From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2007-07-31 08:59
I still get questions as to why I, being Norwegian, write more about Sweden than I do about my own country. First of all: I do write about Norway sometimes. And second of all: If you look at capital cities alone, Oslo could quite possibly be the worst city in Scandinavia. However, in virtually all other respects, Sweden is worse. And yes, it is every bit as bad as I say it is.
The primary reason why I write so much about Sweden is because it is the most totalitarian country in the Western world, and should thus serve as a warning to others. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, now needs some “tough love.” Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the “Swedish model” while their country is disintegrating underneath their feet. If Sweden the nation is to be saved – if it still can be saved, I’m not so sure – then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity.
According to news site The Local, a judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home. “When a judge in a Swedish court has his home vandalised in this way, it is of course very serious,” said Ingvar Paulsson, head of the Gothenburg District Administrative Court . The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) writes on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers. The Swedish Board of Migration has ruled that they should be deported if they cannot show that a threat exists against them personally.
It should be noted here that Sweden alone in 2006 accepted almost as many asylum applications from Iraqis as all other European countries did combined. Native Swedes, who live in a country that was one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world only 30 years ago, will be a minority in their own country within a few decades, if current trends continue. Sweden is self-destructing at a pace that is probably unprecedented in history, but for the extreme Left, even this isn’t fast enough.
AFA openly brag about numerous attacks against persons who get their full name and address published on their website. According to them, this is done in order to fight against capitalist exploitation and for a global, classless society. Their logic goes something like this: If you protest against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we all know, and they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest against being assaulted or raped by Muslims, you are evil and need to be silenced. If a native Swede is really lucky, he or she will thus first get mugged or battered by Muslims, and then beaten up a second time by his own extreme Leftists for objecting to being beaten the first time. The state does next to nothing to prevent either, of course. Native Swedes who object to a mass immigration that will render them a minority in their own country within a couple of generations have already been classified as “racists,” and racists are for all practical purposes outside of the protection of the law.
According to some observers, Islamophobic hatred is on the rise in Europe. Let’s have a look at what constitutes “racist hatred.” The following is used as an official example of what is considered an Islamophobic hate crime in Sweden: A Muslim family in a Swedish neighborhood asks whether it is possible for them to get something else to eat other than sausages made out of pork. Linda then answers: “No, we live in Sweden.” The family asks what she means by that. Linda repeats that “We live in Sweden, and you have to respect that.” The man of the family says that “We respect you, why can’t you respect us?” Linda then replies that “No, unfortunately not.” She laughs and walks away.
Contrast this with an example from 2006, when Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz discontinued his preliminary investigation regarding anti-Semitism at the great mosque in Stockholm. He wrote that “the lecture at hand contains statements that are strongly degrading to Jews, among other things, they are throughout called brothers of apes and pigs.” Furthermore a curse is expressed over the Jews and “Jihad is called for, to kill the Jews, whereby suicide bombers – celebrated as martyrs – are the most effective weapon.” Lambertz thought that the “recently mentioned statements in spite of their contents are not to be considered incitement against an ethnic group according to Swedish law.” His conclusions were that the preliminary investigation should be discontinued because this incitement against Jews could be said to originate from the Middle East conflict.
This double standard is not just limited to Jews. Dahn Pettersson, a local politician, has been fined 18,000 kronor for writing that 95 percent of all heroin brought in comes via Albanians from Kosovo. “It is never ethnic groups that commit crimes. It is individuals or groups of individuals,” prosecutor Mats Svensson told the court, which found Pettersson guilty of “Agitation Against a Minority Group.” Svante Nycander, former editor of daily Dagens Nyheter, stated that “the ruling in Malmö District Court is damaging to freedom of expression. Many will take it as proof that the authorities are afraid of uncomfortable truths, and that lacking reasoned counter-arguments they punish those who speak plainly.” In Sweden, saying that Muslim Albanians are behind much of the drug traffic in Europe (a fact) is a crime. Making derogatory statements about the native population, however, is just fine.
Bexhet Kelmeni is of Kosovar Albanian origin and lives in Malmö, the country’s third largest city, which is set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority in a few years. He thinks that it is important that it has now been established that Dahn Pettersson’s assertions were criminal. “I am ashamed that there are such politicians,” says Kelmeni, who claims that he has been in contact with hundreds of Albanians and all of them have taken offense. “He needs to learn more about the Albanian culture,” Kelmeni says. What he doesn’t say is that many of the remaining Swedes in Malmö – the natives have been evacuating, or rather fleeing, the city for years due to rampant violence and harassment – get daily lessons in Albanian culture.
