As one would expect, the UK’s Guardian newspaper is alarmed not by the Islamisation of Sweden, which it is intent upon portraying in glowing terms (echoing Orwell’s characterisation of England in its description of Malmö’s suburb of Rosengård with its 'well-signposted cycle paths on which stately middle-aged women in headscarves pedal their groceries home'), but by the rise of the Sweden Democrats. The tone of the Guardian’s Andrew Brown belies the newspaper’s actual lack of tolerance and respect for individual freedoms and personal safety in its casual and offhand description of a violent leftist attack upon a Sweden Democrats member:
Last Friday two masked men attacked David von Arnold, a party candidate in Malmö, outside his flat and carved a swastika into his forehead. The respectable media largely ignored this as it ignores the party as a whole.In this passage Brown thus implies that it is ‘respectable’ to ignore acts of extreme political violence if such acts enforce the multicultural dogma that the biens-pensants of the Guardian see as being the only one to which people should subscribe. To deviate from this ideology of decadent ‘liberal’ self-hatred is deemed beyond the bounds of decency by the Guardian. It is a million miles away from the self-assured, self-respecting, pro-Western liberalism espoused by Geert Wilders whom the Guardian deliberately misrepresents as some sort of neo-Nazi.
Other articles in the New York Times, the Economist and the EU Observer ponder the rise of the Sweden Democrats and see it as a sign of growing dissatisfaction with some of the less savoury aspects of the country’s long-established model of social democracy amongst a section of the Swedish electorate. As in other European countries, Sweden has witnessed a large influx of Muslim immigrants in recent decades, many entering as refugees and asylum seekers, and as elsewhere they have adhered to their Muslim identity which they see as being superior to the culture of their host society. Muslim rape of indigenous Swedish women has become an issue, and certain areas of Malmö have become Muslim enclaves where non-Muslims would rather not set foot. Even Swedish ambulances won’t enter such areas without police escort. These problems are illustrated in the two videos below, the first of which is a Fox News report on Islamisation in Sweden (it starts in Swedish but switches to English after 15 seconds) whereas the second contains footage of the Muslim riots that hit Malmö in December 2008 (this starts off as a series of stills, but moves onto video footage just after a minute in).
The Sweden Democrats under the leadership of the youthful Jimmie Åkesson (he is only 31) wish to tackle such problems by cutting immigration by 90% and rejecting multiculturalism in favour of strong assimilationist policies. Opinion polls are currently showing that the party enjoys the support of more than 4% of the Swedish electorate, but Åkesson is bullish and thinks that the party could win as much as 8% of the vote tomorrow.
Speaking to the New York Times, Finance Minister Anders Borg of the Moderate Party echoes the contemptuous attitude of mainstream politicians for the views of ordinary indigenous peoples across Europe by failing to address the issues of Islamisation and the negative impact of multiculturalism by instead attacking the Sweden Democrats: “These kinds of parties, they thrive on uncertainty and political crises. They need to create turmoil and chaos, so we will push hard to their voters: is this really a responsible choice?”
Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for the Muslim rapewave perpetrated against indigenous Swedish women? No. Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for Muslim riots and no-go areas in Swedish cities? No. Have the Sweden Democrats been behind the soft asylum laws, pro-mass immigration and multiculturalist policies that have facilitated Islamisation and the marginalisation of Swedish indigenous interests? No. Have the Moderate Party and other Swedish parties that have formed governments in recent years supported and facilitated all of the above? Yes. So, who has created real “turmoil and chaos”: the Sweden Democrats or the country’s mainstream political parties including the Moderate Party? The responsibility clearly lies with the latter. The Sweden Democrats wish to deal with the problems created by Islamisation and multiculturalism, whereas their opponents pretend that such problems are a fiction created by unprincipled ‘far-right’ populists for their own putative nefarious political objectives.
The Sweden Democrats have managed to further offend the multiculturalist sensibilities of the Swedish Establishment by producing an imaginative election broadcast depicting burqa-clad mothers racing for benefits ahead of an indigenous Swedish pensioner. Despite it being a fair representation of an unpleasant reality in contemporary Sweden, the broadcast was banned. View it below and see what you think. Let’s hope that tomorrow the multiculturalist consensus in Sweden lies in tatters as the Sweden Democrats return members to the Riksdag.
Readers may also be interested in an enlightening article entitled 'Sweden: Banana Monarchy or Kretinostan?' written by a Swedish pensioner and posted at the Gates of Vienna blog.
