Election in Sweden – A Chat with Sargon

I joined Sargon’s channel to discuss the election, explain what our political parties are and the situation at hand. We also get into Skurt, Sweden’s version of Pepe. 😀

Here’s a quick breakdown on Sweden’s parties, this is copied off a comment someone made on the video. I think it gives a fair image:

Left Party (VĂ€nsterpartiet): basically the communist movement in Sweden. Has plenty of radicals with ties to antifa and other left-wing extremists.

The Green Party (Miljöpartiet): Started out as a party concerned about enviromental issues. Has since been infiltrated by islamists. Sometimes tries to argue for various idiotic token efforts regarding the enviroment (like raising taxes on fossil fuels etc.), but it’s evident they don’t really believe what they preach and it’s merely just a method to steal money from people who need to drive a car in their daily life.

The Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna): Basically the collective efforts of Swedish labour unions in political party form. Used to be protectionist since they realized that Swedish labourers have nothing to gain from mass immigration. But has since been infected with cultural marxism and “progressive” ideals. Basically run by corrupt former labour union representatives.

The Centrist Party (Centrpartiet) basically a slightly more right-leaning version of the green party. Also infiltrated by islamists and multiculturalist fucktards.

The Liberals (Liberalerna): Supposedly free market capitalists, but not really. Very weak number of voters. Also infected with multiculturalism.

The Moderates (Moderaterna): also supposedly free market capitalists. Also infected with multiculturalism. But where the social democrats want multiculturalism so they can create a welfare dependant, immigrant voterbase, the Moderates want mass immigration so that they can undermine labour laws and rights by dumping wages through hiring desperate immigrants and paying them less than Swedish labourers.

The Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna): Supposedly “conservatives” but not really. There’s nothing christian about their party profile at all except their name. Can’t decide what to stand for (one day they’re pro-immigration, the next day they’re not). Really weak voter support. Likely to lose their place in parliament.

The Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna): Mostly civic nationalist, loosely ethno nationalist party. Hated by all the other parties and the establishment. The only party with growing support, while the other parties are basically cannibalizing eachother for voters.

Advertisements

WARNING: PeterSweden is an alarmist that can’t be trusted

I recently did a comedy roast of Peter Sweden, a prominent political pundit who claims to be a journalist. He’s been used as a source by Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, Mike Cernovich, and others abroad.

And that’s problematic considering how dishonest he is. He exaggerates the image of Sweden to the point where it becomes ridiculous, and as a result people don’t take honest critics seriously. This is a concern for all dissidents speaking out.

Alarmism gives the social justice left ammunition to claim that ”the right” is creating false information to feed their own narrative. Essentially alarmists work as disinformation agents, making it harder for people to accept the real truth once it reaches them.

Put simply: Don’t underestimate how much damage sloppy journalism can accomplish. Letting PeterSweden have a patent on Swedish news is just as problematic as letting a radical leftist represent the image of Sweden internationally.

Honest news about Sweden are hard to find in English. That’s why Peter has managed to get 96’000 twitter followers, and quite a few thousand views on several of his videos.

But Peter isn’t even a journalist.

He just links articles from Sweden’s mainstream media on Twitter. The same media he keeps telling people not to trust. Then he tries to take credit for news that other journalists created. He never even set foot in any of the no-go zones he ”reports” about.

twitter24

I know he’s traveled to places and interviewed people occasionally, like in this video, but anyone can pick up a camera and do that. That’s not journalism, it’s blogging. The majority of his activity takes place on social media.

Well, here’s some MAINSTREAM MEDIA articles about the handgrenade crisis, which Peter implies nobody but himself talks about. Sources are hyperlinked so just click the blue words to get to the articles.

Grenades being used more frequently amongst criminals. It’s gone from a few detonations per year to a few per month. 21 detonations in 2017, which is lower than 2016, but still alarmingly high to police.

This is reminiscent of the Scandinavian biker wars in the 90s, when Hells Angels and Bandidos fought each other over drug trade. Rocket launchers and grenades were used here as well. Eventually the conflict subsided.

The grenades are 30 years old and originate from the Balkan wars. They are used primarily to scare and extort, not to kill. However, they’ve been found dug into the ground in parks and near roads, and there’s a risk for civilian casualties the more grenades flow into the country.

One of the ”most criminal men in MalmĂ¶â€ planned on using remotely controlled grenades to kill another gangleader. And a grenade was thrown at a villa in nice neighborhood – Why? Because a banker investigating fraud lives there, so you can assume this is about organized crime.

A civilian in his 60’s was killed by accident from picking up a grenade, and police suspect it was a blindwalker thrown by a gangcriminal; meaning a device that didn’t explode as intended. Local shopowner in the ghetto talks about feeling scared after the attack, and another local interviewed says: ”I don’t feel safe anymore. I’ve lived in a country where there’s war and now you’re almost starting to feel like it’s war here. Sweden is broken.”

Police describe how criminal networks are becoming more ruthless towards each other, and careless with civilians. A former criminal told the media: ”When I was active there were certain codes. You don’t attack someone in their home, you don’t go after their families. But that doesn’t apply anymore.”.

You can buy one grenade for 121 dollars, or 1000 SEK. They come for free if you buy guns. ”That can be cool for a young guy who builds up his reputation”, the ex-criminal says. He also thinks the change in aggressiveness is because gang criminality has shifted more towards drug trade, where gangs fight over a market. ”You build up a territory that you have to protect. Then it’s easier to end up in conflict.”

His perception is also that criminals themselves use hard drugs more today, causing the thresholds for violence to lower: ”It’s different pills, like benzodiazepines, that weren’t common in my day. We didn’t do drugs, unless we were partying after a succesful job.”

Today the Swedish police estimates 47 criminal networks in Stockholm. 27 of them are local networks that mainly formed around the members living in the same neighborhood. Between 600-700 people are part of the local networks.

“Right now we have about ten conflicts with risk for lethal violence. The most serious ones are in Rinkeby and Östberga-BredĂ€ng. One of the local criminal networks are in VĂ„rby gĂ„rd, last spring about 15 people were part of that one.”

This confirms what I said in my first video about PeterSweden; It’s not the majority of a ghetto that are criminals. It’s a very small group of friends, who most likely bonded over having similar social issues or backgrounds, eventually shaping a gang.

There’s also a very important point to be made about Sweden’s drug policy. The majority of drug sales are cannabis and everyone knows that’s a relatively harmless drug, on par with alcohol. Other countries are moving more and more towards legalization, because they’ve started listening to the science that’s out there.

Sweden has a zero tolerance policy on drug consumption, yet we have the second highest rate of drug deaths in Europe. Portugal decriminalized all drugs a long time ago (big difference between decriminalization and legalization) and they have one of the lowest. It’s worked out great for them. So one way to really minimize gang activity and violence would be to legalize cannabis. This would create a safer society for everyone, especially low-income households in ghettos.

Also notice the interview with the locals, where that grenade casualty took place; They’re all immigrants. When PeterSweden ”reports” on Sweden he’s rarely honest enough to explain that immigrants are the most typical victims when it comes to these shootings and grenade attacks. Instead he tries to make it sound like middle-class Swedes are getting grenades chucked in their forehead while walking around downtown.

sweden lost 7

He has a tendency to try and make Sweden sound worse, or as bad, as America. Thus far there’s been 2 civilian deaths from grenades in 20 years. One 60-year old Chilean man and one 8-year old African boy. Meanwhile, the Boston Marathon bombings injured 264 people and killed 3. That’s just one attack in America.

I’m not downplaying the lives that were lost. Because even if it’s ”just” one or two individuals it is still a complete tragedy. Reading the article with the son of the 60-year old man is horrible.

He lives in Chile, and says: ”His partner told me he thought it was a toy, and that’s why he picked it up. Then it detonated. My father was a great man, with a good heart all through. He helped many people who were new in the country. People from Sweden have contacted me to let me know how much he helped them, and just how nice of a person he was. It’s so unfair that an innocent man is dead just because someone dropped a handgrenade there.”

His father was also planning on retiring soon, and residing in Thailand. He was also planning on visiting his family in his home country of Chile, which he hadn’t visited since 2001. But then the accident happened. That is just terrible.