Feriz and Pajtim, members of Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmö, explain how they mug people downtown. They target a lone victim. “We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back,” Feriz says. They are always many more people than their victims. Isn’t this cowardly? “I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they’re not supposed to have a chance.” They don’t express any sympathy for their victims. “If they get injured, they just have themselves to blame for being weak,” says Pajtim and shrugs. “Many of us took part in gangs which fought against the Serbs in Kosovo. We have violence in our blood.” They blame the politicians for why they are mugging, stating that they are bored. If the state could provide them with something to do, maybe they would stop attacking people. But is the lack of leisure pursuits the only reason why they assault people? “No, it’s good fun as well,” says Feriz.
Criminal gangs of Albanians thus freely admit assaulting Swedes, but Swedes cannot suggest that there are criminal gangs of Albanians. That’s just racist.
The wave of robberies the city of Malmö is experiencing is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet. We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” Swedish authorities have done virtually nothing to stop this.
Is there then no racism in Malmö? Yes, there are some nasty cases of Islamophobia. A bus driver was suspended for discrimination and hatred after he allegedly tried to stop a woman from boarding because she was wearing a burka. According to writer Mats Wahl, arson against schools costs more than 300 million kroner a year. An unofficial survey among 52 Swedish municipalities indicated that at least 114 such cases of arson were registered within the first half of 2006, but accurate numbers were hard to come by. At least 139 schools suffered attempted arson during 2002 alone. Björn Vinberg from the fire department in the Malmö area says it is degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. No doubt, this must be a protest against the institutionalized and pervasive Islamophobia in Swedish society.
In a country where the tax rate is above 60%, higher than in almost any other country on the planet save perhaps North Korea – which incidentally also has almost as much free speech as Sweden – the natives are attacked on a daily basis by immigrant gangs, yet the state seems unwilling to do anything to stop this. Although Muslims openly brag about targeting Jews and Christians, this doesn’t constitute a hate crime. But is does constitute racism and a hate crime if Muslims are not presented with halal sausages at all times or allowed to wear a burka wherever they want to.
According to Professor Wilhelm Agrell, Sweden now has a security policy based on the assumption that territorial defense is no longer needed. Military resources are only deemed relevant as political markers in distant conflicts and their own territory has become nothing more than a training ground. Agrell concludes that “after years of existential angst and budgetary black holes, Sweden’s military has finally taken down its flag, emptied its stores and fled the field.” The few soldiers they do have are in places such as Afghanistan, not at home. Jan Karlsen from the Swedish Police Union warned in 2007 that the underfunded police force would not be able to keep up with organized crime and ethnic tensions for much longer. Meanwhile, police officers are protesting against a new uniform designed to make them appear less aggressive by replacing boots with shoes, making guns less visible and changing the shirts to a softer, gentler color.
In an article from June 2007 with the title “Summertime — rape time,” Aftonbladet, the largest daily in Scandinavia, linked the spike in rapes during the summer to the warm weather. The official number of rape charges in Sweden has more than quadrupled during one generation, even more for girls under the age of 15. If this is due to the warm weather, I suppose the Scandinavian rape wave is caused by global warming? The fact that many of the suspects have a Muslim background, which is also proven by statistics from neighboring Norway, is purely coincidental, no doubt. The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital Oslo is now six times as high per capita as in New York.
According to journalist Karen Jespersen, Helle Klein, the political editor-in-chief of Aftonbladet from 2001 to 2007 and a former leading member of the Social Democratic Youth League, has stated that “If the debate is [about] that there are problems caused by refugees and immigrants, we don’t want it.” Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, yet not one party represented in parliament has been genuinely critical of the immigration policies, and there is virtually no real debate about Multiculturalism and Islam.
During a demonstration in Stockholm organized by Islamic and anti-racist organizations in 2006, Helle Klein stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all — Stop the Nazi violence” holding a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. “Sweden for all” sounds almost exactly like “Sweden for Allah” in Swedish. When leading members of the political and media elites associate Islamophobia with Nazism while remaining silent on the violence committed by Muslim gangs in their own country, they are indirectly providing verbal ammunition to extreme Leftists groups such as AntiFascistisk Aktion, who physically assault critics of mass immigration.
The Brotherhood, an organization of Christian Social Democrats, has friendly relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, just as Klein’s Swedish Social Democratic Party had with the Fascist and Nazi regimes prior to WW2. Helle Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organization Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the MB, in her editorials, while warning against the threat to world peace posed by Israeli aggression and the Christian Zionist Right in the USA. Hamas is a Fascist organization openly calling for mass murder of Jews. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organization that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein, who is now studying to become a priest in the Church of Sweden. Her great-grandfather was a rabbi.
