“I’m, Nationalist Not Racist, Voter Says As Sweden Faces A Historic Election Upset

The Daily Stirrer and our blogs have regularly reported the descent of Sweden’s cities, one among the safest in the world, into lawless frontier towns where large areas are controlled by gangsters, because of ruling elite, blinkered by politically correct thinking and an addiction to virtue signalling have ignored clear evidence that their ridiculously lax immigration policy was importing third world problems into their liberal, tolerant society.

Now Sweden is sliding towards civil disorder as the authorities refuse to change tack and try to pretend the problems do not exist and vast numbers of uneducated, ignorant, religiously faniatical and totally unemployable migrants put impossible burdens on social, law enforcement and welfare agencies.

“Trains and hospitals don’t work, but immigration continues,” complain Roger Mathson, a retired vegetable oil factory worker in Sweden, when questioned by Bloomberg on the same day as a violent, coordinated rampage by masked gangs of youths across five Swedish cities caused $€£millionsworth of damage to cars and property

We reported previously that with a national election imminent, Swedish politicians were quick to react with anti-immigrant party ‘Sweden Democrats’ seeing a surge in the polls ahead of the September 9th election.

“I’m not a racist, but I’m a nationalist,” Mathson said. “I don’t like seeing the town square full of Niqab-clad ladies and people fighting with each other.”

He had a valid point, much of the violence on the streets of Swedish cities is a result of clturf wars between gangs from rival immigrant communities.

Because of widespread dissatisfaction with the Government response to problems caused by the mostly Muslim immigrants Sweden could be set to have its own political earthquake in September, similar to the one in Italy which rocked the EU establishment to its foundations. A big swing to the right in the general election could end a century of Social Democratic dominance and bring to power a little known (on the world stage), but the now hugely popular nationalist party often dubbed far-right and right-wing populist, called Sweden Democrats?

Sweden, a traditionally a largely homogeneous nation of 10 million, took in an astounding 600,000 legal refugees over the past five years, while thanks to the open doors immigration policy nobody knows how many are in the country illegally. After Swedes across various cities looked out their windows Tuesday to see cars exploding, smoke filling the skies, and possibly armed masked men hurling explosives around busy parking lots, it appears they’ve had enough.

Over the past years of the Sweden Democrats rise as a major force in Swedish politics, the country’s media have labelled the Sweden Democrats as “racists” and “Nazis” due to their focus on anti-immigration and strong Euroscepticism. This is completely wrong but typical of globalist dominated mainstream media in western Europe and North America. Wanting to control immigration, limit numbers of new arrivals, check on willingness to at least tolerate the values and traditions of the host nation and obey its laws is not racist.

A poll at the start of this week, following a massive smear campaign by government and media, and some belated and probably hypocritical tough talking on immigration from other political parties, suggested the Sweden Democrats had fallen back to third place after topping three previous polls as the September election nears; however, Tuesday’s national crisis and what could legitimately be dubbed a serious domestic terror threat is likely to boost their popularity.

Bloomberg’s profile of their leader, Jimmie Akesson (above right), echoes the tone of establishment Swedish media in the way they commonly cast the movement, beginning as follows:

Viking rock music and whole pigs roasting on spits drew thousands of Swedes to a festival hosted by nationalists poised to deliver their country’s biggest political upheaval in a century.

The Sweden Democrats have been led since 2005 by a clean-cut and bespectacled man, Jimmie Akesson. He’s gentrified a party that traces its roots back to the country’s neo-Nazi, white supremacist fringe. Some polls now show the group may become the biggest in Sweden’s parliament after general elections on Sept. 9. Such an outcome would end 100 years of Social Democratic dominance.

The group’s popularity began surging after the 2015 immigration crisis began, which first hit Europe’s southern Mediterranean shores and quickly moved northward as shocking wave after wave of migrants came.

Akesson emphasizes something akin to a “Sweden-first” platform which European media often compares to Trump’s “America First”; and the party has been accused of preaching forced assimilation into Swedish culture to be become a citizen.  Little mention is made of the fact that some of the SDs political rivals have been urging Swedes to accept Sharia Law in order to satisfy the demands of radical Muslim preachers.

Bloomberg’s report sampled opinions at a large SD rally held in Akkeson’s hometown of Solvesborg, and many of the statements reflect increasingly common sentiment after this week’s coordinated multi-city attack:

At his party’s festival, Akesson revved up the crowd by slamming the establishment’s failures, calling the last two governments the worst in Swedish history. T-shirts calling for a Swexit, or an exit from the EU, were exchanged as bands played nationalist tunes.

Ted Lorentsson, a retiree from the island of Tjorn, said he’s an enthusiastic backer of the Sweden Democrats. “I think they want to improve elderly care, health care, child care,” he said. “Bring back the old Sweden.” But he also acknowledges his view has led to disagreement within his family as his daughter recoils at what she feels is the “Hitler”-like rhetoric.

No doubt, the media and Eurocrats in Brussels will take simple, innocent statements from elderly retirees like “bring back the old Sweden” as nothing short of declaration of a race war just as they did in an effort to influence Italy’s election result, but such views will only solidify after this week.

Another Sweden Democrat supporter, a 60-year old woman who works at a distillery, told Bloomberg, “I think you need to start seeing the whole picture in Sweden and save the original Swedish population,” she said. “I’m not racist, because I’m a realist.”

Sweden’s two biggest parties, the Social Democrats and Moderates, are now under serious pressure as Swedes increasingly worry about issues like immigration, law and order, and health care – seen as under threat by a mass influx of immigrants that the system can’t handle.

Bloomberg explains further:

But even young voters are turning their backs on the establishment. One potential SD supporter is law student Oscar Persson. Though he hasn’t yet decided how he’ll vote, he says it’s time for the mainstream parties to stop treating the Sweden Democrats like a pariah. “This game they are playing now, where the other parties don’t want to talk to them but still want their support, is something I don’t really understand,” he said.

Akesson has managed to entice voters from both sides of the political spectrum with a message of more welfare, lower taxes and savings based on immigration cuts.

With many Swedes now saying immigration has “gone too far” and as this week’s events have once again thrust the issue before both a national and global audience, the next round of polling will mostly like put Sweden’s conservative-right movements on top.

RELATED POSTS:
Swedend’s descent into a dystopian nightmare

Immigrant criminals and Swedish criminals are viewed differently in the eyes of Swedish law.

We ask why it is, in Sweden, that when a Swede kills two immigrants it is an act of terrorism that shames the nation, but when an African immigrant kills a Swedish mother and her young child, in the eyes of the government it is somehow the victim’s fault? The big concern is that, given the desperation of our Conservtive and Labour party leaders to make us more European, such politically correct insanity will be inflicted in Britain next

Sweden national suicide by immigration

Immigration in Germany

How immigration is marginalising Europe’s white working classes

Immigrants set up Sharia law zones in European cities

Sweden bhit by wave of rapes committed by immigrants

White genocide in Sweden engineered by ruling elite

Sweden Dystopian omnibus

Swedish immigrants riot against Swedish way of life

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

 

Monsanto Slammed With $289 Million Verdict In Historic ‘RoundUp’ Cancer Lawsuit

In a case that could halt the development of GM crops around the world, and thus the push by a few global corporations to gain control of the food supply, a court San Francisco this week awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, whose lawyers claimed Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.

Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate based herbicide that he was a=obliged by his job to use up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict.

Johnson told the court that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was soaked with the herbicide. The first of these occurred in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has since covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions.

Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict. 

“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.

Monsanto is now a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June.

On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information.
According to a report in The Guardian, Johnson’s lawsuit against is the first such case against Monsanto to complete the full trial process over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. Many of these are still tied up in the labyrinthine procedures of the American justice system and many other complainants have either run out of money or simply given up.

The Johnson case focused on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974.  The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com

In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long study. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Johnson’s case is not part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.”

Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.

As the New York Times commented last year, leaked internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
These documents detail the meaures to which the Monsanto was willing to resport in order to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research. A biologist involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe. In the bigger picture these documents will throw into doubt legal judgements in many other cases, as they strongly suggest Monsanto have misled the courts in their evidence.

Poll shows majority of voters feel unrepresented, is a UKIP resurgence on the cards?

A HUGE swathe of the UK electorate feel completely disenfranchised and disengaged from the ruling class. This isn’t just the working class, but the middle class as well – and that should send alarm bells to the ‘establishment’.No mainstream political party represents their views – this is on both left and right of centre. I have several working class friends who have always traditionally voted Labour yet they feel as disenfranchised as I do (on the right).

The YouGov poll suggests almost forty per cent of Britons feel that the justice system is not harsh enough and that none of the major parties share their view. Similarly, 16 per cent feel that immigration restrictions should be tighter and ten per cent want the government to intervene more to encourage housebuilding, while feeling that no major party is representing them.

The findings suggest that there are large sections of the electorate who feel that they lack a voice in the major political parties. Although the poll did not ask a question on the state of British democracy other evidence  shows many people feel current party politics and the two party system is broken. This means that when people cast votes under the current election system they are not voting to put the party they most support in power, but to keep out the party they most dislike or mistrust.

