Moderate Neo-Nazis became the 3rd in Sweden

[anatolian]

Far right anti Muslim Sweden Democrats became the 3rd party with %17.9 of votes in the yesterday elections in Sweden. More dengerous part of the story is they had only %4 of votes in the 2010 elections. How do you think this anti Islamism will end up in Europe? Or should I say anti Muslimism in place of anti Islamism?

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

The rise of the 'right' is going to be a feature of European politics for the foreseeable future.

Mailvox: the state of Sweden

An email from a Swedish reader providing perspective on yesterday's state elections.

Here follows a local perspective on the Swedish elections, and I hope you find it of use.

(1) I agree with you - SD cucked too much on immigration, but SD have cucked up in other ways, such as (2) expelling their youth organization (which then became AFS), and (3) expelling other "extremists" from their ranks. (4) The power balance in the leadership of SD shifted to the liberal and civic nationalist faction after the 2014 election, and (5) they've let themselves be converged through the implementation of ((("värdegrund"))), which is the Swedish equivalent of Codes of Conduct.

(6) The party leader, Jimmy Åkesson, who was always pushing the party in the direction of civic nationalism for it to become more "acceptable", suffered a burnout depression 2015, and AFAIK he's still on anti-depressants, which IMO seems to have taken the fire out of him. During and after his convalescence, the balance of power in the party leadership seemed to shift, as mentioned before.

(7) SD has also had huge problems gaining suitable candidates for both local and national functions, and there has been hugely publicized shows of incompetence. (8) They've also had problems with reps doing underhand financial stuff, and though it's been nothing worse than what the reps of their opposition does, the red/green/liberal (((media))) has had too many field days. Add on top of this that (9) some of their most effective and loyal representatives have been evicted from the party. Many of the normies of the working class who aren't unambiguously and overtly affected by the immigration yet, don't really see that much of a difference between SD and the other parties any more. To them, they're mostly just politicians, and to some more or less significant extent, they're right about that.

Sad, but this election doesn't really matter, because unless SD had gained 30 percent+ and AFS had gained entry to the Riksdag, which was unlikely to begin with, nothing much would have changed anyways. The SWPL middle class are isolated in their nice, mostly ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. They drive their fancy Priuses to their nice jobs where they have a few GoodBrowns for colleagues. How they love mentioning their GoodBrown colleagues when talking about immigration, as if they're somehow representative of the majority of immigrants.

The truly interesting times™ will be when SHTF in the next 4-8 years, and the SWPLs become personally affected. Already, non-western immigrants, up to the 3rd generation are moving into previously homogeneous areas, and their ways are sufficiently different to cause irritation and low level conflicts. What's more, the establishment is literally spraying the country with reception centers for "refugees". This is also true of currently nicer areas. When their wives, sisters and daughters get raped, their sons beaten and robbed, things will change. (((The media))) doesn't write about immigration much any more, and are trying to give the impression that the crisis of 2015 ended. It hasn't.

My hope is with the <20 year olds. When the Zyclonistas come of age (who are mostly very uncucked already), the fight will begin. They don't give a ---- about pretty words and feelings. They (((know))).

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/mailvox-state-of-sweden.html

 

[Silas]

I think it is important to separate objections to mass immigration from anti-Islamic sentiment.

The (((media))) wants to spin this as a political party that is "far right" or even "fascist" trying to ban Muslims from entering Sweden. That is nonsense--the Sweden Democrats are not Fascist, and their objection to mass immigration is based on economics and crime, not religion or ideology.

Who here would want the population of Tulsa Oklahoma to be dumped into Medina or Cairo? Many of us would be frustrated if foreigners moved into our land and began collecting generous welfare, without assimilating into the general culture. This has been true for a long time. In the 19th century US, the native population was outraged when Italians and Irish (Catholics) showed up by the thousands on the east coast, as it changed the character and demographics of places like New York and Boston.

