"It's Sad As Hell" - Swedish Ambassador Admits, We're "In The Process Of Dismantling Democracy"

Tyler Durden's picture

Sweden's new ambassador to Iceland has sparked a major controversy after warning that Sweden is "in the process of dismantling democracy" and could be on a slippery slope towards technocracy or a dictatorship.

Håkan Juholt, a former leader of the centre-left Social Democrat party and ambassador to Iceland since September, made the comments in an interview with the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper.

"How old is your son? Four?" he asks the reporter.

 

"When he is old he won't be living in a democracy but in a technocracy, or a dictatorship. It's sad as hell. I am sorry to say it, but I am 100 percent sure. We are in the process of dismantling democracy."

Later in the interview, he says:

"I don't think the threat is a dictatorship with tanks rolling on Sergel's Square (a well-known square in central Stockholm), but an expert rule where we do not let the citizens' values govern the country. Democracy is slipping through our fingers. Fewer people want to be elected, the parties are toning down their ideology.

 

Sure, I see a risk that it may become a dictatorship in the long run."

His brutal honesty in a diplomatic role appears to have ruffled more than a few feathers...

As The Local reports, Juholt did not elaborate on the comments, which have sparked criticism in Sweden.

"It's remarkable. It is the role of ambassadors, and the role of the government, to deliver an accurate image of our country and promote our country in the world," Culture and Democracy Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke told the TT newswire, but said it was up to the Foreign Minister to comment further.

 

Margot Wallström responded she would not "argue with one of my ambassadors" in public.

 

"He will probably have to explain his thoughts himself," she said, speaking to TT at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg.

 

"He will probably also soon learn, I would think, what it means to be an ambassador."

All of which is very odd because the establishment told then-candidate-Trump how utopian Sweden was when he criticized it?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"According to Emmanuel Macron, the days of popular sovereignty are over"

Given what the Belgian lobbyists do for a living in Brussels (must watch: The Brussels Business) I would have to agree.
There is no democracy in Europe, and the UNPA campaign wants it the same way for the rest of the world.

HenryKissingerZuckerberg's picture

EU is a technocracy...

just check the grand visions from Micron and Junckers!

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Yes right  

Democracy has destroyed Europe. We have authoritarianism in our future.  The only question is what form will it take and who will be in charge.

Bokkenrijder's picture

This documentary is worth watching, Swedish Documentary on Failed Immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7mLP5ioBQs

It perfectly illustrates the totalitarian character of the collective mass brainwashing that has been going on for decades in Western Europe. Sweden is perhaps only a few years 'ahead' of the rest of Europe, but you see the same things in Germany and the Netherlands. 

Bokkenrijder's picture

For those who wonder how things have gotten so bad in Europe, just watch this video from KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wakec06NlA

It's "Ideological Subversion" that has been infiltrating Europe (and the US) for decades. All those people who are now loudly shouting "Russian hackers," "fascist" or are hugging muslim 'rapefugees' are in fact themselves tools and products of the Soviet Union's KGB. 

Oh, the irony... 

Four chan's picture

you live in an islamic country now.

wildbad's picture

and this guy is "center left"

at least he's using the correct terminology: "Technocracy" and "Dictatorship". These are compatible, not mutually exclusive.

Sweden has thrown away any chance it had. The lambs there were easily overwhelmed by the wolves, first by collectivist indoctrination and then by the Hammer. Soon the Sicle will come to finish off their experiment.

Nice while it lasted.

MillionDollarButter's picture

Like every other Swede, he didn't have to courage to say what he actually meant.  Sweden tops Soros' backed RSF (Reporters without Borders) because all of their reporters are cowards too, and they jail no reporters because no one dares speak up.

macholatte's picture

 

Question: Had Mark David Chapman shot George Soros instead of John Lennon, what would the world look like today?

French Bloke's picture

"It's remarkable. It is the role of ambassadors, and the role of the government, to deliver an accurate image of our country and promote our country in the world,"

I think he did just that!

philipat's picture

@H-T "The only question is what form will it take and who will be in charge."

Actually Haus there is another question, which is WHY are the peoples of Europe allowing this to happen to themselves? I'm guessing that they have largely been "prepared" by propoganda and other social conditioning to the point that political correctness has now taken over as the (calculated and intended) means by which the elites have programed the sheeple to "self-control"?