When a party can gather 4m voters (as UKIP did in 2015,) and yet win only one seat in the 650 seat parliament representation  you know something is really not right. This article is not about UKIP however, it is about democracy, like them or hate them UKIP suffered the same fate as the Liberal Democrats had for decades. Dissent is growing, anger is fomenting.

These are dangerous times where the establishment are not just riding roughshod over the electorate, they seem to take genuine pleasure in mocking it. Look at the way the political establishment and mainsteam media have sneered at people who voted for leave in the referendum.  They’re not ‘xenophobes’ or ‘racists’, ‘stupid’, ‘bigoted’ or ‘Little Englanders’. These voters are the people of the United Kingdom who are sick of the current ruling class and demand change. They want people in Parliament who actually represent the views of the working class and lower middle class, not the vested interests that fund the various parties.

Millions of these people are concerned about the justice system, we have a politicised police force and biased judges who make no secret of their ‘liberal’ sympathies.

Handing out tougher sentences would be easy and good public relations, but before the ‘justice’ system is made more harsh it needs to clean up its act.

Police must be discouraged from adopting political causes, or favouring the anointed minorities, the law is the law and as Marcus Tullius Cicero said 2000 years ago, it must apply to all equally. Allowing the politically correct thinking of the university brainwashed establishment to influence not only trials and sentencing but also the way investigations are carried out (or not carried out,) is a betrayal of our trust and can only lead to  a collapse of confidence in the law. And that would be a disaster for everybody.

Police, prosecutors and judges  must overcome their tendency to tunnel vision when investigating crime so that ‘obvious culprits’ who are actually innocent do not find themselves openly accused and named by police before a case against them has properly been made and alternatives ruled out.Innocence should continue to be presumed until guilt is proved but colour of a person’s skin or their chosen religion should not be allowed to influence the diligence of investigators or prosecutors.

Above all, the police must stop ‘accidentally’ losing or suppressing evidence which favours the accused as has happened in several recent ‘rape’ cases which turned out not to be rapes at all. The strongest argument against capital punishment is that police and prosecutors make mistakes and are not always free of prejudices which lead to innocent people being sentenced to death. Similar reasoning can be applied to crimes where ‘harsh’ i.e. very long sentences are imposed.

Before extending the range of offences given such sentences the public should become a lot more certain that the right person is being convicted. Being harsh for its own sake smacks of authoritarianism rather than a sense of justice.

Immigration is a separate issue and one that excites such extreme passions it clouds the issues surrounding the state of our democracy. For that reason it has been  discussed in detail elsewhere in this blog, you may pull up a list of posts by clicking on they appropriate keyword.

Twitter descends into right-left spats over Tommy Robinson release from jail

Tommy Robinson supporters protest outside The high Court
Tommy Robinson supporters protest outside The High Court Picture Credit: Peter Nicholls, Reuters

Supporters and critics of Tommy Robinson have descended into tit-for-tat spats over the merits of the former English Defence League leader winning his court challenge, securing his immediate release on bail.

It didn’t take long for pro and anti-Robinson social media users to clash over the judges’ decision. In London on Wednesday Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and two other judges quashed a finding of contempt made against Robinson over an incident in Leeds in May – ordering a new hearing over the allegation.

It’s been a case of contrasting emotions on Twitter – joy from Robinson’s loyal backers and irrational fury from his critics. We should bear in mind, before alloeing ourselves to be swayed by the fury, that Robinson has not been declared innocent, he has been released under bail conditions and must present himself at a police station regularly to prove he has not bolted.

The Guardian reports that Robinson has been ordered to attend a retrial in London and to remain at least 400 meters away from Leeds crown court while on bail.

EU Courts to Have Final Say on Brexit ‘Divorce Bill’ and Millions of Migrants

What might well be the final act of betrayal that will finally destroy the political career of the Prime Minister nobody wanted, was enacted earlier this week when Teresa May’s government quietly agreed in a behind closed doors session with the European Union (EU) negotiators to give European courts the final say over Brexit issues, including the massive “divorce bill”, migrant rights, and the Irish border “backstop”.

This latest and most treasonous concession so far from the government would, in the unlikely event of May getting her own party to accept it or brokering a deal between her own party’s Remain contingent, Labour and the SNP, give the European Court of Justice (ECJ) effective control over any dispute involving the £39 billion payment and the status of more than three million European citizens and migrants.

Foreign judges would also control the implementation of plans to keep Northern Ireland locked in the bloc’s Single Market if the border cannot be kept open by other means, as the Prime Minister has agreed. The stark climb-down has been made in private, The Times reports, in an attempt to move talks on after they stalled and EU bureaucrats and negotiators refused to comprise.

