This is not a general jab against S but it is important that the issues below are discussed because the likelihood that S will be the party forming the government after the 2026 election is quite high.
M is performing terribly right now and it will surely get worse when they realize that they are in trouble and must quickly work through the business community’s wish list even faster, an accelerated timetable simply, but they can probably handle it.
S has had a messy congress and there is division, but it seems that all our parties have that, and I have a separate post coming up about politics in general.
However, S has refused to come to terms with its approach to extreme political Islamism and they simply must do that because it goes against everything they claim to stand for as a party – just because the French brought it up doesn’t mean it’s new information, just an opportunity to discuss it again.
Extreme political Islamism is NOT synonymous with Muslims in any way, even though SD always makes that connection. The extreme Islamists themselves scream that any criticism of them is criticism of all Muslims – do not fall into that trap because it is done with the purpose of avoiding legitimate criticism.
SD has done everyone a great disservice by starting to target Muslims as a group in general, and even more recently starting to spout “preserve Sweden Swedish” and other statements that polarize the debate climate and allow the group of extreme political Islamists to seek refuge under that.
Extreme political Islamism is an -ism and not compatible with our values regarding gender equality, sexual orientation, anti-racism, legislation, our morals and ethics, and much more that makes Scandinavia considered the best countries in the world to live in – and that we are at the top of all international ranking lists.
This -ism is very offensive and expansive, the ultimate goal is to take over the host country and become the dominant political power one small step at a time. They always advance their positions so concessions are actually completely pointless as the goalposts never stand still.
The Muslim Brotherhood is being banned in more and more countries in the Middle East and through subsidiary organizations or different fronts, it is de facto them that S has allied with.
Saudi Arabia has just allowed women to dress as they wish, and if any male acquaintance of theirs has a problem with that, he can show up at the nearest torture center for a chat with MbS.
Iran is also heading towards a breakthrough.
Extreme political Islamism is in full retreat in the Middle East – it is simply not 2025 material but something you throw out with the bathwater where you can.
It is widely known that S, through the Brotherhood movement (later Faith and Solidarity), has let these forces in through the back door straight into the inner circles – it happened in the late 90s and the document came out after 2010 at some point so no conspiracies at all or guesses, these are undeniable verifiable facts.
Even the fact that these groups can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood is verifiable, even if S likely had no idea about it back then, but by 2015 they should have known at least.
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/s-lovar-att-samarbeta-med-sveriges-muslimska-rad
Why – S began to fade somewhat because they had been too successful. The working class had nice villas and didn’t feel that traditional S issues were their top priority anymore, where they dug into entrecote with bearnaise sauce.
S then fell for the deception of “the Muslim voice” – representatives who claimed to represent all Muslims in Sweden and generously promised their votes in exchange for favors.
https://www.gp.se/ledare/muslimska-brodraskapet-ar-redan-har.fddbabd7-bd65-46b0-ae3a-64661f56a427
The deeply unethical, and illegal, act of selling votes for influence is not even part of the overall discussion so we skip that part.
Something quite spicy is that S did not actually gain “the Muslim voice” at all by letting Islamists into the inner circles – it failed, possibly with the exception of the 1995 election.
“Muslims” are just like “Christians” not a homogeneous group at all – there are secular ones, those who go to prayer once a year, those who are believers in different ways, and then there are radical elements who overinterpret everything.
There is a not insignificant number of Muslims living in Sweden who have fled to Sweden from extreme political Islamism – they are not very keen on a repetition of that in their new homeland and it is mainly the women who have taken up that fight, as mentioned below.
The group of extreme political Islamists is small but very vocal, and while all other Muslims go to work, are busy with family, and paint their houses on weekends, this group has the time and audacity to claim to speak for the group and make plans to advance their positions in Sweden at the expense of democracy.
The decision was poor by S and they have not dealt with this at all – and with that decision in hindsight, we may understand some of the more serious missteps, but unfortunately this is ongoing, as their congress clearly showed.
For example, there was a significant internal conflict in S when Peter Weiderud defended that Muslim representatives in the Brotherhood had removed LGBT (now LGBTQ+1) from protected groups. They must be given a head start, was the message to the LGBTQ+ community.
The votes were more important than S’s fundamental values, plain and simple.
https://www.svt.se/opinion/weideruds-fordomar-mot-muslimer-leder-till-diskriminering-av-hbt-personer
We have gone through a few stages in Sweden where extreme political Islamism aggressively tried to advance their positions but were pushed back.
S followed the agreement and we had the period with representatives in positions of trust, the Green Party had a minister who resigned, and S had them in various positions in the organizations where they also had to resign.
Everyone had to go because they were caught red-handed not standing up for the values we have in Sweden and that S stands for – sometimes it was women’s rights, sometimes LGBTQ+, sometimes they associated with anti-Semites and terrorists, and sometimes it was just gross corruption and crime.
The organizations they worked within did their best to smooth things over until it was no longer possible, and they left.
A modern classic was to refuse to shake hands with women and that debate still seems to be going on today in 2025, which is quite surprising – and we seem to be losing it now that the discussion is whether it is discrimination to require someone to shake hands 😶
The important thing for S here did not seem to be the type of people they appointed to positions who could bring about change from within, but that they followed the agreement. The fact that S was publicly criticized did not lead to any reflection at all apparently.
So here in 2025, I am actually surprised – they know the consequences and that they did not get “the Muslim voice,” but they do not address the problem. Has the problem taken too strong a hold in the party?
Then maybe you remember the hidden cameras in mosques that clearly showed that prominent representatives, looked up to, urged visitors not to follow Swedish laws and did not stand up for our values regarding equality and equal treatment.
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/5109930
Now it’s a bit messy but I think that around five years later, 25 independent schools were closed that had stated that they had the profile – Muslim orientation – and today we have two left. All the founders needed to do was to open the school, enroll students, cash in on school funding, and educate the students in the Swedish school curriculum.
The independent school reform is a damn scam that deserves harsh criticism as trust was everything and control was none, but for today’s exercise, it will be these schools – we have many more actors in the large tax-funded scam, but this group took it a step further.
The schools had promising student numbers but then things went downhill – corruption and fraud, not following the Swedish school curriculum, teaching religion beyond what was allowed, segregation and discrimination where girls were kept separate from boys and did not receive full education, and then the icing on the cake – they hired ISIS returnees in the schools.
The schools also radicalized children from a young age, which is absolutely life-threatening – Sweden can probably forget about integration if schools do their utmost to counteract all forms of integration for groups that are supposed to be integrated.
Unfortunately, the ISIS returnees were probably seen as an asset to the schools, which says a lot about the plans they had for the children.
Below, there is a warning that they have backed off from starting their own schools but are now trying to take over existing schools instead.
https://www.expressen.se/ledare/sofie-lowenmark/sa-gor-islamister-for-att–ta-makten-over-skolan
Going through this over time, it is clear that the legal system and the majority society (the taxpaying group regardless of ethnicity) have in several instances fought back when the extreme political Islamists aggressively tried to advance their positions.
But at the same time, the Social Democrats have only retreated, regrouped, and then opened up the next door for these anti-democratic elements. Just like everyone else, the Social Democrats see what is happening but put the agreement above all else.
France has tried to reintegrate ISIS returnees’ children with psychologists, and the conclusion was chilling – they are not re-integrable even after years of very extensive support efforts that far exceed what is long-term possible.
Not the most pleasant conclusion that there are ten-year-old children who are already radicalized beyond repair to integrate them into the majority society – what do you do?
What probably carries the highest risk in the Social Democrats’ embrace of extreme political Islamism is precisely that – the radicalization of children.
It is in the interest of the extreme political Islamists that their target group does not “Swedishize” and integrate because then they disappear into the majority society and their power base erodes.
This group is perhaps the biggest saboteurs of integration attempts we have in Sweden, and the Social Democrats have supported them since the 1990s.
These traveling salesmen of votes for the Social Democrats also want maximum polarization in society – because then they become more relevant. They are about as good as the Sweden Democrats at polarizing.
They are often high-status citizens in their group as religious representatives, which is then intertwined with the criminal clans and gangs that can act as moral police in particularly vulnerable areas and maintain a conservative view on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights as well as aversion to the majority society (the taxpaying group regardless of nationality).
Nalin Pekgul has been warning about this for years – for example, that women in these marginalized areas cover their heads because otherwise they will be targeted, and the Social Democrats ostracized her.
Khakabeveh in the Left Party was also ousted when she wanted to fight, the defender of goodness Sjöstedt who got rid of her for that audacity.
And Ann-Sofie Hermansson who became a garbage collector when the Social Democrats crushed her in Gothenburg.
All of them tried to stand up for women’s rights throughout Sweden and according to the programs of their parties, but they were burned from within their own ranks. There is a contradictory relationship within the parties that they cannot handle.
I can understand that women take the lead in the whole setup because the extreme political Islamists are extremely misogynistic, and there are many examples of women being sacrificed when they tried to fight against the extreme Islamists who are advancing.
Then the kicker – they are often financed by foreign powers in many cases, and in their attempts to take over the public space, they receive funding from third parties for large constructions and the bribes needed.
As a first step, the Social Democrats should immediately address this issue because it is directly anti-democratic and goes against everything they claim to stand for. They have let werewolves into the chicken coop and passively watch the bloodbath through the chicken wire.
