Published August 3, 2021 at 6:22 pm
Media. Giving a person like Andrew Rosenthal a position as editor-in-chief of a conservative and socially critical newspaper sounds like a bad joke. Someone who, like a hungry goat, demolished a garden does not have the ability to correct the destruction that has been created. The goat is not suitable as a gardener, but should be kept outside the fence, writes Jan Tullberg.
Like the article p & aring; Facebook
More by Jan Tullberg
- Accusing the left of racism is a stupid idea
- There are no free lunches – or?
- Is Sweden a democracy?
- It is right to generalize
- Baizuo – the Chinese word for PK-nonsense says more than you think
- Does Sweden remain Swedish?
- Do not buy the talk about & quot; hatred and threats & quot;
- This is how the EU should take the web giants by the ear
- A tentative start
- Democrats' fire in Parliament
- Donald Trump must stop online censorship – before it's too late
- Conformism problem
- & nbsp ;
- 1 av 10
- ▶
< img src = "/wp-content/uploads/0c527cf968b54628249d8dae05523def.jpg" />
& copy; & nbsp; Press image
Gabriel Urwitz.
Two strange articles have been published in Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens Industri respectively. They have different angles of approach, but suffer from the same severe visual impairment. The articles note that the development of society has gone in the wrong direction and that Sweden's already bad situation will worsen radically in the near future. This creates an expectation that a new policy is needed – but the authors do not want a new political goal, only an adjustment of the failed policy pursued. The goal was not crazy, just the execution, they claim.
Andrew Rosenthal is interviewed in SvD by Malin Ekman in her capacity as editor-in-chief of the Swedish online magazine Bulletin. Rosenthal has become yet another scandal for this poorly planned media initiative. He is an American with poor knowledge of Sweden who reviews article proposals through Google Translate. He does not think that multiculturalism is a bad idea, but finds that the idea right now risks resulting in Sweden getting a number of “Gaza areas”. In them, the inhabitants will soon rebel against the Swedish government. The state has kept the door open to the country, but has not succeeded in convincing immigrants that they should adapt. The advice now is for Sweden to adapt to the immigrants, they should be included on their own terms, as if Sweden is occupied by a foreign power.
This is not a message that goes home in a democracy, but Rosenthal does not think so democratically, but in categories. “It's the whites who scare me,” he says of the United States, but he has no objections to the blacks' direct actions. “They are tired of all the talk and want action. I'm not blaming them for a second. “He is an emotional man with strong sympathies and antipathies.
The choice for Sweden is between remaining a snow globe nation “in self-righteous isolation or opening up to the world. There is a choice, but it is more to be seen as a historic choice, where the best before date of the choice has passed.” Sweden has two choices as I see it. “To ask all these people to leave tomorrow or to change Sweden”, says Rosenthal. It is understood that “ask everyone” and “leave tomorrow” makes that alternative unrealistic. therefore, like Rosenthal himself, we should hoist the BLM flag on our flagpoles and adapt to a post-democratic world.
Giving this person a position as editor-in-chief of a conservative and socially critical newspaper is a bad joke. One should not think that someone who, like a hungry goat, demolished a garden, has the ability to correct the destruction that has been created. The goat is not suitable as a gardener, but should be kept off the fence.
The second article with the same defect was written by Gabriel Urwitz and published in Dagens Industri (28/7). If possible, Urwitz pushes the line even harder that whoever can destroy a garden can also make the garden flourish. He does not spare criticism when integration policy is pointed out as a particularly negative factor: “Today's challenges are of almost war-like dignity”. But still he sees the charged parties, Social Democrats and Moderates, as the future saviors. The key is that they create a common solution, which is very reminiscent of the model that created the problems from the beginning. The goal is to exclude the least guilty parties that Urwitz disapproves of: the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party. The damage was done to them beforehand, so they do not have the goat's qualifications of being involved in the decay. He also states “that SD has a highly unpleasant view of people” and that V “questions the market economy as a cornerstone”.
Urwitz supports the militant foundation Expo financially, while Rosenthal has a benevolent view of BLM. This also does not indicate a problem insight. It's a bit of the Swedish 70s over the analysis: “Let's try new ways, 'Let the prisoners go, it's ours', On the contrary, march.”
If you walk on a thorn-strewn wall, a retreat followed by a new choice of route is a good alternative. The main argument against it is that it is disapproved of by those who allow themselves to be corrupted by their prestige. There is no merit to having been wrong and the culprits minimize their mistakes by denying outcomes. The two writers are far from self-insight and the analysis is strikingly adapted to the establishment. The ideal of multiculturalism remains, without being questioned, while integration policy is attacked, but without any clue as to what is lacking.
Rosenthal points out that the police's inability to speak Somali is important, as well as that the advantage of speaking Swedish in Sweden unduly benefits Swedes at the expense of immigrants. Maybe we should all move to Esperanto to eliminate “structural racism”? If whites in the United States become as criminals as blacks, then perhaps the template for black over-crime can change?
What we are reading are two woke documents that have noted that societal development has gone awry, which in itself is an insight. None of them, however, are able to reconsider their own prejudices or those of the authorities. This inability leads to a weak result to say the least. They sound like any Swedish municipal politician: “When we get the integration in order, everything will go just fine.” The difference between politicians and writers is that politicians are professional optimists, while writers are worried that the country will not meet the “challenges” chosen by politicians.
What above all attracts the undersigned is to critically examine all the change projects that our elected representatives have voluntarily chosen, despite the fact that they lack both popular and scientific support. Democracy's first step on its own is to pursue issues that go against the views and interests of the government. One of these destructive ideas is the harmony adopted by the multicultural society that arises when all groups unite and benefit their interests. Through a higher good power, this does not lead to group-to-group antagonisms, if only the white and rich group bow to all accusations and apologize for their progress, which creates so much resentment among the less successful. The two writers have a generous financial safety margin which means that they are not personally threatened by poverty, but even for them a social collapse can be highly unpleasant. This makes them prone to forgiveness. Positions defended by reciprocity and the rule of law are easily sacrificed by the West in an attempt to appease militant aggressors.
The somewhat strange thing is that multiculturalism is not the new reality, but an ongoing dangerous event that the elite has chosen without popular support. The writers content themselves with personally liking this radical change and loosely ignoring the negative threats to a functioning society that this entails.
They are like a car driver who knows that there will be a sharp curve – yes the car is already there in it – but believes that the ability to slow down indicates a negative attitude that goes against the personal image. The curve must be taken at high speed and if things go badly, the benevolent press can certify that the driver did this consciously and understood the risks. The grieving relatives can then dispute whether this behavior shows good or bad judgment.
JAN TULLBERG
Jan Tullberg is an author and associate professor of business administration. He is the author of the book & nbsp; Låsningen: An analysis of Swedish immigration policy & nbsp; which was published in 2014. More texts by Tullberg can be read on his website.