Up_The_Creek's picture

"in fact themselves tools and products of the Sovit Union's KGB.

Oh, the irony..."

 

Right you are.

Boubou's picture

There is no soviet union and no KGB. Other than that you are right.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Right, right, so when the Berlin Wall came down, the Bolsheviks all reformed?

And all the KGBs long-term plans were reversed?  And the infiltration of the universities stopped?

GodSpeed_00's picture

There is no Soviet Union but the KGB lives on. The Russian government is overrun with former KGB. They're not Communists but they have not changed from what they were trained to do and the methods that comes along with it.

Teja's picture

Well, if I compare the destructions authoritarianism has inflicted upon Europe, from 1914-1919, from about 1930 to 1945, and in Eastern Europe to 1990, I would say authoritarianism wins with 100 points to 1, regarding destruction and deaths.

Another question is if democracy is self-destructing. Spengler says yes. I would rather think it is a pendulum movement, as authoritarianisms do their best to self-destruct, too, with no long term check against corruption and power grabbing.

Democracies have the problem that voters want to eat the cake and have it, too, but authoritarian politicians tend to think that it is easy and without consequences to steal all the cake from the people.

techpriest's picture

IMO, the historical cycle between democracy and authoritarianism, or simply, more individual liberty vs. less, comes from an innate human desire to maximize gain while minimizing efforts.

During the authoritarian phase, there is no pathway to success for most people, because the authorities take everything they minute they produce anything. This carries the seed of its own destruction, because when you cannot keep what you produce, there is no incentive to work, which diminishes the amount of material available for taking. This is further aggravated by the increasing number of people who become takers as taking is the way to get ahead. Ultimately authoritarianism leads to collapse.

During the libertarian (more liberty) phase, people can keep the fruit of their labor, so the incentive is to work and produce. Wealth explodes. At this point, you get an increasing number of lazy people who are envious of those who have more, along with do-gooders who want everyone to be "equal." At this point authoritarianism starts to reappear as these people focus their energy not on producing new wealth, but by taking the lazy route and taking form others.

Authoritarianism begins anew, until the cycle repeats.

Bigly's picture

Yes, under authoritarianism there is less incentive to work. However, people are so dependent and watched 24/7, and if they go cashless, if you don't work, you starve or are put in a slave camp...or disappeared.

I do not think living large off the welfare state will be an option and if you are motivated or not, it will not matter. They will 'motivate' you

Rapunzal's picture

What all of you forget, that it doesn't matter which system. They have been served to us in a Hegelian dialectic. It's the same families ruling over us for centuries. They infiltrate or organize the revolutions and regime changes. So people have it better again. But those families are always in power behind the scenes. All politicians and dictators are puppets. The bankers rule us, welcome and meet the Rothschilds.

All wars are bankers wars, get used to it we never had a choice. We always have been mere cattle

coaltar's picture

Let's not forget the Oppenheimers, the Du Ponts, the Rockefellers, the Stanleys, ah... gotta love trillionaire crypto jew royalty -__-

wildbad's picture

republican democracy has its flaws and requirements.

the flaws allow the ground rules to be deliberately misinterpreted and abused or played for personal gain, eg: the fed, the patriot act and general judicial erosion of rights. Even constitutional amendments can co that.

because its based loosely on demographics, the shifting sands of population brings change and not always for the better.

the requirements are important too. intelligence. honour.

the intentional dilution of both intelligence and honour since the '60s and the morphing of basic values to wishy washy "diversity" and "inclusivity" goals has eroded the substantial understanding required to uphold this precious jewel.

when i see the antics of the Fed and the national politicians hope for the future flees quickly.

we are no longer a land of laws but of privilege and power.

BarkingCat's picture

Oh please,  the Rottenchilds were nothing but sneaky little con artists and traveling vendors when powerful individuals were ruling the various kingdoms in Europe as well as Asia Minor.

Men have always had greed and psychopaths and wars were fought long before there were bankers.

techpriest's picture

Rapunzal, you should read Eastern History also. People tend to make the same choices in the same situations, which is why history rhymes, albeit with different names.

The world did not come into being 600 years ago.