The Swedish are rightfully worried that the economy of their country is going to be damaged, and that ethnic and religious conflict from the Middle East is going to be imported into their nation.

A reasonable immigration policy that is based on merit, and held to sensible levels, is desirable. A completely open door policy to the third world, without any plan to integrate immigrants and find them stable employment is a recipe for disaster.

I live in an area with a large Muslim population in the US, but the people here are upper-middle-class, educated, and have adapted well to American life (mostly Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, etc.). They make excellent neighbors, and my town has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. It would be an entirely different situation if the US government suddenly decided to drop 50,000 Somali refugees with little or no education into my town.

It wouldn't matter if those Somalis were Muslim or Christian, the outcome would be the same.

This is politically-incorrect to say, but it is the truth, and we all know it.

 

[Zafran]

Who here would want the population of Tulsa Oklahoma to be dumped into Medina or Cairo? Many of us would be frustrated if foreigners moved into our land and began collecting generous welfare, without assimilating into the general culture. This has been true for a long time. In the 19th century US, the native population was outraged when Italians and Irish (Catholics) showed up by the thousands on the east coast, as it changed the character and demographics of places like New York and Boston.

Pakistan, Ethiopia, Turkey and Jordan are great examples of taking in refugees from neighboring war torn countries namely Afghanistan, Uganda and Syria/Iraq. Most refugees don't take "generous" welfare - a lot of them do low paid and horrible Jobs. I'm the US the WASP were Outraged when the Catholic migrants, You must have seen the american Indians before them. The US is an Immigrant Colony anyway, Its race problem might even destroy the country in the future.

I get most of your post but heres the main question do rich countries some that had a huge part to play in the war like the US in Syria, should they take in some refugees which are in dire need - the answer should be Yes IMO - the US is very good and destroying places and leaving them to rot,
50,000 refugees in a country of 300 million is a joke hypothetical scenario.

I think it is important to separate objections to mass immigration from anti-Islamic sentiment.

The (((media))) wants to spin this as a political party that is "far right" or even "fascist" trying to ban Muslims from entering Sweden. That is nonsense--the Sweden Democrats are not Fascist, and their objection to mass immigration is based on economics and crime, not religion or ideology.

There are plenty of fruitcake voices throughout the world that take anti Islamic notion - Geert wilders, Pamela Geller and UKIP/Tommy Robinson, The German neo Nazis (AFD I believe) are some that I can think of.

 

[Silas]

Pakistan, Ethiopia, Turkey and Jordan are great examples of taking in refugees from neighboring war torn countries namely Afghanistan, Uganda and Syria/Iraq. Most refugees don't take "generous" welfare - a lot of them do low paid and horrible Jobs. I'm the US the WASP were Outraged when the Catholic migrants, You must have seen the american Indians before them. The US is an Immigrant Colony anyway, Its race problem might even destroy the country in the future.

I get most of your post but heres the main question do rich countries some that had a huge part to play in the war like the US in Syria, should they take in some refugees which are in dire need - the answer should be Yes IMO - the US is very good and destroying places and leaving them to rot,
50,000 refugees in a country of 300 million is a joke hypothetical scenario.



There are plenty of fruitcake voices throughout the world that take anti Islamic notion - Geert wilders, Pamela Geller and UKIP/Tommy Robinson, The German neo Nazis (AFD I believe) are some that I can think of.

I think we have to remember that Sweden was not part of this "regime change" effort in the Middle-East, nor has it been a player within the military conflicts in that region. I think that is one of the major objections the Sweden Democrats have.

Most do not object to taking on Syrian refugees, who are fleeing, among other things, radical groups who want to re-establish slavery, or who are burning people alive and recording it for the media.

People do object to North Africans, Somalians, etc. who want to piggy-back on the refugee caravans in order to find better opportunities abroad. These people typically are not even intending on working once they get to their final destination. What would the Arabs think if 20,000 westerners suddenly showed up in Ryadh and demanded public assistance, housing, medical care, etc., and had no intention of working?

