swedeningz, feminizms un izlamz
vispār tieši sakarā ar pēdējām runām
sakarīgs raksts
From the Swedish workers' party to the Muslim contribution party
Published April 1, 2019 at 19.01
COLUMN. The Social Democrats' alliance with Muslim actors may seem absurd to an outside viewer. But the party's transition to the "Social Democratic immigrant party, the Islamophiles" can be explained from a voting maxim perspective, writes Jan Tullberg.

It is difficult to understand Islamophilia - devoted appreciation of Islam - in people who are Christians or atheists. Possibly the clergy for the imams bends admiration for the fact that these shepherds have control over their sheep flock.

Islamophiles that are atheistic and feminist social democrats are even more contradictory. How their reasoning goes together seems incomprehensible. It seems to consist mostly of a series of misunderstandings, which claim to correct the misunderstandings of others. Jihad has nothing to do with violence, it's an inner struggle. When Islam prevails, it will be peace (in the same way as the world revolution and the millennial kingdom attracts a utopian peace after the "war that ends all wars"). It is easier to understand new-born Hollywood viewers who are attracted to Buddhism; It becomes a kind of complement to a materialistic existence. But some sort of logic must lie behind Islamophilin, which then?

The Islamophiles can be divided into two groups. One, "the ideological Islamophiles," claims that Islam has been important in other ways than as an imperial religion. But they find it hard to justify their admiration, so the energy is instead put on attacking critics for "Islamophobia", a nickname for those who come to a negative assessment of Islam. The second group, "the opportunistic Islamophiles," wants to talk as little as possible about Islam. They fear that the "Islamophobes" will win the debates that place Islam's advantages against its disadvantages, so it is not to debate. They themselves are not interested in Islam, but by the believers' voices. These are obtained by giving Islamist groups tax money and letting the imams preach internally to their own flock. Islam is to be found in Sweden, but is commented minimally, but positively, by non-Muslims.

The feminists should push their message, but not so that it irritates the Muslims. These should be able to continue with veils, patriarchy and arranged marriages without being in dispute with Swedish feminists. To avoid conflict, a strict hierarchy is needed. The Muslims stand higher as a protective group of victims than feminists and LGBTQ activists, why these should back away if they irritate the Muslims. But in a conflict with Swedish men, both feminists and HBTQ naturally have the higher position.

How should this opinion cartel be designed in the future? Muslims in central Swedish institutions have not been so successful, but have become scandals such as the Social Democrat Mustafa, moderate Waberi and the environmental party Kaplan. A smoother road seems to be Swedish Islamophiles handling the financial transfers from the taxpayers to the Muslims. The rewards for the parties are the voices acquired with these contributions - yes the voice purchases if a burdus term is allowed. The mission of the Islamophiles also includes taking a seat on the public scene and disinfecting the Swedish voters.

Within politics as well as within enterprise, the question is asked: should one market a product for a mass market or several products for different segmented markets? In the policy, the parallel to segmentation is called "intersectionality". Different messages to different groups while the leaders are trying to avoid competition between their own brands. They should complement each other in the fight for power and overthrow other groups / cartels. A future scenario is that different sub-organizations have a greater mass media role; The Women's Federation runs feminism and "Social Democrats for Faith and Solidarity" are driving Islamization. This would streamline the identity-focused line that evokes such admiration in the regime's faithful media. Then one adds a common management that makes these organizations together become a stable cartel. You may also want to include external parties whenever it becomes necessary. This power group is what attracts the voter whether the person is a Muslim or a feminist.

In an African election, the camera caught a dialogue when a presidential candidate asked a voter if he were to receive his vote. The voter was both scorned and honest so he replied "When you have been elected president, I will vote for you". It is an interesting answer that is not yet quite ok in Sweden. But voters in the Third World are less impressed by the signaling of goodness, but they ask: "What do you give to my clan?" The Social Democrats have an advantage here: they are "The Big Man" in Sweden.

To vote for a party that does not win power is seen by many as a wasted voice. But the power party must not only win but also drive one's interests. The Social Democrats are now increasingly pushing into an Islamophilic policy. One current issue is the power struggle in Gothenburg. Ann-Sofie "The Sofa" Hermansson sees problems with terrorism and her critical attitude upsets both the ideological Islamophiles and the opportunistic ones; They want to talk about Muslim terrorism with as small letters as possible. Politicians who want to take action against Muslim problems such as terrorism, honor killings and genital mutilation have been cleared out of the S party. Nalin Pekgul was chairman of the women's union and disappeared in a fall hatch. Parliamentary woman Carina Hägg who protested against the Social Democrats' secret agreement with SMR, Sweden's Muslim Council, the Quisling agreement in 1999, lost its parliamentary seat. SSU-Skåne was taken over by a Muslim sect who interrupted the international instead of singing an Arabic song. The party does like the king and turns the leaves.

Even for assessors outside the party, the social democrats 'clear transition from the Swedish workers' party to the Muslim contribution party can be seen. One explanation is that immigrants are more S-faithful than the workers and a growing group. The party has long ignored the Swedish working class, but despite the fact that the party has failed the workers' voters, it nevertheless hopes that the deceived will remain for nostalgic reasons. Here is a remarkable hope that the voters should be solidarity with a party that is unsolidarial towards them.

A number of Social Democratic parties in other countries, who ignored the interests of their electorate, have imploded, "Pasocified". It is a risk that the Social Democrats should consider. After S abandoned the public home concept, a crass follows real-political effect. A transition from the "Social Democratic Labor Party" to the "Social Democratic immigrant party, the Islamophiles" not only attracts some newly imported voters, they also repel other groups.

But a high import volume means that the loss of Swedish voters can be compensated. The UN talks about "replacement migration", but for the political class the central "voter replacement migration". This strategy can work for a shorter period. The major threat to the "replacement strategy" is when the basis becomes so large that a Muslim party gets the opportunity for real power. Then a religious party learns to challenge the Islamophilic secular parties. These parties will slide even more out of the sloping planet to keep the Muslim voters they now become dependent on. The Quisling's will to power overshadows all political and moral preferences. Sweden can be expected to prohibit blasphemy and objections to petition. The Swedish population risks gradually being downgraded to dhimmis as the non-Muslim population in the Middle East and in the Moorish Spain.

JAN TULLBERG