COLUMN • The word choice by SD leader Richard Jomshof was harsh. Unnecessarily harsh, according to among others Ulf Kristersson (M). I don’t agree with that – a spade should be called a spade. But the political storm that followed says much more about the Prime Minister and the Swedish left’s double standards than about Jomshof himself. Few people have done more to poison Sweden’s debate climate than those now demanding a more civil conversation.
Member of Parliament Richard Jomshof called Aftonbladet’s political editor-in-chief Anders Lindberg a “quisling.” Shortly thereafter, he used the same word about Social Democratic party leader Magdalena Andersson.
Note that he called Lindberg A quisling, which in Swedish has long meant traitor. And if there’s anything Anders Lindberg is, it’s precisely that.
The reactions, naturally, did not take long. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson distanced himself from the choice of words, the opposition as usual spoke of a threat to democracy, and Anders Lindberg himself described the statement as deeply serious.
Lindberg insinuated that the Norwegian traitor Quisling, who collaborated with Hitler, was actually executed and that this was a threat directed at him. Crocodile tears that were later highlighted by Lindberg’s political comrades at SVT – of course. We’ve learned the drama by now.
Anders Lindberg himself has made historical comparisons between Ulf Kristersson and Franz von Papen – the conservative politician who opened the door for Adolf Hitler.
READ ALSO: SD leader called Aftonbladet’s Anders Lindberg a “quisling” – now left-wing liberals are furious
The implied conclusion then is that Jimmie Åkesson must be Hitler. That’s one of the harshest historical comparisons that can be aimed at Swedish political opponents.
An almost impressive level of historical ignorance
Yet this has been presented as legitimate opinion journalism. But when Richard Jomshof uses a historical epithet against Lindberg, it suddenly becomes a democratic crisis. The double standard could hardly be clearer.
But the most remarkable thing is something else. It’s that Anders Lindberg and the Social Democrats now suddenly want to pose as defenders of decent political discourse. That requires an almost impressive level of historical ignorance.
For two decades, the Swedish left – with Aftonbladet’s editorial page as one of its loudest megaphones – has thrived on moralizing over its opponents. In particular, Sweden Democrats have been called fascists, Nazis, racists, and threats to democracy.
Jonas Andersson
All of us who are a little to the right of center – those of us who want Sweden to have borders, who care about our country, who reject terrorism, antisemitism, and ideologies that oppress women.
Those of us who want functioning energy systems, who don’t want children to be able to be married off and who assert that men cannot give birth – all of us who stand up for common sense – have for decades been portrayed as less worthy, by Anders Lindberg, Magdalena Andersson, and her other political lackeys in the socialist and Islamist diaspora. It has left its mark.
READ ALSO: Jomshof: This hatred of Swedes must end
But the most remarkable thing is something else.
It is that Anders Lindberg and the Social Democrats now suddenly want to appear as defenders of respectable political conversation. That requires an almost impressive degree of historical ignorance.
For two decades, the Swedish left – with Aftonbladet’s editorial page as one of its loudest megaphones – has survived by moralizing over its opponents. In particular, the Sweden Democrats have been called fascists, Nazis, racists, and threats to democracy.
READ ALSO: Anders Lindberg: SVT’s leftward drift must increase ahead of the election – otherwise we could lose
Bourgeois governments have been described as steps on the road toward Nazi Germany. The Tidö Agreement has been portrayed as the start of an authoritarian shift. Anyone who questioned migration policy was not only wrong – he was turned into a moral problem.
This hasn’t been the occasional transgression. It’s been a working method.
The political opponent must be silenced
Anders Lindberg’s editorial page has for a long time described the Sweden Democrats as a threat to democracy and repeatedly warned that increased SD influence would lead Sweden toward a new Hitler-Germany.
This deeply indecent rhetoric has become a natural part of Swedish political debate, precisely through propagandists and left-wing extremists like Lindberg.
The result has been a debate climate where it was no longer enough to say your opponent was wrong. He was to be suspected, demonized, and placed outside the democratic context. He was simply to be silenced.
When this continued year after year, there were no calls for better tone. On the contrary, it was applauded.
When people were called “blue-brown,” “far-right,” “racist,” and “fascist,” it was regarded as sharp opinion journalism. Really?
READ ALSO: Aftonbladet editorialist: “Nonsense” to show support for Jews
But when Richard Jomshof now uses a historically charged word, it suddenly becomes an attack on democracy. The difference isn’t in the harshness of the words, but in who utters them.
This is the same political culture that for years has declared that criticism of immigration is fundamentally xenophobia, that worry over Islamism is really suspicion towards Muslims, and that the real danger always lies on the right – even as Europe is shaken by Islamist terror attacks.
At the same time, the Social Democrats and the left have had huge problems with people and environments linked to Islamism, terrorism, and imported gang crime themselves.
For me, the word is therefore not a reference to Norwegian war history, but a correct political description of a national betrayal – a treason against the country. A betrayal that even Fredrik Reinfeldt (M) is guilty of. Only a national commission can remedy this historic betrayal of Sweden and the Swedish people, as I see it.
Jonas Andersson
Jamal El-Haj (or Jamal El-Hamas, as Andersson called him), was for a long time a burden for the party after his attendance at a conference featuring participants linked to Hamas.
The criticism against the party leadership was not just about El-Haj, but about the reactions being perceived as delayed and insufficient. Only after a long and troubled process did he leave the Social Democrats. We remember Andersson’s tears in parliament.
That contrast is hard to overlook. When a Social Democrat ends up in a serious controversy around Islamist circles, the message is that we must be careful, wait for the facts, and avoid hasty conclusions.
READ ALSO: Jomshof: El-Haj’s proposal for increased immigration “completely insane”
A correct description of a national betrayal – treason
When a political opponent uses a harsh word on X, a national state of crisis is declared. It’s hard to take such indignation seriously. No one needs to defend the word “quisling.” It’s a historically loaded epithet. But those who want to discuss tone must also have the courage to talk about responsibility.
READ ALSO: Social Democrats called a press conference about the “threat” from SD
If quisling is used in the sense the word has long had in Swedish – a person who betrays their own country and puts other interests first – I think Richard Jomshof is spot on.
I believe Anders Lindberg and Magdalena Andersson have for a long time pushed and defended policies that have seriously damaged Sweden.
For me, the word is therefore not a reference to Norwegian war history, but a correct political description of a national betrayal – a treason. A betrayal that even Fredrik Reinfeldt (M) is guilty of. Only a national commission can correct this historical betrayal of Sweden and the Swedish people, as I see it. I believe such a commission will be established one day.
Interestingly, it’s not me or Richard Jomshof who has articulated perhaps the most apt summary of the affair, but freedom of expression expert Nils Funcke. He notes that those who themselves use historical parallels must be prepared to receive the same in return.
“You’ve made your bed, now you must lie in it,” writes Funcke, adding that “one must be able to endure a few hard blows.” Anders Lindberg should heed that advice.
READ ALSO: Are white people allowed to exist – or is that ‘white supremacy’?
The Swedish debate climate did not become harsh the day Richard Jomshof wrote the word “quisling.” It became harsh the day the left decided that every critic of immigration was a racist, every conservative a fascist, and every SD voter a threat to democracy.
You can only demonize your opponents for a limited time before the demonization turns on you. That’s exactly where we are now.
Anders Lindberg and Magdalena Andersson are not victims of Sweden’s escalated tone. They are some of its primary architects.
That’s why their sudden appeal for a more dignified conversation rings hollow. You can’t light the fire, pour gasoline on the flames for twenty years – and then play fire chief when the smoke starts blowing in your direction.