A Strange Story about Sweden’s Populist Response
By: Howard Rotberg
Is there much doubt that many Muslims, even those who migrate to the West, agree that Sharia Law is preferred to western constitutional law? Do we tolerate the risks from those who advocate really barbaric practices anathema to Western civilization, such as beating wives who are disobedient , female genital mutilation, honour killings, polygamy, marrying underage females, taking sexual slaves, and raping non-Muslims? In my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, I discuss the essence of western toleration of conduct which is said to be protected by freedom of religion, but which stems from an ideology using a religion, which ideology is simply evil and barbaric and threatens our constitutionally enshrined freedoms. The Islamists prevent the reform of the religion that must occur to make it compatible with western values.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and writing about, why our culture, in tolerating behaviours that ought not to be tolerated, risks through self-hatred, masochism, a cultural Stockholm Syndrome, anti-Semitism and anti-Christianity, and a general hatred of the good for being good, and an embrace of evil, seems bent on self-destruction.
Why do gays ally themselves with Islamists, who if they take power, might kill all gays and lesbians? Why do feminists ally themselves with Islamists who would reverse all the gains made by feminism?
In my next book, The Ideological Path to Submission… and what we can do about it, I sought to examine all current ideologies, including post-modernism, Islamophilia, Trumpophobia, denialism, and worship of supposed “diversity” which have taken us down the path, readily seen in Europe, of submitting to Islamist illiberals. I suggest in that book how we can avoid submission, short of deporting all Muslims.
That book studied in some detail, cultural submission in France and other western European nations. It examined the tragic situation in Sweden, and why that country opened its doors wide to Islamist young men, who have helped populate “no-go” zones, raised Sweden’s rate of rapes to the second highest in the world after Lesotho, and caused Swedish Jews to have to leave many cities.
However, in the age of Trump, most leftists blame American conservatives and their election of Donald Trump, for being intolerant and racist. They allege that he and his supporters are xenophobic and soft on white supremacism or white nationalism, which are among the terms used for populist reaction to the loss of cultural identity and civilizational advancements.
An example of this was Trump’s overly relativist comments on the demonstrations in Charlottesville where groups demonstrated for and against the removal of a statue in honor of Civil War leader Robert E. Lee. When Trump said there were “fine people” on both sides of that debate, the anti-Trump media reported that he was referring to white supremacists, sometimes termed “alt-right” who were arguing with members of the far-Left group Antifa.
Anti-Trump commentators say there were not very many non-supremacists there just to preserve a historic statue; but pro-Trump commentators say he has been clear in his dislike of racists and while his comment could have been clearer, he has adequately addressed his intention not to insult people who might have been there just to support a piece of American heritage without being in support of slavery. The same media routinely reports that Trump is anti-Muslim when what they refer to as a “ban” of Muslim immigrants was in fact a “pause” in Muslim immigration from Muslim majority countries that have no functioning government with criminal records for the migrants. It is surely not racist to seek to vet immigrants to see if they are Muslims who will assimilate into American liberalism or whether they are Islamist, seeking to “conquer” the infidels as part of the Islamist ideological defeat of America and create a “world-wide caliphate.
In the Left’s haste to reverse the results of the last American election, it ignores American corruption and embrace of Islamism, during the Obama administration. Very few seem to have been bothered that Hillary Clinton, for a time Secretary of State, had, as her chief aide and close friend, a young lady named Huma Abedin, with clear links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Instead, urged on by American media, such as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless others, American opinion-shapers have all but ignored Muslim immigration and infiltration by Islamists and the tolerance of the Islamists by other Muslims, and instead focused on the so-called white supremacists; The left-wing media, of course, seek to portray the nationalists as much worse than Islamists, even though the populist-nationalists have no organized powerful illiberal political movements akin to international Islamism – with Islamism’s financial and cultural and religious support of mosques and organizations which are tainted by the Muslim Brotherhood operatives who run them.
I do not like white supremacists, but populists who support American values and its constitution and are in fact mainstream conservatives are okay with me.
On August 17th, 2019, The New York Times International Weekly, carried a frontpage story, entitled “Deception Fuels Tilt to Nativism in Sweden” by Jo Becker. I was surprised to see a frontpage story implying that Swedish concerns over the effects of its open-door immigration policies, are not based on facts, but on deception.
With its focus on international deception, this story doesn’t use the word “Islamist” or “Islam” and barely mentions the facts about Islamist crime, especially sexual assaults and other criminal behaviour, and “no-go zones” with police reluctance to enter such enclaves–all of which are detailed in my book, The Ideological Path to Submission. Instead it leads with Trump’s misstatement about the nature of one violent attack in Sweden and who was behind it. However, it does acknowledge that for nationalists, “Sweden has become a cautionary tale. What is even more striking is how many people in Sweden – progressive, welcoming Sweden – seem to be warming to the nationalists’ view: that immigration has brought crime, chaos and a fraying of the cherished social safety net, not to mention a withering away of national culture and tradition.”
So what is the problem? After starting off with standard anti-Trump nonsense, and paying lip service to the problems of immigration, the author avoids the topic of Islamism. There is no mention of Islam and its compatibility with Swedish values. The author, it seems does not really believe that Swedish populism and support for political parties that support it can be a valid response to Islamism. Instead the story switches to how this support is not really a Swedish response to Islamism, but is a result of international “deception”–a real conspiracy theory if I have heard one. She writes” “To dig beneath the surface of what is happening in Sweden, though, is to uncover the workings of an international disinformation machine, devoted to the cultivation and amplification of far-right, anti-immigrant passions and political forces.”
The author alleges that this deceit comes primarily from Russia and far-right Americans. Russian collusion, no doubt!
She quotes Daniel Stenling, the Swedish Security Service counterintelligence chief: “Russia’s goal is to weaken Western countries by polarizing the debate.”
It seems leftists love Globalism when it spreads their views, but not when it spreads opposing views. Becker calls what worries her “the globalization of nationalism”. Does this term make any sense? Isn’t globalization almost the opposite of nationalism? It makes no sense to me, as I see that the Left, what I call the “leftist-Islamist alliance” seeks to take our eyes off Islamist mischief and instead focus on the “alt-right” and other small, relatively powerless groups.
While it may be true that Russia is funding digital sites that are considered far-right, might it also be funding digital sites that are far-left? Nothing new and dramatic here. Does the Left in the West really believe that people in liberal democracies are more likely to vote for the far right because of Russian disinformation than because they hate the latest rape statistics and also the special privileges given to Islamists?
In conclusion, it seems that The New York Times, in this crisis caused by Islamism and its support for Sharia Law and a world-wide Caliphate, promotes conspiracy theories that the problems are caused by Russia and by Trump. It thinks that the actual threats from Islamism are not worth mentioning. You see, the story doesn’t even use the words “Islamism” or “Islam” or “Muslim”. That would be politically incorrect.
Howard Rotberg writes on political culture, values and ideologies. His two latest books are The Ideological Path to Submission… and what we can do about it and Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed. He is president of Canada’s sole conservative and pro-Israel publishing house, Mantua Books–www.mantuabooks.com.-