It is never possible to completely prevent radical elements, but one can make it as unattractive as possible so that as few as possible turn to them – do we really need to fund them with our tax money to take their place in the public space?
If they have a central, well-funded, high-status gathering point vs. a dull basement that smells of mold, it probably makes a difference in membership numbers and they are drained of recruits.
Now labor movements in half of Europe have started to prioritize integration at the top of their party programs, including the Social Democrats, but they must address this double standard because it is contradictory.
One can choose to turn a blind eye to this and label it as, for example, “Islamophobia” or racism, but what is being played with in Sweden in 2025 is then the welfare society’s existence or non-existence – what has made Scandinavia so unique.
What do you think about a campaign slogan for 2026 from a party left of center saying “Integration is discrimination” – we are not quite there yet, but soon.
No country in the world can have a welfare society paid for by citizens who are increasingly taxed when it starts to be significantly diluted, and where large groups also disdain those who pay for the whole party and build parallel societies with tax money.
What will ultimately happen is that the group in society that pays for everything will fight back and keep more and more of their earned money, pay for their own welfare, and those who have no money will get nothing.
If you look today at how unemployment looks in different groups and who the vulnerable groups are in schools, it is quite clear that we will have a sharp ethnic class marker in Sweden as soon as we remove the welfare system, right?
That, if anything, will create ethnic tensions in the country.
The alternative is that the group wanting to milk those who pay for the whole party more and more successfully reaches 50% and can do as they please, but that has also been tried in various countries and then things can go downhill really fast.
Today with the EU, Swedish companies and those with attractive skills can move fairly quickly if someone tries to tax them to death, and then there will be less money in the country. It might work for one term and then the consequences will come. The old pragmatic Social Democrats understood this – the question is whether the new Social Democrats understand it.
A low-hanging fruit is that one will have to start paying for university education themselves, then better schools will start charging more than today, and then healthcare and security.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of the Social Democrats, but I guess that Magdalena Andersson represents a more sensible policy and that those challenging her now are the left-wingers, so we’ll see how this ends and if the Social Democrats manage to balance it.
I will return, as mentioned, with a fairly broad critique of most parties, but when one goes back and reads about this issue, it has flared up intermittently since around 2010 but has not been possible to stamp out.
The Social Democrats have been the enablers, even though they have known about the consequences that have been absolutely devastating for integration in the country and have taken us to where we are today.
Don't forget to donate, Ukraine's cause is ours! Support Ukraine!
NOTE: Those of you who do NOT want to allow automatic translation of your comments, please go to your profile page and set it.
Hover over your name at the top right, select edit profile, and you will then find the setting under the language settings heading.
Sad reading, but there is probably a lot of truth in this. Especially like:
“Extreme political Islamism is NOT synonymous with Muslims in any way, even though the Sweden Democrats always make that connection.”
Yes, something has clearly happened to the Social Democrats in the last 20 years, I have always blamed the coalition parties, but maybe there is an internal problem as mentioned above. The question is, what can I as a voter do about this? Of course, vote for the right team, but it would be appropriate if the left-wing gang could clean up their own act.
Why do left-wing women like the “ism” from the Middle East? It’s not very progressive in terms of women’s issues, to say the least. You present a possible explanation.
Exactly. Unfortunately, Kristersson’s government has not been impressive even though there are some bright spots.
Hmm… that the Sweden Democrats and many others are critical of Muslims in general and not just radical ones, of course, is because they cannot see any difference between them. The integrated and well-functioning ones remain silent.
Or to put it differently – the problem is the group of Sweden’s Secular Muslims – it does not exist.
Islam means submission, Muslims submit, which of course also means that as long as there is a single radical Islamist in Sweden, Swedish Muslims are a lost group.
The Social Democrats and other beautifiers watched and let it happen. While they focused on gender-neutral toilets.
S probably thinks like Faust, that I want to live here and now.
What I don’t understand is who has decided this within the Social Democrats. Can you name anyone? Is there a person who has sat in a meeting room and decided that “we should sacrifice LGBTQ for that and that imam then gives us 3000 votes here and 17000 votes there”? Or is it just a phenomenon that arises as a whole without individual persons being 100% on board, like the cult movie The Cube?
To what extent is it about replacing the Soviet Union as a financier? The oil countries had an upturn around the same time as the Soviet Union collapsed. Someone has to pay for all the festivities in the parties.
One should probably remember that there is a third world enthusiasm among the Social Democrats. Yes, people usually talk about international solidarity. That’s been around for a long time. We have Olof Palme International Center and the Bommersvik Left and Södertörn University. I think Magdalena Andersson is moderately interested in what’s happening in Gaza. She is more mainstream Social Democrat. Like, S should be the party for the well-behaved workers. But she has to mention Gaza when giving speeches. It’s clear that there are tensions in this field. I was on the subway towards Odenplan one Saturday half an hour before the Palestine demonstration at Odenplan. Across from me, four slightly older women wearing Palestinian scarves were sitting on their way there. Can someone explain why women are drawn to Palestine demonstrations?
