Sverigedemokraterna is not what they claim to be. When partitoppar nätmobbar a black 15-year-old because he looks older than he is, it is only one example among many of how the racism is bubbling up from the party the dark water. And when the Aftonbladet newspaper at the weekend revealed that Jimmie Åkesson wanted to beg for money to the party from a known right-wing extremist, it is just the latest in a long series of episodes in which the party signs with an attitude – respectable, ickerasistiskt, peaceful, sanningstroget – to behind-the-scenes reason in a completely different way. If it machiavelliska partnered escaped the notice of anyone until now so it compiles Gellert Tamas, the party’s history of systematic fraud against the electorate with ice-cold precision of "English hatred".
"Frankenstein" (2002), if the rasistiske the terrorist John Ausonius and the society in which he appeared in, has Tamas been one of our foremost reviewers of the Swedish hatred. The expectations on the new the book is, therefore, high. The arrangement is a broad attempt to portray the successes of xenophobia in Sweden through a close study of The sweden democrats, and in particular one of their most influential profiles: Kent Ekeroth.
Tamas identifies the party’s efforts to be housebroken enough for the Swedish parliament, how the shaking of anti-semitism in order to replace the politically impossible the enemy of the jews with the more politically viable enemies as muslims and immigrants. The party entered in the european context of fear and antagonism, where the bosnian war emerges as a cautionary example of what happens when extremists on both sides will have enough influence on society to lapse in the violence.
Gellert Tamas (born 1963) is a writer, journalist and documentary filmmaker. His book "Frankenstein" from 2002 has been translated into a dozen languages and become both the tv series and stage play. Photo: Ester Sorri
Korsklippningen between the horrors during the 1900-century european war and the growing xenophobic hatred in Sweden during the 1990s and 2000s, it is effective. The biographical rotandet in Kent Ekeroths childhood is on the other hand, less fertile. The study of how Ekeroths beliefs formed from childhood and onwards is an exciting journalistic projects. Ekeroth is one of the main representatives of one of the strongest political forces in Sweden in the past decade, and may be able to withstand close scrutiny. But the results unfortunately don’t measure up.
Kent Ekeroths jewish ancestry and the strong commitment of the counterjihadrörelsen played a role for the sweden democrats, the reversal from anti-semitism to islamophobia is of course interesting. But the kvasipsykologiska the descriptions of how Ekeroth was not sufficiently interested in girls when he was in junior high school, or sat much with their computer, is simple brushstrokes to take out a särlings caricature.
This is also a problem with the sources. Most are anonymous, and the importance of whether their claims go to coat or not. A nyckelkälla, Daniel At, been an official in the Swedish registry, emerges on the other side with the name. He is a great source that reveals the game behind the scenes during, for example, järnrörsskandalen. The only question is if he is a great source.
Several journalists, who are among the primary reviewers of the SD, says to me that they would be careful not to rely too heavily on the Assais statements. Gellert Tamas seem to not share their cautious stance, instead not he responsibility in the afterword, where he claims he is with the book would "provide the reader with an opportunity to – based on a critical reading – yourself draw their own conclusions". It is not liberating humility, but a cowardly way to not stand up for the picture he just devoted 500 pages to paint up.
focus so much on the Ekeroth and the sweden democrats ‘ leadership – rather extreme types – fails Tamas is also important to analyse the social climate that shaped a group as large as 20 per cent of the population, who are moderately interested in politics but who could imagine that the vote for The sweden democrats. How xenophobia got so strong a foothold in our country is an important story about the development of society during the period of almost 25 years since John Emmett rampage. It remains still to tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment