). At the election night when the victory was celebrated, the leader of the Liberal Party left the TV sofa in protest, when Ian and Bert entered the studio to sit down among the other non-socialist parties.

The Liberal Party got full power over the department of immigration in this government and launched the Swedish era of mass immigration for real. The Social Democrats had held back somewhat up until then, but the Liberal Party opened the floodgates wide open. And the third-world immigration tripled (nominally asylum seekers, but documents are not checked, and they all get permanent residency). So this was the effective result for the immigration politics of the election in 1991. Today, under the new center-right government of Reinfeldt, we are back at this extremely high rate, of close to 80,000 permanent residencies handed out per year (close to 1% of our population coming in every year), of which the vast majority are third world "refugees" (mostly Muslims). While the number of job market immigrants has been less than 7,000 for the last 20 years -- in total! This immigration is highly restricted in Sweden thanks to the immense power of the trade union, who won't let them come her and "take our jobs". In the last 20 years we have had about 800,000 third world "refugees" and their family coming here, which corresponds to 9% of our population.

By 1994 the chaos that a new party with mostly unexperienced people meant, and the effects of being isolated by the other parties, and of a dual leadership of two strong personalities became too much for New Democracy. Ian and Bert couldn't get along anymore and they parted ways, and both left the party, which almost immediately dissolved, and never again played a role in Swedish politics.

The New Party

Before the election in 1998 Ian Wachtmeister had started a new party called The New Party (Det Nya Pariet). He had learned from his previous mistakes and based the core of the party on serious academics, such as Ingrid Björkman and Jan Elfverson (both subsequently co-authors of the excellent book Exit Folkhemssverige in 2005).

But the Swedish media had also learned from past mistakes, and decided to suppress the new party completely. The news papers ignored the party's press conferences and meetings, and simply didn't write about them. This was very effective. Myself I didn't even hear about this party until a few years later. If less than a few percent of the electorate know about the existence of a party, it is of course completely impossible for that party to become part of the political system, and receive enough votes to enter the parliament.

Media silence about new parties is the main key in creating the closed system that Sweden is. Media silence completely undermines the efforts of new anti-establishment parties, that the elite does not want to exist in Sweden (a sensible anti-establishment party is the most formidable enemy to them). It renders their election campaign completely meaningless. But in order to make the PC system a real fortress, armoured in steel, some more things are needed. The idea is that they should not only fail their election campaign (as in: failing to even participating on the arena), but be fully discouraged to continue at all.

The New Party held over 100 meetings in squares and public places, all across Sweden. These meetings were routinely sabotaged by leftist "activists", organizing riots, using rattles and whistles to make it impossible for the speakers to be heard, all while the media and the legal system turn their blind eye to it. Very effective. And ordinary people passing by would think that this is probably a Nazi-like party since those "youths" are so upset about them, and nobody in the media comes to their defense.

Ian Wachtmeister's the New Party got 25,000 votes in the 1998 election. A complete failure. Ian Wachtmeister left politics, and never tried again. If all arenas of democratic debate is completely blocked to you -- the media and public meetings -- what can you do? Nothing! The Swedish system had shown its effectiveness as a PC fortress armoured in steel.

The Sweden Democrats

A power so omnipotent as the Swedish PC system, still need their punching bags to hit at, to appear as bravely standing up in a righteous fight against evil. The ideal such punching bag is an enemy that is: i) completely harmless, but ii) can be made looking completely evil through the light of the political theater. The Church, in the old days, urgently needed the heretics and the satanist, as part of their theater. The people need not only bread, but circuses. It's important that the power appears as acting bravely against evil (for the sake of the theater: pick an imagined evil, a real evil could be a real problem), so that people can be rallied and channel their attention away from real issues.

The Sweden Democrats was appointed by the PC elite to be the main such punching bag, back in the '90s. Precisely because it was not a Nazi party, it became the perfect member of the cast to make the connection between ordinary people's worries about mass immigration and Nazism. And of course, once the connection had been made, people with a negative self-image, i.e. anti-Semites, skinheads etc., seeked to become part of the punching bag. The Sweden Democrats was founded in 1988. Soon New Democracy had their success in the election of 1991 attracting all the people concerned about mass immigration. The Sweden Democrats became a haunt of outcasts, loners, and losers in the beginning of the '90s. The perfect punching bag. And the more it was punched, the more people with a negative self-image were attracted to the party. But the party was also home to the completely sensible people who had seen the problems of mass immigration much earlier than all the other, but who had therefore been viciously stigmatized as racists, and therefore had nothing more to lose by being officially stamped as racists.

This is a political theater in perfect harmony. The omnipotent power is not threatened, and everything is peaceful. Real threats, such as The New Party, are mercilessly suppressed, and the people do not even know about their existence. Still the people get their fill of circus, thanks to the presence of punching bags, such as the Sweden Democrats, mercilessly vilified by the inquisitors at Expo.

The elite controls the whole theater. The whole point of the media attention, that the Sweden Democrats gets, has been to show it up as an example of how not to do. The weak point in this setup is of course that the people must know about the existence of the punching bag. What if the people would vote for the "evil" party anyway, as a way to protest against the establishment? What if the frog jumps across the stream even if it's explicitly forbidden to do so?

After 9/11, more and more people have seen the urgency of the Islamisation of our country, and how it is connected to the regime of mass immigration that is pushed upon us by the elite. This, and also the changes that they can see happening in Denmark since 2001, made more and more people decide to do something about it. To start with they started to protest by voting for the "evil" party. But casting a protest vote every four years, is simply not enough. People have joined the party and transformed it. The transformation was completed by the election of Jimmie Åkesson as the new leader of the party in 2005. This was possible just because the people of Sweden knew this party existed. And there was no other anti-establishment party available on the arena. And as I have shown in this article, there couldn't have been.

If you are treated like Cinderella, and are only handed one piece of clothing by your haughty stepmother, you cannot afford to throw it away no matter how ugly it is. Your only option is to make the necessary alterations to it, to change it to a nice dress, worthy of a pretty girl.
Read further...

Friday, November 02, 2007

Part 5: Sweden and Denmark, closed and open systems

The constitution is one component in what constitutes an open political system of fair play, with checks and balances and real power to the people. But there are many more. As we learned from Iraq, universal suffrage itself doesn't get us far. If it's not backed up the proper political climate and traditions its merely of ceremonial value. Among the other components needed are: i) an arena of debate that is not closed for entry of new agents and ordinary people, ii) real freedom of organizing political meetings, both public as well as internal meetings.

Once again the comparison between Sweden and Denmark becomes a study in closed respectively open systems. The media all over the West is heavily tilted to the left, and more or less closed systems, but in Sweden it is almost a perfectly closed system, while in Denmark it is more open than anywhere else.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sweden has often been described as a "duck pond". The elites reside together in a small bubble in Stockholm. Politicians and journalists are friends and socialize at dinners and parties. There is a strong agreement about what to write and what not to write in the news papers. The Nazi background of Sverker Åström, diplomat and eager opinion maker for the Social Democrats, is not mentioned. Well, unless it's a column by Per Ahlmark, but Per Ahlmark also writes for Washington Times, so he's considered a far-right lunatic. The alcoholism of Gudrun Schyman, former leader of the ex-Communist party, was kept hidden for long. Well, until she was so blasted that she peed on the floor of a cinema theater at a premier. But even then she was allowed to come out about it on her own terms (the peeing was not mentioned of course). While anyone else who does not belong to the Socialist block and is not the mascot of the media, will have to run the gauntlet in media even for imagined personal problems.

There's simply no diversity in Swedish media, and they essentially all write the same things. Also the supposedly "independent Moderat" (i.e. the most right-wing you get) Svenska Dagbladet wrote in 1975, when the US withdrew, the Vietnam was liberated. When it comes to people and individuals who have concerns about the mass immigration, they are simply blocked out. The are not allowed to write columns or letters to the editor. Even advertising is refused. And if they are ever mentioned, the journalistic guild has agreed to always tag the prefix "xenophobic" before every mentioning of them. At the Swedish Television this was even written down in their guidelines, regarding the Sweden Democrats.

In Denmark the tradition is very different. Denmark is also a small country and could have suffered from the "duck pond" phenomenon. But the attitude is very different. Part of the reason I think lies in 20th century history when the Swedes acted as cowards, while the Danes were among the bravest ones, in fact the only ones that stood up as a country for the Jews. Denmark has good karma, and a good constitution. News papers in Denmark have several pages of letters to the editor. And there has always been lively and open debates. If you send in a letter critical of immigration it gets published. In Sweden the news papers have half a page (at best) of letters to the editor. And letters critical of immigration are regularly refused.

