Applying the “Usual Suspects” analysis in Sweden

A Swedish blog mentioned my criticism of mainstream Islamo-critical conservatives over their failure to oppose Muslim immigration, but I couldn’t tell if the blogger was agreeing with my point or not. Swedish VFR reader MB kindly provided this translation:

U.S. anti-Islamist Lawrence Auster recently criticized American neo-conservatives for sounding the alarm about Islamo-fascism while remaining silent regarding the need for halting Muslim mass immigration into North America and Europe. Previous targets of Auster’s criticism on this issue have been Bernard Lewis, Paul Belien, Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and even noted Norwegian blogger Fjordman (MB notes: including Fjordman in this group is hardly accurate anymore, is it?). [LA adds: I also don’t remember criticizing Belien on this point, though I may have.]

Had Auster been fluent in Swedish and cognizant of Swedish conservative blogger/journalist Kurt Lundgren he would have surely criticized Lundgren’s remarkable twists and turns around the immigration issue as well.

Few in (Sweden) have been more active in exposing the cover-ups and hypocrisy regarding the swedish Immigration, while simultaneously surprising and stunning his followers with so many faulty conclusions regarding the issue, than Lundgren.

One such faulty conclusion was drawn after visiting a social occasion this summer. Based on the fact that no one at the party (which was multi-ethnic) mentioned immigration, a conclusion was apparently drawn by Lundgren that Swedes in general do not care about the immigration issue. The possibility that they might not be inclined to bring up the issue at multicultural social occasions never seemed to enter the realm of possibility for the otherwise quick-thinking journalist at Kalmar Läns Tidning. Instead, he seemed to be drawing the conclusion that very few had any interest in the main political issue of the Sweden Democrats (i.e. immigration).

Now Lundgren is quoting a member of the Moderate Party, stating that he would vote for SD (Sweden Democrats) were it not for the “immigration nonsense.” What to make of that? That Lundgren now agrees that Sweden doesn’t need to restrict immigration? Or that SD should emulate the (non-critical) immigration stance of other mainstream parties? As far as I’m concerned, the “immigration nonsense” of SD is the sole reason one has for voting for them! Without that “immigration nonsense” the party would lack raison d’etre. (MB notes: that last part is taking it too far, imo)

a
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 27, 2007 08:38 AM | Send