Brussels Journal, Belgium
Aug 25 2007
How the West Lost the Cold War
>From the desk of Fjordman on Sat, 2007-08-25 04:34
The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats, a small
party critical of mass immigration, was recently attacked at her home
outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape in
the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of
the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the
couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen
tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He
blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and
thus for legitimizing aggression against them, and claims that the
Swedish democracy is a sham.
Antifascistisk Aktion, a group that supposedly fights against
`racists,’ openly brag about numerous physical attacks against
persons with their full name and address published on their website.
Only a week after this group harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized
his house, members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the
Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride
Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very
end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked
representatives of AFA. Adjacent to them marched a number of
policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.
At their website, AFA claim to have beaten several homophobes during
the event, at least one of whom ended up in a hospital. They are
Socialists, and as Socialists they are convinced that progress can
only be made through struggle, and it is implicit that they mean
violent struggle: `If we want to fight against capitalism, the
working class needs to be united, and in order to be so intolerance
cannot be tolerated. However, if we want to fight against intolerance
we have to defeat capitalism as an extension of that struggle. Hence
anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle against homophobia go hand in
hand with the class struggle!’
According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how
to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and
they encourage their members to study it closely. Meanwhile, senior
members of law enforcement are too busy waving plastic penises to
care. It’s all for tolerance, and then there is this small group at
the back, behind the police, the media and the cultural and political
establishment, ready to assault, beat up and hospitalize anybody
deemed to be insufficiently tolerant.
Several of the Centre Party’s offices were vandalized before the
elections in 2006 in protest against a proposal for new labor
agreements. This was done by a coalition of left-wing extremists
calling themselves the Invisible Party. AFA participated, as they
proudly proclaim on their website. The centre-right coalition
government which gained power that year consists of four parties
including the Centre Party. A year later, representatives from this
government walked alongside the same group which had attacked their
offices a few months earlier.
Broderskapsrörelsen (`The Brotherhood’), an organization of Christian
members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, has decided to
establish a network for people of other faiths, which largely seems
to mean Muslims. Its leader Peter Weiderud says that `I’m incredibly
happy that a unanimous congress now leaves the door open for Muslims
and others to work together with us in the Brotherhood; this is going
to enrich us all and help the [Social Democratic] Party to better
influence the Swedish society.’ For Abdulkader Habib, active within
the Muslim Brotherhood, the decision is a historic step which shows
that the dividing lines in society do not go between religions, but
within religions: `Faith and politics are intertwined for many
Muslims, which is why the decision to create this network is a key to
the crucial work for integration that we need to do.’ `We shouldn’t
disregard the importance of people’s [religious] faith,’ says deputy
leader Cecilia Dalman-Eek. `At the same time, this is both
instructive and inspiring for us Christians within the Brotherhood.
This is about an exciting growth of new mass movements and is a part
of the new Sweden.’
The Social Democrat Ola Johansson, a member of the Brotherhood, has
referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, the
notorious Muslim Brotherhood member who has become the spiritual
guide for Islamic Jihad terrorists worldwide, as a proof that Muslims
support the welfare state and can thus make common cause with the
Socialists.
According to writer Nima Sanandaji, the Social Democrats have started
fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies such as
the influential leader Mahmoud Aldebe. In 1999, Aldebe proposed that
sharia, Islamic law, be introduced in Sweden. In 2003 he involved
himself in a heated debate regarding an incident of honor killing
where a Kurdish girl was murdered by her two uncles. Aldebe
forcefully defended the perpetrators and viewed the debate regarding
honor-related murders as an attack against the Islamic religion.
In 2006, the Muslim Association of Sweden demanded in a letter,
signed by its leader Mahmoud Aldebe, separate family laws regulating
marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching homogeneous
classes of Muslims children their religion and the language of their
original homeland, and a `mosque in every municipality to be built
through interest-free loans made available by the local
municipalities.’ This to demonstrate `Islam’s right to exist in
Sweden’ and to `heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims.’
The demands were rejected by the Social Democrats then, but it now
appears as if they have recognized that they need to cooperate with
the fast-growing Muslim community if they want to regain power, so we
shouldn’t be surprised to see calls for the use of sharia law in
family matters by an otherwise officially feminist party.
The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006, and appear
to have decided that the way to regain and maintain power is to
import voters, a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties in
Western Europe. The Muslim Association of Sweden is generally viewed
as ideologically inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The current leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, thinks that
`the Sweden Democrats are a right-wing party. It is a misogynistic
and xenophobic party.’ The `party is a threat to a Sweden that I
believe many of us love – an open, unprejudiced and tolerant Sweden.’