The women on the subway were likely left-wing women, and since the left has always consisted of society’s least educated, most worn-out, most exploited individuals, a resentment has formed within the movement towards the successful, the prosperous. So turning their backs on the USA and embracing Palestine is completely on brand.
The Left Party has a large number of members with an academic background, believing that they are at the top or close to it.
Correct, but if you look at the focus, they are largely academics in contemporary Swedish, i.e. preschool teachers, care workers, gender researchers, gender equality integrators, HR assistants, environmental program developers, and so on. Thus, the title inflation that has led some women to see themselves as superior to the carpenter, car brands, and train driver. And because they do not want to “marry down,” we have created the group incels. Sweden is fantastic.
🎯
S is dishonest and always has been, a narcissistic party that is never wrong.
Just the fact that they keep harping on about profits in welfare, only to not say a word about banning private initiatives in the next breath. They know that a large proportion of employees in these companies are their voters. Dishonest!
According to Widar Andersson, the Social Democrats know that out of the approximately 100 schools facing issues, only a small portion are private, the vast majority are municipal. Dishonest!
Listen here, Widar is very open and unfiltered:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6T3w1TWMt2f32W6BKOV19M?si=8e0TLtwIRTOnAewdmO91gw&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A2AIPRuomRkPHIOGNrWQalA
The debate about independent schools has unfortunately become completely blinded by the goal of how to create a good education at a low cost.
Left-wing is entirely focused on whether someone makes a profit from running a business, which is fundamental for being able to operate a private business. Prohibiting profit distribution in schools only opens up for organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that run schools for ideological reasons.
The parties advocating for a completely free market school overlook the fact that independent schools often choose to profile themselves so that they attract motivated students, or at least students with motivated parents.
Meanwhile, municipalities are left with a larger share of unmotivated students who cost more money as long as the goal is for them to acquire knowledge.
The school funding is paid to both municipal and independent schools, and should cover the same costs per student. As a taxpayer, I want to have maximum return on the tax I pay. If a private company can provide education better and cheaper than if it is run by the municipality, that’s great. But as a taxpayer, I want to pay a lower school fee to the private alternatives.
Unfortunately, the procurement of independent schools is done at a naive level. They pay too much, have no control over the actors behind the schools, and struggle to set goals for the schools to meet.
This is typical when something is financed by taxes. If you think schools are the worst example, you have missed how the care of young criminals or the care of disabled people in private hands looks like, with a huge share of criminal actors.
Should we let municipalities run all education? The truth is they can’t afford it, they have sold schools and invested the money elsewhere 🙈🙉🙊
A problem with independent schools is that no one would dare to say that we allow Christian independent schools but not Muslim ones.
The only real solution to criminals who benefit from public funds is to reduce the number of points of contact with the state and municipality. That is, privatization, not pseudo-privatization as we have today, where it is nonetheless publicly funded activities. But that is a different Sweden than what we are used to. When the number of points of contact has been reduced to a minimum, the state is allowed to run the rest in its square manner.
It is difficult to make assessments. We cannot allow any Christian sect like the one Jim Jones conducted in Guyana where 900 people committed suicide to operate any school, okay an extreme example but there are others that are on the borderline. The problem may be just as big since there are significantly more Muslim than Christian nutcases.
Maybe we should ban all schools that do not have education as their primary goal?
One can start by giving the municipalities veto power over the right to free establishment (Yes, I think it’s crap even though I consider myself right-wing). If there are already 2 football high schools, maybe there is no basis for a third one. If there is already a regional healthcare center and a private one, maybe there is no basis for a third one.
Why do municipalities have self-determination only sometimes?
Typical of Robert Wenglén in Lomma.
https://bulletin.nu/moderaten-som-satte-stopp-for-valfrihet
Unfortunately, local self-determination has almost disappeared. When it’s not laws setting the limits, it’s all these targeted grants that change slightly depending on some member of parliament’s pet issue that they have negotiated. Suddenly, for example, the state provides large grants to build, for example, adventure pools instead of gymnasiums that are needed.
Local self-determination must increase, but so must responsibility.
10 great comments 👍👍👍
As always with sensitive topics, one wonders if it wouldn’t be better to skip them, but now it’s starting to burn because in 2026 they will be back in government.
And then the worry is that discussing them will only make them thrive in silence.
Trying to pursue a clear line that is – the majority society that pays for everything regardless of ethnicity/religion is what politics should be aimed at.
The groups that want to tear down should be dealt with harshly.
I think that’s what one has to relate to because it’s not 1982 anymore whether we like it or not.
Good then. Totally agree.