"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

Some reflections before the 2014 election in Sweden

Just before our parliamentary election, on which the outcome will determine the future direction of our country, I will be writing a number of articles on the subject.

One of the most famous atheists of our time has undoubtedly been the British-American journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, who passed away from cancer in 2011. He has, in addition to having written numerous books, frequently debated, and was something of a celebrity in England and USA. Hitchens had a significantly more likeable image than Richard Dawkins. He used humor, was undeniably a skilled speaker, and his rhetoric was often both witty and articulate. I have known about Christopher Hitchens for a long time, but what I did not know was that he has a brother, Peter Hitchens. It is quite interesting to see how they have evolved a totally different set of ideals and thoughts. They were both Marxists and atheists in their youth, before taking different ideological paths. Peter became a Christian and increasingly conservative. Just like me he is against globalization and for the death penalty (but only when the crime is severe enough to warrant it, and where there is no doubt of guilt). Peter Hitchens has received a tremendous amount of criticism in England because he never cared about political correctness, which is part of the British (and Swedish) political landscape. But he has stood firm in his beliefs and has not shied away from sharing those views, defending his Christian faith and conservative views. He has also debated against his brother several times, both in public and through their articles and books. The brothers' different opinions led to a very frosty relationship, but apparently they were reconciled before Christopher died. In my eyes, Peter Hitchens is a man worthy of all respect.

One of my readers informed me recently about an article on 17 August 2014 in the British newspaper The Daily Mail, which is where I was introduced to the writings of Peter Hitchens. The article covers a host of topics, including how the House of Lords has changed in the 1900s. In England, there are two parallel parliaments; the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Previously members were not elected to the House of Lords, the seats were hereditary. If Lord was your title, you automatically had a chair in the House of Lords. The House of Commons works as it does here in Sweden, where the members are chosen by the people.

It is easy to be disgruntled over such an antiquated and undemocratic system of governance, such as the House of Lords. There are however some advantages to this system. Its members did not have to seek allegiances and were much less likely to be corrupt, did not have a party whip, and could not lose their assigned seats, which meant they could stand up for their opinions. This meant that the members of the House of Lords had an integrity that would be more difficult to uphold with a seat in the House of Commons, where the party whip holds power. Generally, the members of the House of Lords were older than their counterparts in the House of Commons, and usually more conservative. This made passing some bills more difficult, because all bills need to be passed by both Houses. It did however guarantee more continuity, and new proposals were more scrutinized and tested before being implemented. The risk of ill-conceived changes being implemented too hastily, based on ideology or political whims, were kept in check by this two tiered system.

USA has two parliaments as well, the Senate and the Congress, modeled after the British system. Sweden previously had a similar system up until 1971, a bicameral system. The two parliaments were called the First Chamber and the Second Chamber.

It is symptomatic that the bicameral system was abolished in 1971. In 1968 major student uprisings occurred in Europe, which brought about fundamental changes. Palme (who later became Prime Minister) was one of the driving forces of this change in Sweden, and in my eyes he was a dangerous manipulator, who ruined Sweden more than any other person in modern time. In order to enforce the modern project in Sweden, Palme and his supporters realized that they had to begin with the elimination of the bicameral system. An entirely politically correct, but for our country, oh so fatal conclusion. An important and even essential part of this project was to redesign the school system to create a new Socialist mentality. The old schooling system, which had contributed to Sweden's prosperity, was based on transferring general, practical, and theoretical knowledge from generation to generation. These old teaching systems also built good character in young people, based on responsibility, honesty, truth, justice, courage, loyalty, etc. The new redesigned curriculums would have ideology incorporated into its skeleton. For example, the most important task for the subjecto of biology became moving Christian students away from their faith through the teachings of evolution, with the aim of making Sweden an atheist country. As Palme put it, the school should be a "spearhead into the future". The students should become good Socialists and preferably also atheists, and the ideology imbedded in the new schooling system would help design this new way of thinking.

The abolition of the two tiered system in Sweden enabled political changes to happen more quickly and without greater opposition. Palme knew this. He was intelligent. Unfortunately, his agenda in my view however, proved fatal to the future of Sweden.

And this is precisely the problem. This is why we today have politicians with no opinions whatsoever. Today you find very few people who stand out. All are one in the crowd, and everyone thinks like the crowd, and are uncomfortable should anyone not submit to the crowd. Many politicians are terrified of saying anything of substance to the media, afraid that the words will be misconstrued or used against them. I feel that the political and social correctness introduced by this leftist ideology will continue to lead us toward pending disaster. There are a few exceptions like, Göran Persson, The former Prime Minister of the Social Democratic Party, and Jimmy Åkesson, the present party leader for The Sweden Democratic Party, who will form an alliance with UKIP in Europe. But they are too few!

---

I give the above as a background to Peter Hitchen's article. I think it is very well written, relevant and important and I have therefore translated selected parts. Hitchens also touches on immigration, a country's culture, language and identity. The article can be found here (in his Swedish blog, from which this is a translation, I translated a substantial part of Hithcen's article to Swedish).

