PF's ONLY 2018 Swedish general elections thread

So, you're saying that women can be owned by an entire nation?

 

Crazy!

 

"Let's make Sweden lagom again"
with English subtitles.

 

Hey, @Thingamabob , have you seen DN's new commercial campaign on "fact checking"? How utterly pathetic isn't it? Completely lacks humour and self-perception and is also a clear piece of propaganda with a very pathetic and disgusting agenda.

 

No, I have not seen it. Can you link it?

 

Found it on goolge but it wants me to prenumerera before I can see it.

 

No, it is a series with several, shorter - and equally laughable - commercials. One of the more awful ones is the one below:

Isn't this obviously anti-SD from the, so called, "neutral press"?

 

Thanks for the link!

"Neutral press", ja. I can no longer remember when we've seen anything neutral. The **** began when they started criticising Olaf Palme. You don't have to be an old sosse (like me) to know what I mean. Anyway, today it seems to me the only party that can be trusted is SD. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

Have you guys seen this?



https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/valsedlar-1

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/brevbarare-vagrar-att-dela-ut-sd-material/

 

Lmao. Of course, everyone has the right to put up signs on their own doors telling what kind of post is welcome and which is not. However, a mailman who refuses to do his job (that is hand out the mail), ought to be fired. Utterly pathetic.

This is old news though since it tals about "EU valet", but would not surprise me if this is still going on. I am actually surprised that SD are not yet seen as a acceptable party and even more surprising is that media and other parties (and also the average herd) never learn and keep making the same mistakes over and over again to help SD win more votes.

Did you hear about that SD-campaign worker who got beat up in Gothenburg for handing out leaflets? Insane.

 

Fired? Jailed! Some professions, such as cleaning women (sorry, men and women) must have a special clearance (I don't know the English word) that can only be obtained from the police. This ensures that they have no criminal record and can be trusted to complete their duties in homes all alone ... not to steal, etc. I am sure postmen must have the same clearance, yes? Once a letter is in the hands of a postman it is his/her sworn duty to either deliver it or justify reasons why it was "undeliverable". To refuse delivery (or toss it in the rubbish bin) is the same as theft.

It really is crazy, isn't it! "Racism! Racism! Racism!" Where is this racism they shout about? There is no case of racism within SD's sanctioned philosophy. None at all.

And yes, it is true, those fools are driving voters into SD's hands. I am one of them. Prior to the last election, I had decided to vote SD only in the local seat and give my old "heart-beat" (Social Democrats) one ----- more ----- chance and award them with my national vote. But only 2 or 3 days before the election that idiot Mona Salin said that she would not cooperate with Jimmie Åkesson no matter how many votes he got and no matter what position he might get in parliament. I was so angry! I strutted into the ballot box with 3 votes for SD and my wife followed in right behind me. As it stands today, SD will get every one of my votes from now until I have good reason to change my mind.

Yes, I heard. But don't worry, If SD sweeps the country it won't take more than 2 or 3 years for all of that crap to cease and everything that is going on today will slowly be forgotten. I know it is hard to believe but the bigger the task, the faster the change. I experienced with my own eyes in Rhodesia and South Africa. Look even at Poland ..... and most of the old Warsaw Pact nations. It happened almost overnight!

 

For people like me, who know little about Sweden -- and that, from what it appeared to be fifty years ago, i.e paradise-on-earth -- here is an interesting book: Fishing in Utopia, by an English socialist who immigrated to the Swedish paradise, as he saw it, in the early 70s. It's a little out of date now, and even when published was about the Sweden of the mid-to-late 20th Century, not today, but I found it very interesting, and I'd be interested in the opinions of Swedes who have read the book. (The various reviews of it you find on the web are worthless: leftwingers review it and say it shows how wonderful Sweden is, rightwingers review it and say the opposite. Ignore them.) It does not address the current burning issue, immigration, but does give you some background of how the Swedes made/make socialism work by having a vigorous capitalism to fund it.

For a source on the burning issue, I like Tino Sanandaji, a 'Swedish-Kurd' who is an excellent economist. You'll probably be upset by him whatever your position on immigration.

In the 70s, after the bloody coup in Chile overthrew a democratic government, Sweden got a lot of moral capital (okay, with a lot of moral capital and five dollars you can get a good cup of coffee at Starbucks'). It took in a lot of Chilean refugees --- one of them was an acquaintance of mine. He said they (the Swedes) sent refugees to a camp in the country for six months and put them through an intensive course in the Swedish language. Apparently this no longer happens (assuming it did)? Why the change?

I looked up the Wiki page on Chileans in Sweden, and it's very interesting. Apparently they integrated very well, and the number of economic migrants from Chile who followed the political refugees has fallen, perhaps because Chile itself has become democratic, and more prosperous than it was in the 70s and 80s. Is this true? What do the Sweden Democrats say about the Chileans?