Not to mention the son said: ”My father didn’t like walking around during evenings, because it was so unsafe there. Now I’ve been told there was a shooting the night before. That means there has to be people who know or have seen something about this grenade.”

But that’s not likely to happen. It’s been reported numerous times how unwilling locals are to testify when it comes to these types of crimes, because police just can’t offer them protection. They’re constantly forced to release gangmembers that they arrest due to ridiculous legislations and lenient prosecutors. Meaning if someone were to testify they would almost definitely get shot themselves.

Does Peter ever highlight the fact that it’s primarily immigrant lives that are being lost here? Does he ever highlight the fact that these are problems that can be resolved? No, instead he just does thumbnails saying: ”SWEDEN IS LOST!!!!” and runs away to Norway.

sweden lost

Thumbnail for his video “16 BOMBS in 1 month | SWEDEN”sweden lost 1sweden lost 2

The situation in Sweden is unacceptable. But something can be unacceptable without being a full-scale apocalypse. Sweden is not crumbling. It is “just” betraying the most vulnerable groups in society: Immigrants, women, the elderly, the mentally ill, and anyone else needing social security.

Anyway, some more info about the criminal world: If you buy automatic weapons you get grenades for free – like a bonus. For 1000 euro you can get 5 automatic weapons, ammo and 64 grenades. The reason why drug gangs use grenades is because it’s relatively cheap, access is good, and probably most importantly: it’s lead to few cases of prosecution.

According to Swedish law grenades aren’t considered weapons, but explosives, and the punishment for ” first degree violation of the law on explosives” is at least 1 year in prison and maximum 4 years. They are currently looking to sharpen these sentences. The government is also calling for a grenade amnesty, so criminals can turn in grenades without being prosecuted in order to get them off the streets.

As for Peter comparing Sweden’s grenade issue to Mexico, that part of SverigeRadio’s article was a mistake and has since been removed. But I see Breitbart didn’t bother updating their article, which is a shame.

Hypocrisy with freedom of speech

In Sweden, police don’t have time to investigate rapes due to gang-related murders and lack of resources. Yet PeterSweden wastes their time on reporting a ridiculous cartoon.

sweden lost 4

And this is the same guy constantly whining about how oppressive and communist Sweden is, for not allowing offensive jokes about muslims – among other things.

 

sweden lost 5.png

This is the picture she was prosecuted for:

34fg565665

Am I okay with that? No, fuck no. I believe in freedom of expression for real. Nobody should be prosecuted over a joke or racist comments. Threats, yes. Targeted large-scale harassment, yes. Shitty opinions and ugly wording? No. Hell no. That’s not worthy of a democracy.

Am I an innocent person?

No, I’m an asshole. And I decided to troll the shit out of Peter, at which point he took the bait and made himself look like a fool. Now the dumbass is ranting and raving about how that satirical comedy picture is some kind of disguised rape threat. As if anyone would seriously believe that I’d wanna take a ferry to Norway just to visit his dry asshole. Give me a break. That picture isn’t a threat to Peters safety. It’s a threat to his ego.

Even if something hurts a lot of people’s feelings, it should be allowed. That’s how we guarantee diversity of opinion, for better or worse. And especially if you’re a public figure, you should have thicker skin than that. Imagine if PewDiePie would write a tweet anytime someone writes him a threat, or something nasty? It would be ridiculous.

twitter5

Look at that picture. Does that look nice to you? Does it look empathic? Does it look anything other than dehumanizing? No, hardly. But it’s still good satire, and it should not be criminal.

PeterSweden only believes in freedom of speech as long as it means making fun of muslims. When his side does it, it’s humor. When others do it, it’s a criminal offence.

He’s not good with numbers

For example, his ”1 in 8 women will be raped” is as bad as the feminist lies about campus rape.

This is how he did the math: Over the course of 85 years, 614’000 women will be raped. Therefore 1 in 8 women will be raped in their lifetime.

First of all, that’s not true. But even if it were true it’s not 1 in 8. That’s 1 in 8 over the span of 85 years. It’s not 1 in 8 during one year, or even 10 years.