One of the central themes in the Vote Leave campaign was the promise to take back control of Britain’s laws and courts and to leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The ruling elite are even more deluded than we thought if they try to get away with this. Although Remainers and mainstream media are convinced most leave voters were motivated by racism and xenophobia, in fact a majority of working class voters cited surrender of national sovereignty to foreign bureaucrats as their main reason for voting to leave the EU.

Pro-Brexit Tories slammed this latest revelation as just another example of concessions by Mrs May. Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Tory MP for Harwich, declared it unacceptable and said it could be rejected in Parliament.

“This is very profound. It is giving a status to the European Court of Justice in the withdrawal agreement that is not accorded to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom,” he said. “That makes it a deeply unequal relationship and therefore unacceptable.”

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith commented: “This would be akin to saying that a UK citizen living in America could have their rights protected by a UK court.”

A UK government source insisted that the ECJ would not have the final say. “We have categorically rejected any proposal that would see the court of one side decide disputes,” they said.

A draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and bloc already states that a joint committee of officials will consider all disputes between the two sides but apparently and without any authority to do so, Mrs. May has overridden this.

Trannies and Feminists fall out over changes to UK’s Gender Recognition Act

by Arthur Foxake
5b50bc4fdda4c8c2698b45d1

Gay Pride – not as united as they’s like you to think (Photo: Reuters)

Proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) which would make transitioning from one gender to another easier, which will make lefties who claim gender is a social construct happy, and encourage fuckwit schoolteachers who want to teach four year olds that they should change sex, but it has put feminist groups at odds with leaders of the British Snip and Tuck association .

British law currently requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and that the applicant has lived as their preferred gender for two years. They must then undergo a psychological assessment by a panel of medical experts. The person seeking sex change treatment also has to pay a fee of £140 before they can obtain a gender recognition certificate.

Trans ‘rights’ campaigners are demanding that process be made less difficult by introducing the concept of ‘self-identification’ which would essentially allow them to obtain the certificate just by self-identifying as one gender or another, without all the medical assessments and bureaucracy, and then simply present themselves at the nearest national Health Service hospital and demand expensive surgery and hormone treatments paid for by us poor taxpayers, because human rights.

Feminist groups are vehemently opposed to the demand (which exposes the lie of the Gay Prode movement that all sexual minrorities and the three o twenty – six or ninety – two (or whatever number they pulled out of the hat this week,) are solid in support of each other. The more traditional feminists say that a self-identification law could be abused and could even put women at risk if any person could enter a women-only space and claim to be a woman.

They say their concern is for the safety of women and girls, and they are not denying rights to trans people. Some trans activists, however, say that the feminist groups are “transphobic” and perpetuating discriminatory rhetoric.

Lovely to see all these left wing extremist bigots falling out among themselves.

One activist at a protest in Newcastle told Sky News that “no one has the right to tell you how to identify, that is up to you. These [feminist] groups, they sit and perpetuate hateful rhetoric.”  Well there’s nothing like a self pitying whine to alienate people from your cause.

Feminist campaigner Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, who has written a book on transgender children, told the news outlet that she was “absolutely shocked at the level of vitriol and the level of silencing” being attempted by the trans activists. “Even asking for a discussion is considered transphobic,” she said.

We agree, wile the gays, bisexuals and lesbians can be mildly irritating when they bang on about their rights, the chicks with dicks are a truly obnoxious, self centered, whining, self pitying bunch of (wannabe) cunts.

Sir Bill Cash makes BRILLIANT point about May’s Brexit sellout

brexit-brexit-news-chequers-bbc-newsnight-newsnight-chequers-chequers-meeting-chequers-brevet-soft-brevet-1410594Bill Cash (picure: BBC )

Long term opponent of the EU and prominent Brexiteer Sir Bill Cash expressed “deep disappointment” on BBC Newsnight yesterday at Tereason May’s betrayal of her country in presenting a Brexit plan that complies with all EU demands but offers no concesions from the EU on British demands. The plan was agreed after an all day cabinet meeting   at Chequers. Cash responded by claimed that “the law of the land” is not being applied.

Appearing on the news magazine show Cash, Conservative MP and veteran Brexiteer, said some very important questions have been raised by the statement the Government had put out.

He told BBC presenter Evan Davis: “First, does it meet the tests of the referendum itself?

He continued by making a point: “The Repeal Act that went through two weeks ago specifically says that the 1972 Act will be repealed on Brexit day.

“Now when it does that it quite clearly also says you can’t stay in the single market, you can’t stay in the customs union, you can’t stay in the European court.

“That’s what becoming rather disturbing.”