Finally: it's interesting to see former Social Democrats switching to the Sweden Democrats but it seems to be the pattern: lots of former supporters of the PCF (French Communst Party) have switched to the Front National, and in Britain much of the base of the anti-immigration parties was taken from the Labour Party.

 

I have not read it and neither am I familiar with it. However, I think I get a general hang of what it is about and that is the classic myth about how Sweden's form of Socialism is a success. This narrative is obviously not even one bit true. Fact is that Sweden was one of Eiurope's poorest countries up until the earliy 20th century and what drove Sweden's boom was innovation and entrepreneurship in a fairly laissez-faire economy. A huge advantage was the fact that the coumtry had been able to stay out of both Wotld Wars. The Social Democrats rose to power in the 1930's and all of a sudden government spendings started to increase. All the way up until the 1950's, Sweden had one of the freest economies in the world.

In short; The Social Democrats took credit for something they had nothing to do with and eventually managed to, pretty much, destroy the whole coumtry.

He is a reasonable and grounded guy whom I have gone and listened to speak. However, I do not really like him because he is a guy with very milktoast-conventional ideas on how society should be fixed. It is, however, great that tnere is an intellectual voice that speaks up about the costs of immigration and the fact that he himself is an immigrant makes it impossible for the establishment to disregard him as an "R-word".

I think it has to do with government spendings being too high and they simply needed to cut down on certain areas without destroying their self-proclaimed status of being a "humanitarian super power"; more immigration, more benefits, but less responsibility is the new model.

We have a Chilean who has a prominent role in the Left Party (Rosanna Dinamarca) and she is an absolutely repulsive Communist, completely unaware of what ideology almost ruined her parents' nation and that did destroy many neighbouring coumtries. Most Chileans tend to vote Left, actually. In general, Chileans are far from being the worst immigrant group, but there are quite a few bad eggs in this basket too.

SD does not have anything to say about any particular ethnic group - They believe in an "open Swedishness", meaning any immigrant who assimilates is welcome in society.

Not surprising since all European "Worker's Parties" have taken a huge sh*t on the working class and made society less enjoyable for all (increased criminality, falling education, high unemployment etc).

 

Actually, Brown's book has quite a bit on both why Swedish socialism worked as well as it did, and also on the things that were beginning to go wrong because of it, even forty years ago. The reason I liked it is because it's not written by someone with a preconceived ideology (planned economy is best, free market is best) who then selects the evidence to fit his views. It's actually got more about fishing in Sweden than politics.

For instance, he had worked in a factory in the UK, and was a trade unionist. He described his shop steward as someone who hated the company, and got the workers to do as little as possible. (And this fits with my experience of militant trade unionists in the UK.) Whereas Swedish trade unionists, according to Brown, bargained hard with the bosses, got the best deal they could, and then went back and everyone worked like hell to make the company succeed. Whereas in the UK, I knew shop stewards -- in the nationalized auto industry -- who bragged that they stopped the production line by leading walkouts four times within five days.

By the way, I think a lot of people who have taken an interest in Europe and the immigration issue don't really know anything about the Sweden Democrats. I know I don't. The last thing I saw about them -- this morning -- mentioned their 'neo-Nazi roots'. I've long since given up blindly believing the BBC, or the American mainstream media, but it would be interesting to see an article or a post with the facts about the Sweden Democrats, and in particular what they believe now. Here, for example, is the first paragraph of the Wiki article on them:

So, if they were to win a majority in the Swedish Parliament, can we expect to see gas chambers? Will Sweden re-take Norway?

 

SD actually try really hard to clean up their image and in no way are they trying to shovel their dark past under the carpet. Obviously, Swedish MSM are also pushing the "literally Hitler"-line (as they have since forever) and the only thing the political opponents on the left ever bring up in debates is "yeah, well, like, your party was, like, total Nazis and stuff and that is, like, sooo racist and such."

SD recently released a two hour documentary on the dark, dark history of the Social Democrats (racial biology, co-operation with NSDAP, sterilisation of Samis and the mentally/physically challenged, medical experiments on children etc) and I really liked that move because it was the biggest slap in the face S could get. And, as you could expect, they fell straight into the trap and started crying and b*tching about "misrepresentation" and it being events "belonging to tje past".

If we compare to other European parties that are demonised and silenced by being labelled "far right", Sweden Democrats appear to be cute and cuddley teddies of humanitarian altruism. They really are not extreme in any sense of the word and just stand for common sense and "table manners".

Really what they want is tjat The Welfare State should help those who are Swedish citizens, who have helped building the nation rather than - as is the case now - letting each and every immigrant in to parasite on it.

 

That's what I want to believe ... so I look for disconfirming evidence.

My best-case analysis: getting rid of the real neo-Nazis from the Sweden Democrats was partly (1) just smart tactics -- throwing a few hardliners under the bus in order to get a better image, like Marine LePen did with her dad in France; (2) sort-of sincere. In any case, we can hope the mask grows into the face.