Boubou's picture

We work and we fight for their power and glory.

consider me gone's picture

That has always been the case. Always will be the case. Unless....you're a pirate!

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture

Bullshit.

Democracy is fine, but the money powers wish to destroy it so that they can have all the cake to themselves. That's all.

lincolnsteffens's picture

As now, The Great Oz will be in charge.

Ignatius's picture

The US is as bad or worse.

Fuck, we've already got a 'mainstream' Princeton study showing that public sentiment plays almost no part in policy formation.

"Democracy," broadly defined is the ability and right to have a role in public policy decision making.  The antithesis is "dictatorship," and I agree that what is termed "technocracy" is the underlying justification (not always the reason) for various modes of the dictatorship we all enjoy today.

new game's picture

it is called one party tyranny.

we lie, you vote, then we do what is best for the money changers, mic, swamp elite and any other party that lines our pockets. signed, 533 elected federal officers of the merican state of policy makers.

pay up fukers, or your votes doesn't count. lol

simple shit maynard...

HillaryOdor's picture

Democracy is a dictatorship.  It is not the opposite of authoritarianism like some people seem to want to claim.

If the voting is fake the rulers are behind the scenes rigging the elections and stealing from productive people. 

If the voting is real the rulers are the ignorant know nothing mobs that also claim the right to steal from productive people.

Either way it has nothing to do with libertarianism or a free society.  Democracy is a cancer with good PR, that is all.

jbwilson24's picture

can you provide a link, i'd like to read that

Griffin's picture

Sentiment is very powerful in policy formation, that is why so much effort is put into using media to sway or form public opinion.

It is also something that decides the outcome of elections, takes down governments, politicians etc.

 

Of topic, someone just blew up a police station in Sweden.

https://www.thelocal.se/20171018/helsingborg-police-station-damaged-by-b...

Mementoil's picture

"Socialism" and "Democracy" are contradicting terms.
Since Socialism is a failing economic system, the people inevitably begin to rebel against it, and in order to maintain the system the ruling elite must get rid of all human rights, and the country becomes a dictatorship.
Happens each and every time.

HenryKissingerZuckerberg's picture

"Socialism" and "Democracy" are contradicting terms. Since Socialism is a failing economic system, the people inevitably begin to rebel against it, and in order to maintain the system the ruling elite must get rid of all human rights, and the country becomes a dictatorship. Happens each and every time.

Jena?

The Wizard's picture

Socialism and Democracy as terms/labels are meaningless since their is no clear cut definition of each. Differences in the meaning of said terms make them void for analytical purposes. That goes for terms like capitalism, right, left, conservative, liberal, etc.

The bottom line is there is a battle for the mind with the core issue being centralization of power and authority vs. decentralization of power and authority.

The founders of America knew very well that all democracies die in tyranny.

new game's picture

it is called redistribution of wealth for votes. then they still do what-ever-the-fuk-the-money says to do...

the trail leads to da fed. the fed is the power elite in merica. central banksters rule merica if one follows the money/power trail.

trump is just a puppets on a string. he is a monies shill for the fed power elite in NY and elsewhere.

the mic has both of his balls. iran next and then we have unleashed the russia/iran/china paradox.

trump can get on his knees and suck the mic cuk, as he is no better than the previous 3 cuks.

 

The Wizard's picture

There is no doubt it can be taken back to control of the monetary base.

Allow me to control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws. Grandaddy Rothschild

In other words, he who controls the currency controls the government.

Technocracy and Corporatocracy is alive and doing quite well.

BarkingCat's picture

If he had someone like Stalin take over the government, he would learn really quickly that is not the case.

 Of course the lesson would not last very long as summary executions are. rather quick

Boubou's picture

People like Stalin and Hitler are not typical.

yvhmer's picture

The family unit is by definition a hybrid socialistic- capitalistic - communistic structure. Two people coming together, defining the rules of engagement. Childeren growing up in such environment have also family. So, to a degree there are overlapping circles of small social structures where favours are exchanged: One does the dishes, the other cooks, just to give an example. Or, one bring home the paycheck, the other makes sure the house is in good order. The house is shared with the family members. The food is shared with the family members. And from time to time, there are visitors. they may do a job around the house, or do a sleepover for a day, a week or so. Then they leave. In a family unit one can see the several political idears: there is the tyrant, the enlightened despotic parents, the laissez faire parents, etc.  

