The interview with the Malmö policeman posted here yesterday was drawn from a Swedish news source called Folkets Nyheter. It is described as a “Swedish nationalist” newspaper, and at least one commenter seemed to view it with some distaste.
One of the main tactics the Legacy Media use to maintain their “authority” is to discredit any information that appears in venues that are considered disreputable. For many years the Washington Times was included in such venues. It featured important news that no other paper was willing to print, but since it appeared in the Times, it could be safely ignored.
As the mainstream media become steadily more univocal, any information which doesn’t fit the template they impose must necessarily appear in other sources. Such sources are not always the most reputable publications, and may give an enlightened intellectual pause.
But the important questions that should be asked are independent of the source: Is the news credible? Can it be checked? And is it, therefore, true?
So now we return to the Malmö policeman. Fjordman considered the issue important enough to drop me a note yesterday:
– – – – – – – – – –
Regarding the online paper Folkets Nyheter that you linked to: I wasn’t familiar with this newspaper before. The situation they describe is no doubt correct, but some of the ads they run are for organizations that I would deem to have extremist views. And I do mean extremist in the real sense, including direct references to neo-Nazi groups, not in the BBC sense.
I think what you see there is a glimpse of what Sweden’s future may become, with the rise of neo-Fascists. Sweden has a history of totalitarianism, was pro-Nazi before WW2, pro-Communist during the Cold War and pro-Islamic now. One of my best Swedish friends believes they will do a complete coin flip, from PC to Fascism, within a generation. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is right.
Swedes keep bashing Denmark for “xenophobia.” But the truth is that Denmark is a lot healthier as a country. It is still possible for “normal” people to oppose mass immigration, which is very difficult in Sweden.
After Steen posted his comment, Fjordman sent me another email:
Some additions: I see that Steen from the blog Snaphanen, whom I respect a lot, says that he has seen far worse Swedish nationalist websites than this. So have I, and he’s right that freedom of speech in Sweden is virtually non-existent, and that we have to link to whatever news comes out of there. I’m still not thrilled about those ads, though.
I have called Sweden a soft-totalitarian country, but I am sometimes not so sure about the “soft” part. Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, and a very significant proportion of the population have for years wanted more limitations on immigration. Yet not one party represented in Parliament is genuinely critical of the Multicultural society.
Earlier this year, the Swedish newspaper Expressen warned against the “low-intensity terrorism” conducted by extreme Leftists and neo-Nazis. But they were honest enough to admit that the extreme Leftists have tended to get away with their violence because it has been directed against the despised right-wingers. Now, their violence is increasingly aimed at established political parties and state institutions, too. Political scientist Peter Esaiasson has done research into every election movement in Sweden since 1866. According to him, the organized attempts at disrupting meetings during the 2006 elections had no parallels in modern history.
We at Gates of Vienna know all too well the “bad company” riff that goes with the turf. Because of our (and Fjordman’s) anti-immigration stances, we have been linked by various sites we find repugnant, from generic white-supremacy types to outright Nazis with swastikas prominent in their site headers. It’s just one of the risks that one takes when expressing opinions like ours.
Such links will be used to discredit us, just as the neo-Nazi ads are used to discredit Folkets Nyheter. When dissent is ruled out of polite conversation, it is forced into the same area as impolite conversation, even when the content is well-reasoned, temperate, and above all, valid.
A man who is locked out of the house during a blizzard is forced to shelter in the byre with the swine.