The Church of Sweden has announced its willingness to allow gay couples to marry in church, but would like marriage laws to be renamed “cohabitation laws.” How Klein intends to reconcile support for gay marriage with support for an Islamic terrorist organization that wants to kill gays beats me, but I’m sure she’ll think of something.
The British author Paul Weston believes that Britain’s national heart has ceased beating: “Our national soul is hovering indecisively above the operating table. The crash team have been called, but the politically inclined hospital switchboard have told them there is no problem, that everything is under control. The life support boys have heard otherwise, they are hurrying to get there, but other hospital staff members have switched the signage to the operating theatre and killed the lights. It is a big hospital, they only have minutes to get there, they are lost, confused, misinformed, and the clock is relentlessly ticking, and ticking, and ticking…”
I’m inclined to say the same thing about Sweden. The Swedish nation is currently on its deathbed. We can only hope there is life after death after all.
Jihad in Britain: Repaying Good with Evil
By Vasko Kohlmayer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/31/2007
Recently a trial concluded in London with the convictions of four would-be suicide bombers whose failed attack on the London transport system took place almost exactly two years ago. It emerged in the course of the proceedings that the bombers’ ambition was to exceed the devastation caused by the July 7 terrorist strike which had taken place two weeks previously and which left 52 dead and more than 700 injured. That this was no empty hope was confirmed by experts who testified that the backpack devices contained a powerful mix of explosive substances previously unseen in Britain. The plot only failed at the last moment because of a flaw in the construction of the detonation mechanism. The desire to murder as many people as one can is in itself testimony to a truly depraved mind. But the full extent of these people’s evil can only be fully appreciated when we learn of what has been done for them by the country on which they plotted to inflict so terrible a harm. Now 29, Muktar Said Ibrahim, the group’s ringleader, was 14 when he came to the UK with his parents from Eritrea. Shortly after their arrival, the family was given a council house – a house paid for by the British government – and the young Ibrahim was placed in a public school. A troublemaker from early on, he soon came into conflict with the law. Unemployed after his release from prison, he was given a council apartment plus a jobseeker’s allowance of ₤56.20 per week. Despite his spotty record, he was granted British citizenship in 2004. Making a prompt use of his new passport, he traveled to a terror camp in Pakistan to prepare himself for his suicide mission. Yassin Hassan Omar, 26, came to Britain from Somalia as a 12-year-old refugee with his two sisters and was placed by social services with a foster couple. He attended public schools and at 18 was given a council apartment as a ‘vulnerable young adult’ where he lived on state handouts. In the six years prior to the attacks he received the equivalent of $50,000 (₤25,000) in housing benefits and $26,000 (₤13,000) in income support. Ramzi Mohammed, 25, came to the United Kingdom at 14 and was given public school education, courtesy of British taxpayers. After abandoning his partner and his two children in 2003, he was given a council apartment in the popular London neighborhood of Kensington where he lived on government support. Instead of looking for work, he spent his time hanging around radical imams and passing out Islamic literature. Hussain Osman, 28, arrived in Britain on falsified documents from Somalia and requested political asylum. He was given permanent resident status and an apartment in south London to boot. Unemployed, he lived there on government benefits with his Ethiopian girlfriend and their three children. Altogether these four jihadists collected the equivalent of nearly $400,000 dollars in various forms of government assistance in the years prior to their strike. High as this figure is, it does not include the healthcare and schooling they received over time. Yet all this generosity failed to elicit even the smallest measure of gratitude. Not only that, it provoked in them sentiments diametrically opposite – a hatred so intense that it gave birth to a desire to commit mass murder. As they put on their death-laden backpacks on that morning of July 21, all the free housing, education, healthcare and income support they had received counted for nothing. The only thing on their mind was murder. This was their payback to the country that provided for them so generously in their hour of need. Inspired by the teachings of Islam, they sought to repay great good with great evil. Their act throws light not only on their own personal depravity, but also on the larger problem of Muslim discontent as their sentiments are shared by scores of their co-religionists across the western world. No matter how much is done for them, far too many despise the societies from which they so willingly draw support and benefits. We can get some sense of just what we are up against from the suicide note of Ramzi Mohammed which reads in part: My family, don’t cry for me. But indeed rejoice in happiness and love what I have done for the sake of Allah for he loves those who fight for his sake.