When it comes to public meetings by parties critical of immigration, they have often been sabotaged by leftist stormtroopers. This year it was for very long even impossible for the Sweden Democrats to find a location for their yearly party meeting. There are also examples of people being fired from their jobs simply for being Sweden Democrats (while it's otherwise almost impossible to be fired in Sweden). With politicians expressing their self-righteous satisfaction over it -- yes, Mona Sahlin.

So how will a closed system as Sweden affect the development of anti-establishment parties? It makes it virtually impossible, but as we have seen the frog has jumped anyway. To be continued in my next post...
Read further...

Part 4: The effect of the constitution in Sweden

Why does Denmark have the Danish People's Party (DPP), and Sweden the Sweden Democrats (SD)? Do the differences between the parties and their history reflect upon the people who gather around them and vote for them today? Or do the differences rather reflect how all-embracing the power of the PC system is in the country that they sprung from? I claim that it's the latter, and that both parties fill the same need, and people who look to the DPP or SD today do it for the same reason. The situation and the needs are the same in all Western European countries. And this need is fulfilled by nationalist/anti-establishment parties in each country. Some parties are easy to defend and carry no bad historical baggage, such as DPP, while others, such as SD, we really wish had a different history.

Why these differences? This post will take a look at one aspect of this. The difference in constitutions, here compared between Sweden and Denmark.
- - - - - - - - - -
A constitution is like a contract. When things are going fine, and everybody agree, we don't need them. But in the history of a country there will be crucial times, when it will matter a lot if its constitution is written in a robust way, or is rather just a collection of beautiful words. An interesting case study is to compare the Danish and the Swedish constitutions.

We all know that if an event hasn't been covered on TV, it's as if it didn't happen at all. An if it's neither covered by the news papers, it surely never really happened (even if it took place outside of the bubble).

In the Danish constitution, to start a new party requires 20,000 citizens signing a petition. Once that requirement is achieved the Danish constitution guarantees the following:

  • The party is listed on the official ballot paper
  • The party gets a presentation program at Danish TV
  • The party gets to participate in the final election debate
In Sweden there is no official ballot paper listing all the participating parties. Instead each party has their own ballot paper, and the voter votes by putting the ballot paper of the party he elects in an envelope. He may also just write the name of a party on a blank ballot paper. While in Denmark, with their system, they normally have around 10 parties participating, in the last Swedish election votes were registered for 565 different parties, most of which doesn't exist. The winner among the handwritten votes is always the Donald Duck party (Kalle Anka partiet).

But never mind the handwritten votes, there were still 41 parties participating with preprinted ballot papers, most of which received less than 1,000 votes. Who will decide in the Swedish system which of them that will get to present themselves on TV, and to participate in election debates on TV? In Denmark a party gets this guaranteed by the constitution, i.e. the decision is left to the people. 20,000 signatures means around 0.5% of the electorate. This is a very wise and well thought-through constitution, for a multi-party system, providing real political power to the people; a system with checks and balances.

So who decides in Sweden who will participate in presentations/debates on TV? Obviously all the 41 parties cannot participate. By tradition the parties that are represented in parliament participates, and nobody would accept otherwise. But among the new parties, which will participate? And who will decide?

The answer is the the whole power of this decision lies with the journalists of the Swedish Television. We know from other countries how the journalists are a guild where conformism is strong, and almost all think alike, even more so in Sweden. Furthermore, the Swedish Television is owned by a foundation where the board members are appointed by the government. No, Sweden definitely doesn't have a system of checks and balances. And for the last seven decades the Social Democrats has been in power in a total of 60 years, so the board of the Swedish Television is just one of the many long arms of Swedish state socialism.

A healthy multi-party system needs the ability for new parties to be formed, and the power of this to be in the hands of the people, such as in Denmark. Sweden is, if not a closed system, a system where the entry of new parties is controlled by the journalists and a government appointed board.

This is an vital component in how anti-establishment parties have been blocked out from the political arena in Sweden. But there are several others, such as the strong conformism, lack of diversity, and the group behaviour of the Swedish media. More about that in later posts.

I will continue my conclusion in my next post, about a short history of Swedish anti-establishment parties. Read further...

Thursday, November 01, 2007

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.


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
Read further...