Sweden is not a soup kitchen for the third world, nor should it be.

The point being, that this has very little to do with Islam, and everything to do with economics, culture, crime, etc.

 

[Zafran]

I think we have to remember that Sweden was not part of this "regime change" effort in the Middle-East, nor has it been a player within the military conflicts in that region. I think that is one of the major objections the Sweden Democrats have

True Sweden is a progressive left wing country and the swedes have decided to help the refugees, like merkel. That is the choice of the population.

Most do not object to taking on Syrian refugees, who are fleeing, among other things, radical groups who want to re-establish slavery, or who are burning people alive and recording it for the media.

"reestablish slavery" "burning people" - how many from 50,000 people? sure you can get a few terroist through but in a country 300 million people that made the place even worse - the US should do its part.

People do object to North Africans, Somalians, etc. who want to piggy-back on the refugee caravans in order to find better opportunities abroad. These people typically are not even intending on working once they get to their final destination. What would the Arabs think if 20,000 westerners suddenly showed up in Ryadh and demanded public assistance, housing, medical care, etc., and had no intention of working?

The saudis are like the US they love making a mess and not cleaning the mess after - Turkey and poorer countries like Lebanon and Pakistan/Ethiopia/Jordan would take them in and - your not going to get medical and housing but they would still help. The rich arab states should also do more like UAE, Qatar etc.

On north africans/others it depends on the case - if they claim asylum then the asylum has to be Honored especially on grounds on persecution etc etc. The assumption that they wont work is a gross generalization and a bad assumption.

Sweden is not a soup kitchen for the third world, nor should it be.

That is why other countries especially fat ones should help out.

- - - Updated - - -

The point being, that this has very little to do with Islam, and everything to do with economics, culture, crime, etc.

For you yes but for others I don't believe it.

 

[Abz2000]

I think we have to remember that Sweden was not part of this "regime change" effort in the Middle-East, nor has it been a player within the military conflicts in that region. I think that is one of the major objections the Sweden Democrats have.

Most do not object to taking on Syrian refugees, who are fleeing, among other things, radical groups who want to re-establish slavery, or who are burning people alive and recording it for the media.

People do object to North Africans, Somalians, etc. who want to piggy-back on the refugee caravans in order to find better opportunities abroad. These people typically are not even intending on working once they get to their final destination. What would the Arabs think if 20,000 westerners suddenly showed up in Ryadh and demanded public assistance, housing, medical care, etc., and had no intention of working?

Sweden is not a soup kitchen for the third world, nor should it be.

The point being, that this has very little to do with Islam, and everything to do with economics, culture, crime, etc.

List of wars involving Sweden

...

...
....

2001–present[6] War in Afghanistan (as part of ISAF) Taliban
2011 Libyan Civil War Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
2013–present[7][8] Northern Mali conflict ongoing

When it is said to them - make not mischief on earth - they say: "we are only peacemakers", are they not the corrupters? Rather they don't bring this to mind.

They would have done better to attack the american pentagon and white house if they were really seeking to avenge the events of september 11 2001.
The fact that the swedish government attacked gadaffi, murdered thousands of libyans who lived thousands of miles away from sweden, and destroyed the infrastructure of the country after the libyan leader sought to implement precious metal based islamic currency in africa and the middle east is evidence that the swedish government is another puppet proxy of the usurers, and the way people who question questionable racist jewish influence in the financial institutions, government, and news and entertainment media in sweden are shouted down as "anti-semites" is more proof that they are a conquered nation.