Footage from a surveillance camera revealed the inhuman way in which Mohammed sought to carry out his errand ‘for the sake of Allah.’ As he was connecting the wires to set off the explosion, he purposefully pointed his device toward a mother and her child who were sitting next to him.
A question immediately comes to mind: How we are to live side by side with those whose outlook is irreconcilably hostile to the way we live and think? Those who argue that we must show them that we care could not be more misguided. What more, it must be asked, can a country do than Britain has done for Mohammed and his comrades? To make things worse, western countries lack the mental and legal framework to handle this kind of moral inversion and are largely unprepared to defend themselves against those whose moral values derive from the concepts of jihad and taqiyya.
During the trial it emerged that two of the 21/7 bombers came to the attention of Britain’s security services which, however, lacked the tools and powers to stop them. In December of 2004, some nine months before the attack, Muktar Ibrahim was stopped by immigration authorities at Heathrow airport as he checked in for a flight to Pakistan. Suspicions were aroused because his baggage contained large amounts of cash, cold-weather gear and a manual on ballistic injuries. After being questioned for nearly three hours, he was let go even though the kind of equipment in his suitcases was of the same nature as that carried previously by British men traveling to jihad training camps or to join Mujihadeen fighters in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Ibrahim’s destination was indeed a training camp and when he returned four months later he had a short list of those who would participate in the 21/7 strike.
This was not the only missed opportunity, however. In May of 2004, Ibrahim was photographed by a police surveillance team in a training camp in Britain’s Lake District. Once again, no action was taken even though it was obvious that the participants – all young Muslim males – were not there to admire the beauties of nature which that part of England is famous for. One of the attendees, who turned an informant, later testified: ‘As far as I was aware, none of those going on the camp had any great interest in outdoor activity courses or climbing. They were preparing themselves for the type of environment they may encounter in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. They were getting fit for jihad.’ Had the police acted, they would have not only broken up Ibrahim’s cell, but may well have foiled the July 7 attack. It emerged later that Ibrahim knew Mohammad Sidique Khan, its ringleader, and that the two even spent some time together in a terror camp. It is very likely that they discussed and perhaps even coordinated their plots. Had Ibrahim been properly interrogated, he may have led authorities on Khan’s trail and the worst terrorist strike on British soil could have been averted. But operating with limited powers and under numerous restrictions, the security services concluded that the kind of evidence they possessed at the time would not pass the criminal mustard.
Countering this evil effectively will require that we fundamentally change the way we approach this problem. To begin with, western democracies will have to start crafting legislation aimed specifically at the destructiveness and murderousness peculiar to their Muslim residents. At the same, restrictions will have to be placed on Muslim immigration, for it is difficult to see how we can survive continued inflows of those who are not only hostile to the way we live, but are so willing to repay with evil the goodwill of their hosts.
Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarters blog looks at partisanship in Congress and arrives at something of a surprising conclusion Ed examined the frequency with which members of Congress voted with their own party:
[T]he Democrats take nine of the top ten partisan spots, as well as scoring 8 points higher in partisanship as a party. The lone Republican ties for first, though:
100% – Charlie Norwood (R-GA)
100% – Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
99.7% – Nita Lowey (D-NY
99.4% – Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)
99.1% – Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
98.9% – Xavier Bacerra (D-CA)
98.7% – Diana DeGetter (D-CO)
98.6% – Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
98.6% – Hilda Solis (D-CA)
98.6% – Ellen Tauscher (D-CA
98.6% – Al Wynn (D-MD)
Of course, Norwood is dead, and has been since February (h/t: The Anchoress). After Norwood, the next Republican comes in at 94.8%. JoAnn Davis (R-VA) has only cast 134 votes, however, as she has missed significant time while fighting a recurrence of breast cancer. She comes in at #174 on the list of partisans — which means that Democrats occupy all of the previous 173 slots, of those among the living, anyway.
In comparison, Republicans occupy all of the ten positions for the least partisan Representatives.
For a party that has constantly called for the GOP to end the partisanship is the height of hubris, projection and obfuscation. Perhaps, the Democrats in Congress might actually accomplish some goals if they were less partisan.
File under the New York Times view of Democrats: The paper has a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil towards the Democratic Party.
Recall, the NYT engaged in a campaign attacking the election result that led to the defeat of Christine Jennings by her Republican opponent Vern Buchanan. In typical NYT fashion, Buchanan was disparaged and the contest’s results were attacked by the Times-criticism that was unwarranted as later studies show (the election was clean, despite the NYT characterization of voting problems).