Second of all, here’s the problem with his math: If you read the central beaurau of crime statistics, they say that 42% of the people exposed to sex offences were exposed between two and nine times. 12% were exposed ten times or more. Meaning a large part of offenses is happening to the same individuals, which brings the overall number down.

sweden lost 6.pngIt also gets tricky when you completely ignore demographics, like Peter does, because the risk varies greatly with age groups, ethnicity and location. Women in big cities are twice as likely to be victimized as women in small towns, and second generation immigrant women are more likely to be victimized than Swedish women. Therefore you can’t speak generally on all women. A large part of rape victims are immigrant women.

This article also explains why statistics aren’t that simple. Halmstad municipality usually have between 30 and 40 rape reports per year. But in 2016 they suddenly had 194. Why? Because a girl reported someone close to her for abuse during a period of several years, which went into the police register as 164 reports of rape. One victim, one perpetrator, and yet 164 cases in the statistics.

Considering how overrepresented non-european immigrants are when it comes to rape, it’s pretty obvious that immigration from non-european countries increases rapes. I’ve talked about this before. But that’s doesn’t eliminate all the other factors to consider here.

And that’s something I often see from Peters corner of the internet; just blatant ignoring the larger picture. In his response video he talks about how Sweden doubled it’s explosion attacks in 2017, racking up 200 attacks. What he fails to emphasize is that fireworks count as explosives as well, and grenade attacks in 2017 were 21.

Of course any amount of explosions is terrible. But he really doesn’t put much effort into nuancing and informing. Rather he seems to wanna confuse 200 explosions with 21 grenade attacks, then draw the conclusion that my entire country is doomed.

Hypocrisy with source criticism

Let’s look at some of the outlets that PeterSweden uses as sources.

SverigesRadio/SVT is Sweden’s public service media, with an obvious left-wing/green party bias. They’ve been caught lying about immigration numerous times, often shamelessly.

For example, they claimed that “never before have so many highly educated people fled to Sweden”, making the migrant wave look like a competence rain. In actuality, the migrants we’ve taken in the past year are notoriously poorly educated. SVT were torn apart by an economist on this.

Expressen is a liberal site and the second biggest paper in Sweden. They’ve co-operated with ANTIFA in the past to doxx nationalist politicians for racist comments posted anonymously online. They also did the same with completely ordinary citizens, who happen to be professors or entrepreneurs.

Aftonbladet is a socialist-feminist paper and the biggest one in Sweden. They did the same with numerous people, except they didn’t reveal anyones name. During the #MeToo campaign it was also revealed there’s a huge rape culture in their office, making them enormous hypocrites as well.

I could give you a shitload of examples of skeezy reporting, but put simply: Swedish mainstream media is pretty corrupt, have been caught with fake news numerous times, and without a doubt are responsible for making Sweden a worse place.

They were too afraid to report honestly on the issues with mass immigration until the migrant crisis, when things became so bad they were forced to report more honestly just to remain relevant. Alternative media has gotten more popular with the years, while mainstream media has lost both trust and revenue from the people. It’s not a surprise why they decided to become more honest in their reporting.

We’ve definitely had problems with the MSM covering things up because they don’t want to benefit the nationalist party, The Sweden Democrats, and they don’t want people to magically turn racist. A tactic that’s backfired, to say the least. In 2015 one of them even admitted to creating the echo chamber within the media, saying she was trying to do well but was misguided.

However: This does NOT mean that everything they report is fake. They do a lot of good, honest reporting as well, because not all journalists are dishonest scumbags. There’s many who are self-critical and don’t want to pander to political correctness. It’s a mixture, resulting in both brilliantly honest pieces being made, as well as the most dishonest disgusting fake news you’d imagine.

As a result, we can never rely on somebody’s reputation. Even good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. It’s important to always take it case-by-case, and look at the source itself. Not the outlet delivering the source. Whether it’s about mainstream media or alternative media.

And this is where Peters hypocrisy comes in. In my roast of him, he kept complaining about me using HopeNotHate as a source, when I was talking about how he lies about being more connected to Sweden than he is. He was born in Norway and has spent most of his life outside of Sweden, yet he tries to act otherwise. Because his image is his credibility to Americans abroad, a Swedish guy talking about Sweden.