Muslims who are able to progress in peace without being sabotaged do not need to move to secularist and usurer-conquered and dominated countries, most Muslim majority lands are very fertile and/or hold vast underground resources. Trying to distract people by portraying the coming usurer-screwed-up financial collapse of secularist financial markets as all of a sudden a result of Muslim immigrants won't wash with people who care to do their research - also the recent fomenting of chaos in the middle east by corrupt america and its allies - and subsequent highly publicized and over-debated refugee welcomings and "crises" are quite see-through for those who know a bit about history and how it's gone down every time in the past.

Does anyone in their right mind think that palestinians are actually in need of a few hundred million dollars from donald trump's $hitpot decadency? Muslims are very open hearted and are not known for frugality .... unlike.... (oops- anti-semitism), and can easily ensure that palestinians have a very high standard of living within days - the rachel corrie flotilla incident speaks volumes - along with the fact that saudi arabia pays hundreds of billions of dollars to america for protection despite the fact that america is fomenting the negative turmoil in the region in the process of making it's and russia's weapons manufacturers rich whilst everyone on the globe moves further into or towards perpetual debt.

 

[anatolian]

I think it is important to separate objections to mass immigration from anti-Islamic sentiment.

The (((media))) wants to spin this as a political party that is "far right" or even "fascist" trying to ban Muslims from entering Sweden. That is nonsense--the Sweden Democrats are not Fascist, and their objection to mass immigration is based on economics and crime, not religion or ideology.

Who here would want the population of Tulsa Oklahoma to be dumped into Medina or Cairo? Many of us would be frustrated if foreigners moved into our land and began collecting generous welfare, without assimilating into the general culture. This has been true for a long time. In the 19th century US, the native population was outraged when Italians and Irish (Catholics) showed up by the thousands on the east coast, as it changed the character and demographics of places like New York and Boston.

The Swedish are rightfully worried that the economy of their country is going to be damaged, and that ethnic and religious conflict from the Middle East is going to be imported into their nation.

A reasonable immigration policy that is based on merit, and held to sensible levels, is desirable. A completely open door policy to the third world, without any plan to integrate immigrants and find them stable employment is a recipe for disaster.

I live in an area with a large Muslim population in the US, but the people here are upper-middle-class, educated, and have adapted well to American life (mostly Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, etc.). They make excellent neighbors, and my town has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. It would be an entirely different situation if the US government suddenly decided to drop 50,000 Somali refugees with little or no education into my town.

It wouldn't matter if those Somalis were Muslim or Christian, the outcome would be the same.

This is politically-incorrect to say, but it is the truth, and we all know it.

It always starts with legitimate reasons and end up with extremism. There are old neo-Nazists in that party. Nazis in Germany started their anti-judaism with the propoganda of Jews impoverishing Germany. Same economic rant. It is the states duty to distrubute the wealth equally within the public. You have right to eliminate the immigrants based on quality but labeling a specific group(such as “Muslims” or “Somalians”) as potential criminals or with bad behaviour is xenophobia.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

This is related.

Dalai Lama: 'Europe belongs to the Europeans'

The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, told an audience in Malmö that refugees should return to their native countries to rebuild them.

Speaking at a conference in Sweden's third-largest city of Malmö, home to a large immigrant population, the Dalai Lama – who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 – said Europe was "morally responsible" for helping "a refugee really facing danger against their life".

"Receive them, help them, educate them… but ultimately they should develop their own country," said the 83-year-old Tibetan who fled the capital Lhasa in fear of his life after China poured troops into the region to crush an uprising.

"I think Europe belongs to the Europeans," he said, adding they should make clear to refugees that "they ultimately should rebuild their own country".

Revered by millions of Buddhists around the world, and regarded by his many supporters as a visionary in the vein of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama was speaking three days after the far-right populist party Sweden Democrats made gains in the country's general election on Sunday.

The anti-immigration party came in third, behind Prime Minister Stefan Löfven's Social Democrats and the opposition conservative Moderates in the Nordic nation which in 2015 took in the highest number of asylum seekers per capita in Europe.

https://www.thelocal.se/20180913/dalai-lama-europe-belongs-to-the-europeans