Now, we find that the martyr Democratic candidate went years without paying taxes on payroll.
Democratic congressional candidate Christine Jennings went more than a year without paying taxes on both of her campaign committees’ payrolls,
Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show. Jennings paid no payroll taxes on one committee, “Chris Jennings for Congress,” until May 23 of this year, more than three years after its first salary payment. On another committee, “Christine Jennings for Congress,” Jennings paid no payroll taxes until July 31, 2006, about 13 months after its first salary payment.
“Chris Jennings for Congress,” which Jennings used for her 2004 campaign in Florida’s 13th congressional district, lists a lump sum of $23,835.93 paid to the IRS on May 23. The payment came after years of inactivity.
No notice of this story in the New York Times.
A faction within America always denigrates our country, seeing our enemies through rose colored lenses and finding only oppression at home. The Long War we face with Radical Islam is matched by the long war against this bloc.
Color me cynical, but I think that the fix is in on Iraq. In September Gen. Petraeus will report on the surge and declare a qualified victory. Then President Bush will start drawing down the troops. Slowly.
Everyone will feel betrayed. The conservative base will feel that our steadfast support for the war was all in vain.
The netroots will continue to demand immediate withdrawal. Expect the Democrats in Congress to keep offering a Resolution of the Week to support the troops and bring them home now.
It would be easy in this situation to get discouraged, but we are conservatives and we are better than that. This is a point worth making because right now the Conservatives in Britain are having a total meltdown over a couple of minor political setbacks.
But if we are not to panic like our formerly stiff-upper-lipped cousins across the Atlantic we must “do something.” I recommend we “do” some strategic thinking. As we retreat from Iraq we should think about the big picture.
The great lesson that we should learn from the first six years of the 9/11 era is this. If it weren’t for our liberal friends here in the United States and in Europe, the terrorists would be nothing more than a bunch of Saudi rich kids and Iranian regime thugs out for a rumble.
What makes these Saudi rich kids and their pals world-historical is the understanding they get from the left and the publicity they get from the media. Exhibit A is the CNN-YouTube questioner who asked the Democratic presidential candidates:
“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”
Earth to YouTube: The gap that divides us from the thug dictators is not a lack of negotiations; it is the question of power. For a dictator power isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.
The left always seems to be swooning over the latest gang of designer thugs. Right now university book stores are featuring dozens of earnest attempts to understand Islam. Back in the 1980s the lefty Sandalistas were flocking to Sandinista Nicaragua. In the 1970s the left was busy understanding the rage of well-born terrorists in the Weathermen, the Italian Red Brigades, and the Baader-Meinhof gang. A decade before that it was Castro and the execrable Che Guevara. All of those thugs would have got nowhere without the fawning of the luvvies on the left.
You might think that these dictator lovers are evil, and you might be right. But conservative philosopher Roger Scruton talks instead, in A Political Philosophy, of a kind of sickness: “oikophobia.” It’s a fancy Greek neologism for “educated derision at… national loyalty,” always siding with “‘them’ against ‘us,’ and the felt need to denigrate the customs, cultures, and institutions that are demonstrably ‘ours.'” In short, as Scruton writes, it is “the repudiation of inheritance and home.”
Modern conservatism was founded by Edmund Burke upon the opposite idea. It regards “our liberties as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity” without repudiation.
The great challenge for us, conservatives and libertarians, people inspired by the spirit of democratic capitalism, is the challenge of the “oikophobes.” It means that the war on terror is not finally a war with Islamic terrorism, but an episode in the long war within the west that began in 1789. It is the war between the heirs of Burke and the heirs of Rousseau and Robespierre, between ordered liberty and the “oikophobic” alliance between rational experts, progressive activists, designer revolutionaries and out-and-out thugs.
The “oikophobic” alliance presents a Janus face to the world. It claims to be the very highest and best in human evolution, committed to equality, sharing and caring. In pursuit of this ideal it advocates constantly for inclusiveness and against divisiveness. Yet it conducts its politics according to the crudest techniques of the demagogue, setting worker against boss, renter against owner, woman against man, poor against wealthy, secularist against believer, black against white, gown against town.
And its institutions–the schools, universities, foundations, arts communities, and newsrooms of the world–are the most exclusive and divisive around. Conservatives and Christians need not apply.
But for all their faults you would think that the “oikophobes” would be willing to help conservatives defeat the homophobes, the racists, and the patriarchs of the Middle East.
But they won’t. They are “oikophobes” and they believe in taking the side of “them” against “us.”
Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.