Sweden’s Nobel Savages: Right Wing Complicity in Our Demise
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 17 May 2020 05:01.
Despite his rather assigned position to cover things from an Alternative Right angle - circa 2015 of the article being featured below - and moving from that misdirection-op to an even more kosher “Affirmative Right” position now, for his journalistic rigor Colin Liddell does a fine job of exposing right wing complicity in its dovetail with liberal “progressivism” for a halo of innocence in the project of our destruction.
And while Dissident Rightism, the Affirmative Right, whatever Right, dutifully follows the Alt-Right’s program to co-opt White reaction and direct it with elite Jewish interests, as such going along with a (((Madison Ave.))) characterology of “the left” as the enemy, with all the abuses and distortions of the necessary hypothetical end of inquiry that it can invoke from its pre-intersectional anti-White Marxist and cultural Marxist sophomore coalitions in perpetuating loop with tenured professors, a hypothetical end of inquiry that would otherwise be left to our autonomous group systemic governance to be corrected with rigorous feedback on normal calibration of working hypotheses (praxis/our group), instead the calibration of group interests are misleadingly labeled “THE Left”, its characterized minions called “social justice warriors” ...misleading labels for what is to us, liberalism (anti-our-White-groups/anti-White ethnonational left unionization) or the international, anti-White left and its coalition of anti-White advocacy groups, as if Whites should have a problem with social justice, be repulsed by it, and not unionize in the interests of our justice and a more sustainable justice in relation to others.
It is worth a look thus, even though it is not that time of year again, since right wing and liberal complicity with YKW antagonism remains a perennial concern:
It’s that time of year again, when a few forgotten scientists, a largely unread writer, and some organization or individual that may or may not have done something for World Peace are given Nobel prizes. The actual awards ceremony usually comes in December, but just so the winners have enough time to book a flight to Stockholm and rent a tux, the announcements are made round about this time. But is the Nobel Prize what it seems, or is it the manifestation of something a lot more sinister?
Most people take it at face value, seeing it as a fitting conclusion to some presumably worthy scientific (or other) career – although most remain oblivious as to why this or that individual should win it over their peers. Most also remain decidedly foggy on how the prize winners are actually selected, both officially and with regard to the behind-the-scene string pulling and other factors that no doubt tip the scales this way or that.
But to see the Nobel Prize merely as an innocent award is to take it on its own terms, and thus to have your perceptions framed and shaped by it. This means you accept its projected image: as a fair and objective expression of “the progressive spirit of mankind” (a nebulous concept with admixtures of other nebulous concepts: ‘science,’ ‘peace,’ ‘excellence,’ ‘univeralism,’ etc.), and you also accept the implied association of this “positive” image with Scandinavia in general and Sweden in particular, without giving it too much thought. In short, the Nobel Prize is subtle, under-the-radar, positive brainwashing for Sweden.
The positive associations of Sweden (and Norway, which bestows the peace prize) are delicately dripped into the heads of the masses year-after-year with the same gentle pulse of propaganda in the weeks leading up to Xmas. They are subtly reminded that, yes, there is a place somewhere where progress is king, dedicated to the never-ending improvements of humanity and the bright, brilliant future that awaits us all some day.
But this kind of propagandist framing on behalf of what is essentially a degenerative and parasitical left-wing view of reality must be rejected. Here, on the alt-right, we are already overly familiar with what a sick and perverted society Sweden really is. It is therefore our duty not to be framed but instead to frame the Nobel Prize as that what it really is, namely a complex piece of dishonesty, designed to create a false illusion that serve the interests of particular Swedish and globalist interests.
Those Swedish interests, of course, are not those of the common Swedish people, but only those of the Swedish elites, who, according to Gregory Clark, have a particularly tenacious grip on the upper echelons of their society, regardless of that society’s egalitarian window dressing:
“Generalized and long-term social mobility in Sweden in recent years is much lower than the rates reported in standard two generation studies of the intergenerational correlation of income or education. Rates of long run social mobility are indeed so low that the 18th century elite in Sweden have persisted to the present as a relatively advantaged group. There is little evidence that intergenerational mobility rates have increased within the last 2-3 generations, compared to rates in the pre-industrial era…Such mobility rates are the same as we observe for underlying social status in a variety of other countries such as the UK, USA, and even India and Chile.”
This selfish Swedish elite seeks to be just as hegemonic and domineering as other European elites, but with a greater effusion of the incense smoke of sanctimonious cant. Sweden has long cultivated an image of ‘peace’ and ‘progress,’ and of being “ahead of the curve” in terms of how societies are supposedly fated to evolve. The signal constantly sent out is:
“Feminism, welfarism, internationalism, political correctness, and a certain kind of pacifism: we are the moral future!”
American Leftists and Liberals in particular have fallen hard for this fantasy. The Nobel prize is a vital tool in imposing this paradigm, and selling its image. But that image is both poisonous and fake. We on the alt-right already know where such “progressivist” nonsense leads, and how it ultimately destroys societies. Everything we have been hearing from Sweden for the last ten years confirms this thesis.
Those who are less used to appraising modern chaos and seeing through the tricks of the propagandists, however, will continue to be fooled, and view an idealized version of Sweden as the epitome of all that mankind can be.