A point of linguistics, or semantics: it's not deniable that the Sweden Democrats have neo-Nazi 'roots'. This is the phrase that is invariably used about them by the mainstream press, Wikipedia, etc. But what, in the political context, does the word 'roots' actually imply?: 'Temporal' roots are different than the actual roots of a plant, where we can infer that the roots and the rest of the plant share the same 'essence'. But human beings can transcend their past, their 'temporal' roots.

Analogy: many European Communist Parties seem to have morphed into Social Democrats. Probably the older members still have some secret fondness for Uncle Joe and his brisk ways of dealing with pesky critics, but I doubt that if some coalition including them comes to power, we'll see the opening of Gulags.

Counter-analogy: many German traditional conservatives believed that, given the responsibility of political office, Hitler would outgrow his extremist roots. Oops. I think this analogy is invalid, but I wanted to make it before someone else did.

I'm actually more worried about the authoritarian direction the nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary are taking -- another example of how Leftist moralism and blindness in just opening the gates to everyone in the Third World plays into the hands of people with other things on their agenda than just protecting the national identity.

 

Here's what our leftist-liberal main newspaper in the UK says about the Sweden Democrats.

 

Ugh. This is so dishonest and pathetic it becomes cringey. Most people barely even skim through the articles when "reading the paper", they just check the headline and the preamble and already in those, the journalist uses the buzzwords of "far right" and "neo-Naxi" to fool the reader into thinking SD is form of skinhead gang from 1980's England.

And how the article as a whole is written is just pure comedic gold. It is almost as if the journalist attempted to write a satire of how MSM would represent them. All emotion, no logic and not any hint of an honest analysis. And what the heck is up with this horror story-esque kind of writing? Is this fiction or journalism? Geez.

Jesus friggen Christ. The Left is acting in the exact same way in exactly every country there is. This is not too different at all from how Swedish MSM writes about them. Although it has become a little more sane over the last few years, two or tnree years back this article could just as well have been a direct translation of what was written in a Swedish paper.

Funny addition is that my classmates in high school - jokingly - used to call me "Jimmie Åkesson" because I was very vocal about misbehaving wogs (my parents are both immigrants and I always went to schools where the demography consisted of a majority of 2nd genetation immigrants).

 

The Guardian . . . Who the **** takes any notice of The Guardian!!

 

The Guardian is well worth reading, once you know -- you cannot help but know -- its biases. First, on a 'know your enemy' basis, and second, because sometimes they have good reports.

Remember that the Left is trying to balance on top of a HUGE contradiction (Marxists love the concept of contradiction a lot, and they've got themselves a doozey here): on the one hand, they love women and homosexuals and transgenders, and on the other hand, they love people who follow Islam.

There are also minor contradictions: on the one hand, they want to see the Third World prosper (as who does not?). On the other hand, they hate the one system, capitalism, that can make it prosper.

And then there are little day to day contradictions: one of their most outspoken, if not obnoxious, Lefties, Owen Jones, about three years ago, wrote a column complaining that we are ignoring the genocides going on in the Congo, because it's happening in Africa. (Article here.) He used phrases like "rape capital of the world" ... sounds like a white racist, no? People weren't slow to point out that, logically, he was calling for the West to intervene militarily -- presumably he wasn't calling for Oxfam to redouble its efforts there, leave aside that this would apparently have increased the rape-rate -- and that he would then denounce the intervention.

So I read The Guardian first on an intelligence-gathering basis, second to sometimes learn things, and third ... just for fun, to see the Left tie itself into knots. (It's a pretty grim world right now and you've got to take your entertainment where you find it.)

 

Whenever I think of The Guardian, by association I think of Polly Toynbee and Zoe Williams, then what little credibility it has as a national newspaper suddenly evaporates.

 

Well, I'm a Torygraph man myself, but any healthy democracy needs a spread of opinion, including that opinion which we traditionally call 'the Left'.

That's one of the reasons I ... dislike ... the Left. Not just for what they think, but because their more extreme wing wants what they think to be the only thing you're allowed to think. When that happens, there is no thought at all.

And remember: the Gruniad may have helped George Bush win the 2008 election, through its hilarious Clark County campaign.

But, joking about 'contradictions of the Left' aside, the Guardian is not so monolithic as you might think: From the Wiki article about the paper:

Anyway, I'm glad that in Britain, for the print media at least, you know where you stand when you buy a paper, unlike the American print media which pretend -- I guess they still pretend this -- to just be neutral reporting conduits, "All the news that's fit to print" etc., sort of like the BBC pretends here. So I'd hate to see it go out of business.

 

Is there any British paper with any credibility? The Guardian is a big joke and sportwise, The Sun is even bigger of a joke.

 

Well ... you don't -- or didn't -- buy The Sun for the words, but for ... the pictures. Or you used to.

 

Still trash of the universe.

It really is amazing how they have managed to destroy and infantilise such a respectable profession as journalist is by dumbening down the language, by stop digging and investigating and by focusing more on ideology and propaganda than on reporting and analysis.

No wonder people prefer independent bloggers and podcasts.