---

As I see it, Peter Hitchen's description of today's politicians applies equally to Sweden. Generally speaking, similar problems apply throughout the Western world. Fundamentally, it is democracy that is the root of the problem. Modern democracy has only existed for just over 100 years. And there is nothing to say that Western democracies will endure. The greatest danger to the democratic system is without a doubt man's ineptitude, which is so apparent in today's benign political debates. The cowardice of too many people does not exactly facilitate progress. Democracy is very fragile, which is obvious every time there is a war. The democracy is then replaced with coalition governments, or the president, or Prime Minister, or whatever the supreme Chief of State is called, is given extraordinary powers. This applied both to England and USA during WWII, and also to Sweden. A democracy is simply too weak to lead a country during a serious crisis. There is no time for indecisiveness. It is, for example, difficult to imagine how Mexico could get rid of its devastating drug cartels within the framework of democracy, when the cartel leaders are able to spend billions on defense lawyers, where witnesses and their families are threatened and murdered, where prosecutors are murdered, where police officers who refuse to take bribes are murdered along with their entire families etc, etc. Unfortunately, faced with such compact evil, democracy is badly suited. In such situations, extraordinary measures must be taken.

This particularly applies to the kind of democracies that we see in modern Europe, where the overriding deciding factor is called political correctness. Where the media has more power than the politicians and where many of the politicians are either incompetent or political bureaucrats with questionable ethics. Of course there are also good politicians, but the question is whether they are sufficiently numerous to lead Europe's countries in the right direction. I think that Europe is headed down a very dangerous path. Not least because of the growing number of Muslims, who will, I feel, start showing their true colors in ever more fanatical ways, once they become more engrained in Europe's countries. That it is absolutely forbidden to talk about this, does not speak well for the democratic system.

All our politicians speak all at the same time when it comes to condemning IS (the Islamic State) and their atrocities. But they also speak all at the same time to declare that IS has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. But they don't know what they are talking about, because they have never taken the trouble to find out what Islam really stands for. They believe they do not need to, because Aftonbladet (a Swedish national daily tabloid), says that Islam belongs to the good forces of the world. The problem is that the Qur'an and Islam's other holy scriptures do not agree with Aftonbladet, which is such an irony, as the Swedish public are led to believe that Islam stands for something that it does not. It would be sensible to assume that Islam's holy scriptures know more about the ideology of Islam than does Aftonbladet. And if you read Islam's sacred texts, which I have spent years doing, it is plain to see that IS are the true Muslims. They do EXACTLY what Muhammad commands his followers to do down to the smallest detail. Every Muslim is obliged to participate in, or support, jihad. But what do facts matter in a society where political correctness is elevated to the very definition of truth? That is why most of our politicians are not capable to lead our countries. A country must be lead based on the basic principle of truth. When ideology and political correctness are elevated to absolute truth, then we should all be very worried.

Somehow I feel that democracy is self destructing. In the long run it is hard to believe that the population of Europe will accept an accelerated Islamization of our countries, and then Pandora's box will open, and a multitude of new parties will pop up (I am talking about parties with a Nazi agenda).

The immigration issue is, as I see it, right now the most important question in this election. Through politicians' total unwillingness to discuss or allow discussions about the present extent and characteristics of immigration, all politicians from the established parties in Sweden are declaring the entire Swedish population as idiots. But really, in the long run they declare themselves as idiots!

I am not going to suggest how people should vote. But one thing is certain, there is only one party daring to bring up the immigration issue. Its politicians are threatened with murder. They are prevented from appearing in the media, but reluctantly they are sometimes brought in from the cold, as it would otherwise be too obvious that Sweden is no longer a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They have to endure scorn and derision at every possible turn. They are marginalized in municipal politics across the country. I do not know Jimmy Åkesson, so I cannot speak about him as a person, but one thing I know, he is certainly brave. He is no coward, as almost all the other top politicians seem to be. The other party leaders have clearly stated that they will marginalize the SD no matter how the election results turn out. If SD receives a pivotal position, the other parties are then planning to enter into various unholy alliances to prevent SD from gaining any influence. Everything to overflow our country with jihadists in their hundreds of thousands. The latter may not be the intention, but it will be the result, no matter the intention.

Just the fact that SD has been treated so undemocratically, makes me want to vote for them. It is a rebuke to the undemocratic forces that seem to be prevailing, and that do not respect the ordinary people's increasing concern about the consequences of the mass immigration to Sweden. If The Left Party, for which I have little sympathy, was treated in the same way, I could imagine voting for them on the same premise. I believe in democracy, and to me democracy means the right to have opinions, even ones I do not agree with. Or as Voltaire probably didn't say, "I hate your opinions, but I am willing to die for your right to express them" (this quote is often attributed to Voltaire, but doesn't seem to come from him).

Regardless of other political issues, it is quite clear that the only party which has an immigration policy that is consistent with my own, is SD. End of story.

I cannot tacitly watch when my country is destroyed. It being infiltrated by alien invaders, and I am not talking about real refugees, I am talking about the Muslims who come here and whose intentions are to take over our country, being commanded by their holy scriptures

this applies in principle to every Muslim, as each Muslim is commanded to conquer the world and force everyone to bow down to Islam

this is clearly written in their scriptures. When that day arrives when IS starts operating in Europe, I am convinced that the majority of Europe's Muslims will unite with IS. I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty confident that unfortunately I am right.

Fredrik Reinfeldt and other top politicians would consider me a traitor for my thoughts. A bad Swede, someone to be ashamed of. Ideally, they would probably like to deport me. A follow-up question would then be how these politicians define the concept of treason. Maybe there is something I have not quite understood. I personally think that those who stand for today's immigration policies are traitors, who make Stig Wennerström (Sweden's worst traitor in modern time) stand out as a patriot devoted solely to the best interests of Sweden.