Image2

His reasoning is that they aren’t trustworthy since they’re connected to the far-left. Well, HopeNotHate is not the source. Their sources is official government documents and Peters own tweets, which have since mysteriously disappeared. If he’s so bad at source critique that he doesn’t even understand how sources work, he really shouldn’t be calling himself a journalist.

HopeNotHate is not the source. They simply delivered the sources. I encourage you to read their article, the sources are hyperlinked in the text. Just click the coloured words.

Second of all, if you’re gonna argue that they are illigitimate as a source because of various connections to the far-left, then I can might as well argue that Peters “sources” about handgrenades and immigration issues are illigitimate. Because he also uses media connected to the far-left, namely the Swedish media.

This is simple logic that escapes him whenever someone calls him out, because it’s convenient that way.

Last, but certainly not least.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, honest news about Sweden are hard to find in English. That’s why PeterSweden is so popular. Ultimately you could say that he is the Frankenstein creation of the mainstream media themselves, because if they had just valued truth over political correctness we wouldn’t be where we are.

That’s something more journalists should think about. Telling the truth might be uncomfortable, but if you don’t do it anyway you might end up someplace even more uncomfortable in the long run.

And I know you can’t judge someone because of their fanbase. I’ve certainly noticed a lot of dumb people in my own. But it really does strike me like Peter’s fanbase are mainly right-wing christian Americans with strong tendencies towards not practicing what they preach.

And therefore I’ve created yet another comedy roast. Check it out if you’re in the mood for a giggle or two.

Thank you for reading.

The importance in hearing people out

tolerance

This post touches upon something I pointed out in my previous post, namely that when Donald Trump went on the Alex Jones show for a long interview where he doesn’t get interrupted, and was given the chance to make his opinions heard, I realized that what Trump says simply doesn’t hold substance. He was talking and talking, yet it felt like nothing was coming out of his mouth.

Which sort of makes me think about how people tend to react to “controversial” figures in general. The reaction is often emotional, rather than saying: “Let’s listen to this crazy bouffoon and find out why he thinks like he does.” What Alex Jones chose to do was listen, and that’s how you extract more out of a “nutjob” to see if there’s any substance.

When you first hear something controversial it might appear like the statement has no merit nor substance, based on your preconcieved notions. And that’s why it’s important to ask questions and let the person reveal the reasoning behind their statements. If there really is no substance behind them then you’ll proven to the audience that the nutjob really does lack substance. But it could also turn out that they’ve thought about something that the rest hasn’t.

For this reason, tolerance and democratic discussion which focuses on the reasoning presented, rather than ad hominem, is a win-win situation. Either it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person is a fucking moron, thus causing them to lose their mystifying appeal, or you learn something new that everyone could benefit from.

I see the American media making the same mistakes with Donald Trump, as the Swedish media has done with the Sweden Democrats. They think bullying and smear tactics are gonna make people dislike the ugly duckling. But that’s counterproductive.

When you only attack someones character and alleged intentions, the argument they presented is left un-refuted. This creates the illusion that they are in the right, even if their point could desperately need some well-deserved problematization and nuancing.

This is what we here in Sweden should have been doing with the Sweden Democrats years ago, when they were voted into parliament back in 2010. Back then they were small. Now they’re the biggest party in the opinion polls. Guess why?

The Sweden Democrats might have a shady background, but they occasionally make very sound points. And these are points no other party wants to make. Common sense statements like: “Immigrants should adapt to Sweden, not the other way around.”And “Sweden shouldn’t have more immigration than it can handle.”

Instead of refuting these points, politicians have been shouting “racist” instead. Even when the SD express common sense. What kind of effect do you think this is gonna have on the general public?

Politics is about making prioritizations. If you don’t know how to make uncomfortable yet necessary priorities, you should not be in parliament. If you choose to prioritize the citizens of other countries over Swedish citizens, you really shouldn’t represent the Swedish people. And you shouldn’t be surprised when the party who expresses peoples frustrations end up becoming bigger and bigger.

Let the scary boogeyman speak. The only reason you have to fear the words of someone, is if there’s actually some truth to it.