In this effective piece of fantasy, Sweden plays the role of the great neutralist, the open-minded, even-handed progressive, the moral humanitarian, the honest broker that we can all trust, the shining paragon that never had colonies – well almost – and the principled peace-loving nation that resolutely determined to stay out of Europe’s beastly wars.
But this is all a filthy subterfuge. The clearest hint is in Nobel himself, a multi-millionaire who made a fortune out of “improvements” in the fine human art of blowing people apart. Most people have heard that he invented dynamite, and perhaps think little of it, knowing that dynamite also has its peaceful uses, such as preparing ground for roads and railways, and for mining. But actually Nobel’s whole career was dedicated to the creation of even more powerful explosives, while the bulk of his wealth came from armaments.
One of Nobel’s big moves was taking over the Swedish steel company Bofors and accelerating its transformation into a major weapons producer. Mining and armaments have played a major role in the Swedish economy, and this fact has determined its extremely duplicitous foreign policy characterized by a superstructure of moral grandstanding above a substructure of commercial and political sordidness.
The country is the third largest arms exporter per capita after Israel and Russia, and is not too fussy about to whom it exports its weapons, including regimes accused of human rights abuses, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Swedish armaments makers, like Bofors and Saab, have a reputation for fueling corruption in the Third World, being involved in major corruption scandals in India and South Africa – and that’s just ones where they got caught.
Colonialism by other means
Sweden, by its situation, was shut out of the opportunities offered to other European nations by colonialism. While they advanced and invested and immeasurably improved the savage lands under their control, Sweden was forced to sit bitterly on the sidelines.
But, when the European colonial nations were weakened in the wake of World War II, the Swedish elites saw their chance to profit by promoting the chaos of decolonization and later anti-Apartheidism. Playing a subtle role, triangulating between shrill Soviet anti-colonialism and amoral American pragmatism, Sweden found a comfortable and profitable role promoting anti-colonialism. This was greatly helped by the appointment of Dag Hammarskjöld as the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Playing its hand with care and skill (and the occasional Third World bloodbath or rape-fest), Sweden, no doubt boosted by its Nobel propaganda, assumed the role of the “honest broker” and all-round good guy.
Dag Hammarskjöld, a member of the tenacious Swedish elite.
While the humanistic platitudes flowed, Swedish companies secretly funded and supported African nationalist movements that had little hope of achieving anything on their own, in return for mining concessions and armaments contracts.
A.K Chesterton in The New Unhappy Lords draws attention to the prominent role that Swedish mining interests played in the destabilizing of the Belgian Congo in the early 1960s, an act that led to enormous violence and bloodshed, including horrific Black-on-White rapes and murders. A key part was played by a Swedish and American conglomerate, Liberian American Swedish Minerals Company (LAMCO), that was seeking to get its hands on the mineral wealth in the Katanga province of Southern Congo.
“Who is aware, for instance, that a director not only of the Grangesberg Company but also of the U.S. copper corporation Anaconda Mining is Bo Hammarskjoeld, the brother of the late Dag Hammarskjoeld, U.N. Secretary General at the time of the occupation of the Congo and the first attack on Katanga? Nor is this the only coincidence — not by a long way. One Sture Linner was appointed by Dag Hammarskjoeld to be resident U.N. representative in charge of technical assistance in the Congo. The appointment was made on the day Linner officially severed his connection with the International African-American Corporation [part of LAMCO], of which he had been executive vice-president, general manager and manager consultant. Eleven days later he was promoted to be in charge of the Congo operation in all its totality. Beyond all reasonable doubt the appointment and subsequent promotion were in anticipation of the U.N. attack on Katanga.” (P 89)
Sweden’s ruthless pursuit of its self interest was evident not only in its crypto-colonial ventures in Africa but also in its behaviour in both World Wars, where it followed a policy of cynically minimizing involvement while maximizing economic contacts with either side.
Kiruna’s iron ore mine still going strong.
Sweden’s main export at this time was high quality iron ore from its ore fields in Lappland. The Gällivare field exported its ore through the Baltic port of Lulea, while the Kiruna field exported its ore through the Norwegian port of Narvik. Pre-war most of the ore from both fields was sent to Germany, but the war meant that the Allies could intercept exports from Narvik. Accordingly this was simply sold to the Allies, while the Gällivare field continued supplying the Germans.
Millions of those killed in Europe’s most tragic slaughter were therefore killed by Swedish steel. Interestingly, the Prime Minister at this time was Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, the father of Dag and Bo Hammarskjoeld.
In WWII Sweden followed a similar policy, but with Narvik in German hands, all its ore went to supplying the German war effort.
While Swedish support for anti-colonialist and later anti-Apartheid movements was clearly cynical and immoral in that it had clear financial motives and a callous disregard for the human consequences, it is harder to blame Sweden for its pragmatic policies during WWI and WWII, although here too we can observe that the famed “Swedish neutrality” proved very profitable.
What is truly reprehensible, however, is that this “Machiavelli of the North” should seek to cover its underhanded acts in moralistic raiment and pose as the “great hope of human progress.” If the Swedish elites were Jewish, instead of Aryan (with a hint of Lapp), we would be well within our rights to accuse them of outrageous chutzpah.