Basically, the arrangement goes reasonably well, if the income stream exceeds the outcome stream. This goes wrong if the nett savings only benefit one party. The other party to the pact may feel deprived. When the outflows exceed the income, stress ensues. The deficit may be caused by rising prices for the daily groceries, or simply by overspending on items not essentail to the well being of that small community, or by loss of income stream. 

Childeren growing up in a family unit, are the main beneficiaries of that system. Kids do normally not pay for food, clothing, housing, personal care, healthcare, transportation, education, and so forth. This is all paid for by the parents. Relatives may kick in to help out, say, by helping to renovate a house, to change houses, paint a wall, do some shopping, aid in support of the sick, take kids to school, you name it.

All these activities are done on a voluntary basis. But what drives the positive answer to any request for help are not rules, regulations, rights and entitlements. What usually drives is a sense of bond, an emotional bond. The construct we often use is love, or commitment. Yet, kids learn two important things: one: they have to cooperate, two: favors are never a right or an entitlement. Traditions, like birthdays and presents, Christmas and presents, imply expectations, but never as to the contents of them.

A bigger bond than the family and relatives bond is the bond of tribe. So, in that sense, a tribe may exibit more or less the same dynamics as in a family. Socialism on the other hand, has completely moved away from the organic sense of bond, by imposing an artificial bond. It may be a class bond, like blue color workers bonding together.  Or a national bond, artificial lines drawn on a map, and suddenly all people within that artificial construct have to exibit the family, relative, tribe traits to one another. This does not work as those other nationals are perfect strangers. Sometimes even separated by thousands of miles of dinstance, not participating in everyday life.On top, it is not voluntary, but coerced.

Enter, democracy. Democracy makes descisions over the heads of the individual. Although you may feel part of a system where you have a limited say, when 50 +1 consider your objectives to be not benefial to the 50+1, you are screwed. The 50+1 may be completely wrong! And the bigger, meaning, the more participants, in any type of democracy, the more it becomes evident that descisions reached are not on par with what you, as an individual would like to do. Of course, to save guard against egregious negative impact, you have the right to a redress of grievances. Nice! Yet, it is not your call to make, but you are delivered into the hands of a set of people who make a descision over your head. It does not empower you, it requires submission. Hence, resentment is just around the corner.

A corroraly to democracy might be the enshrinement of basic human rights. As history shows, these rights are always trampled upon in the name of state-interest, or by individuals who do not recognize private property rights: rapists, thieves, frauds, murderers. And institutions like courts are in no way a guarantor of individual rights.

My argument is therefore, that socialism/ democracy on a small scale, family, tribe could work. I am not saying it WILL. As always, there are failed families and succesful ones. Anything bigger than that, is by definition, a fail, due to the time/value-preference of all participants and therefore nationstates will eventually fail, especially when they grow bigger and bigger. Socialism and democracy are not contradictory, they are mutually enhancing their negative impact in the long run!

And so, we are left with the eternal contradiction: the need of cooperation versus organisation structure, or freedom versus authority.

 

 

 

bigkahuna's picture

It works if the peope in charge actually care.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

Your like a port-a-toilet; You've got allot of shit.

WallHoo's picture

A debt based system is socialism?Open borders?Free flow of "capital" and "labor"?

 

Im not trying to make a case for socialism but you seem to be very confused...

Boubou's picture

Yes. The communists of old failed to shape the minds of the masses the way they planned. That art has come to perfection in capitalist democracies with a few billion and a bought and paid for press, pervasive media plus everything madison avenue has to offer.

MisterMousePotato's picture

Democracy is and always has been a dictatorship of sorts.

Imagine wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

System works great when there are two sheep and one wolf.

But, certain powers have changed demographics in the West so there are now two wolves and one sheep voting on the dinner menu.

That's why our Founders set up a Republic.

Alas, they created a system suitable for the governance of a moral and religious people only, never imagining that their descendants would without even a murmer of complaint or dissent allow the deliberate genocide of themselves.

Hm. Probably, I, too, would have had trouble forseeing that.