Whatever else one thinks about that party, I’m not so sure the Muslim
Brotherhood are less `misogynistic.’ According to journalist Kurt
Lundgren, Sahlin, expected to become the next Prime Minister, was a
participant in the Pride Festival where she was graduated, after
several questions, to the F***ing Medal Award. Has she given some
thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding
rape statistics? According to the blogger Dick Erixon, the number of
reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York.
NY has roughly the same number of inhabitants, but it is a
metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and
villages. Swedish girls are called `infidel whores’ on a regular
basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation’s
arguably most powerful woman takes the F***ing Medal Award. How will
that be perceived by Muslim immigrants?
Moreover, how will her views on sexual liberation be reconciled with
her party’s cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of
its senior international leaders have indicated that gays should be
killed? The Swedish Church has recently announced that it will allow
gay couples to marry in church. Will Sahlin and the Social Democrats
also make sure that gay couples should be allowed to marry in mosques
controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will AFA attack them for
homophobia if they refuse?
Marcos Cantera Carlomagno in 1995 published a PhD thesis at Lund
University describing a series of letters sent by Per Albin Hansson,
leader of the Social Democrats and Prime Minister between 1932 and
1946, who worked for the establishment of `Folkhemmet,’ the People’s
Home, as the Swedish welfare state model became known as. Hansson was
a dear pen pal with Italy’s Fascist leader Mussolini and praised the
corporate, Fascist system where the entire economy and each
individual were intimately tied to and subordinate to the state.
Hansson was positively disposed to Fascism and saw his welfare state
as a related concept. After mentioning his work in a local newspaper,
Carlomagno was called by his supervisor who stated in anger that his
scholarship would be cut off. Carlomagno’s work was totally ignored
by the entire media and political establishment in Sweden when it
appeared in the 1990s.
Why did this information meet with such repression? Because the power
of the political and cultural establishment is not based on reasoned
discussion but on shaming opponents and branding them as evil with
words loaded with emotions and taboo. Terms such as `racist’,
`Fascist’, and `Nazi’ automatically shut down any rational discussion
of a subject. The irony is that a similar strategy was employed with
great success by…..the Nazis.
Adolf Hitler described how to use `spiritual terror’ to intimidate
and silence opponents, a technique he learned from watching the
Socialists and the Social Democrats. He understood `the infamous
spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the
bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such
attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and
slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the
nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace
again, they sacrifice the hated individual… Conversely, they praise
every weakling on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes
loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his
intelligence.’
In 2006, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that following
recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priests in the
Swedish Church applied German race laws from 1937 onwards. According
to Lund University’s Professor Anders Jarlert, who led the research,
any Swede who wanted to marry an Aryan German was forced to sign an
affirmation stating that none of the German’s grandparents were
Jewish. History Professor Stig Ekman told DN that Sweden’s culture of
silence and secrecy is one reason why this is appearing only now,
generations later. In 1937, the Swedish government was controlled by
the Social Democrats, yet despite this evidence that they applied
Nazi race laws, party members still get away with denouncing critics
of their immigration policies as neo-Nazis, racists or Fascists.
In the book The New Totalitarians, the British historian Roland
Huntford in the early 1970s pointed out that Socialist professor
Gunnar Myrdal and his wife Alva, both highly influential ideologists
in developing the Swedish welfare state, had intimate connections
with the German academic world during the Nazi age. Gunnar Myrdal
served as both a member of parliament and later as a government
minister for the Social Democrats during this period. According to
Huntford: `The professor was then a Nazi sympathizer, publicly
describing Nazism as the movement of youth and the movement of the
future. In Myrdal’s defence, it must be pointed out that, whatever
his other propensities, Hitler did have advanced ideas on social
welfare, and that the social ideology of the German Nazis and the
Swedish Social Democrats had much in common. Until the mid 1930s,
Nazism had considerable attractions for those who favoured a
benevolent and authoritarian state.’
Gunnar and Alva Myrdal promoted the idea of positive eugenics and
forced sterilization programs against those with `weak genes.’ This
started in Sweden even before Nazi Germany, and it continued longer.
The Nazis called themselves national Socialists, and they took the
Socialist component of their ideology quite seriously. They never
nationalized all assets of production as the Communists did. They
left nominal ownership in private hands, but production was in
reality controlled by the state. The Nazis were thus to the left,
economically, compared to many of the labor parties in Western Europe
today. As Adolf Hitler stated in 1927: `We are Socialists, enemies,
mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its
exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages,
with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and
money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are
determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!’
The Muslim Brotherhood were also fans of the European Fascist and
Nazi movements in the 1930s, as they are of welfare state Socialism
now. In Origins of Fascism, historian Walter Laqueur notes
similarities between Islam and Nazism: `A German Catholic émigré
writer Edgar Alexander (Edgar Alexander Emmerich) published an
interesting work in 1937 in Switzerland entitled The Hitler Mythos
(which was translated into English and reprinted after World War Two)
in which he compared National Socialism with `Mohammedanism’ (…) He
referred frequently to Hitler’s `Mohammedanism’ but made it clear
that this referred only to external organizational forms (whatever
this meant), to mass psychological effects and militant fanaticism.
Alexander believed that Mohammed’s religion was based on sincere
religious fanaticism (combined with political impulses) whereas
Hitler’s (political) religion and its fanaticism had different
sources.’
In Laqueur’s view, Fascism was less monolithic than Communism, as
there were significant differences in theory and practice from
country to country. The French Marxist Orientalist Maxime Rodinson
wrote a polemic against the influential philosopher and fellow
left-winger Michel Foucault who welcomed the Islamic Revolution in
Iran. According to Rodinson, Khomeini and Islamic groups such as the
Muslim Brotherhood constituted a form of `archaic fascism.’ Ibn
Warraq has used an outline of the Fascist ideology made by Italian
novelist Umberto Eco and found that most of its defining hallmarks
are shared by Islam.
German sociologist Theodor Adorno was a member of the Frankfurt
School and was influenced by Georg Lukács, one of Gramsci’s fellow
cultural Marxists. The Authoritarian Personality, a book carrying
Adorno’s name but in reality produced by the combined efforts of a
number of people from the Frankfurt School, was extremely influential
in the United States in the generation following WW2 and contributed
to the Allied denazification program in Germany. Working at the
University of Berkeley, California, during and after the war, Adorno
and others such as the German-Jewish thinker Max Horkheimer through a
large number of interviews tried to establish that what led to the
rise of Nazi Germany was the predominance of a particular kind of
authoritarian personality, which happened to be closely tied to
conservative viewpoints. In their view, this was not just the case in
Nazi Germany; there were large numbers of potential Fascists all over
the Western world.
The authors developed the so-called F-scale (F for `Fascist’) to
measure the psychological indicators of an authoritarian personality.
They identified several key dimensions of a protofascist personality,
which included favoring traditional morality, close family ties and
strong support of religion. It also included aggression, stereotypes,
a preoccupation with oppression, dominance and destruction and an
obsession with sex. The solution to root out this authoritarian
personality was above all to be found in the breakdown and
transformation of the traditional family structure..
It is striking to notice that these writers were inspired by a
Marxist worldview and consistently refused to see the heavy Socialist
influences on the Nazi ideology. Adorno and others argued that `late
capitalism’ had developed tools to resist the rise of a Socialist
society, above all the use of popular culture and education. They
apparently concluded that what led to the rise of the Nazis were
traditional and `conservative’ viewpoints.
But the Nazis weren’t conservatives. They should more properly be
understood as a revolutionary Socialist movement, albeit one with
powerful racialist and anti-Semitic overtones. Judging from the death
toll produced by Socialist regimes both prior to and after them, it
is tempting to conclude that the destruction brought by the Nazis
owed at least as much to the Socialist as to the nationalist element
of their ideology. The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt,
published in 1951, a year after The Authoritarian Personality, was
somewhat closer to understanding the commonalities between the Soviet
Union and Nazi Germany.
However, since the Nazis have by now been dubbed a `far-right’
movement, anybody considered to be a `right-winger’ or conservative
is thus supposedly closer to them than Socialists are, which
automatically makes them suspect. Much of the power of the political
Left throughout the West is based on such guilt-by-association, which
is why it would be a disaster for their power base if it were to be
demonstrated that the Swedish Social Democrats, the darlings of the
political Left internationally, were close to the Fascists and the
Nazis. They now display great affection for Islam, another thing they
have in common with the Nazis.
Many of the stories in the famous The Book of One Thousand and One
Nights (Arabian Nights), though frequently based on much older
Persian and Indian tales, are said to have taken place during the
rule of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad in the late 8th
and early 9th century. Few seem to remember that the first prototype
of the yellow badge for Jews employed by the Nazis were developed by
him, based on the regulations for dhimmis in Islamic teachings. He
ordered Jews to wear yellow belts, Christians blue belts. This
practice was later imported to Europe via medieval Spain and Portugal
under Islamic rule.
Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab
nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the
Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close
collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler.
In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews
wherever they could find them. Dieter Wisliceny was the deputy of
Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of the Holocaust and reportedly the
inventor of the phrase the `Final Solution to the Jewish Question.’
During the Nuremberg trials, Wisliceny stated that the Mufti `was one
of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to
accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied
by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.’
Serge Trifkovic in his book The Sword of the Prophet documents how
al-Husayni recruited Bosnian and Albanian Muslims for Waffen SS units
in the Balkans. Yugoslavia wanted to extradite al-Husayni for war
crimes after WW2, but he fled to Egypt and continued his war against
Jews. Orthodox Christian Serbs had to wear blue armbands, Jews yellow
armbands. This clearly demonstrates that for Muslims this was a Jihad
against disobedient dhimmis, and thus a continuation of the Turkish
and Kurdish genocide against Armenians a few years earlier which was
one of the inspirations for the Holocaust. More than a quarter of a
million Serbs, Jews and Romani people (Gypsies) were killed by these
Muslims troops. The leader of the Nazi SS troops Heinrich Himmler was
impressed and stated to Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels that Islam
was `a very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.’
He was far from the only person seeing a close correlation between
Nazism and Islam. Karl Jung, in The Symbolic Life from 1939, stated
that: `We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam.
(He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in
Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild
god). That can be the historic future.’ In The Second World War, Vol.
I (The Gathering Storm), Winston Churchill wrote about Adolf Hitler’s
autobiography Mein Kampf: `Here was the new Koran of faith and war:
turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.’
Medieval anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe could be brutal, but still
normally of limited scope. To commit evil on a truly monumental
scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats,
jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. Since Socialism
generally leads in a totalitarian direction, which has also been
facilitated by technological and industrial advances, a Socialist
society will make large-scale massacres more likely..
The Hungarian author Imre Kertész, Holocaust survivor and winner of
the Nobel Prize in Literature, writes in the magazine
signandsight.com that `the genuine novelties of the twentieth century
were the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the
nineteenth century, for instance, was as yet barely able, nor even
would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore,
cannot be accounted for by the common-or-garden, archaic, not to say
classical concepts of anti-Semitism. (…) Eichmann testified during
his trial in Jerusalem that he was never an anti-Semite, and although
those who were in the courtroom burst into laughter, it is not
inconceivable that he was being truthful. In order to murder millions
of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final analysis, not
so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly
that no totalitarianism of party or state can exist without
discrimination, and the totalitarian form of discrimination is
necessarily mass murder.’
Kertész also warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that `a
civilisation that does not clearly proclaim its values, or which
leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path
to perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their
values, and in the mouths of these others they will no longer be
values but just so many pretexts for untrammelled power, untrammelled
destruction.’
Following the Cold War, the West was stuck with a large fifth column
in our media and academia of people who were disappointed after the
sudden collapse of the alternative to capitalism. They are slaves
emancipated against their will, desperately in search of a new
master. Their hatred for the Established Order never subsided when
Marxism suffered a blow to its credibility. On the contrary, on some
levels it increased. Although their attacks on the Christian,
capitalist West are less ideologically coherent than in the past,
this does not make them any less passionate.
They have decided to pursue the course of a gradual transformation of
society through the education system and through destroying the
family structure. The radicals have renewed hope of a violent
upheaval. With the mass importation of Muslims, who have displayed
such a wonderful talent for violence, and with rising ethnic tensions
within the West, maybe they can finally get the armed revolution they
were longing for.
The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the
1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and
cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic organizations today.
They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst
societies and ideologies in human history, which between themselves
have killed more than 150 million people in a few generations. Yet
they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left
throughout the world.
Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another
organization with close ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi
movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, stabbed, killed
and chased out of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats
agree to continue allowing Muslims to colonize the country in
exchange for their votes. In the old days this would be called
treason. Now it’s called tolerance. It’s remarkable how similar the
two concepts have become. Two Fascist-inspired movements cooperate on
exploiting and abusing the native population of a country, force them
fund and applaud their own colonization and denounce them as bigots,
racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as
it is evil.
Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their
own people in the back, ally themselves openly with some of the most
violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray
themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former
Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky: The West didn’t win the Cold War,
at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system
we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its
former strength. We haven’t defeated Socialism until we stage a
Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering,
repression and massacres caused by Socialist regimes from Vietnam via
the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist
doctrines.
http://www.brusselsjournal.c om/node/2355