It is almost election season in Sweden, and for that reason I think it would be interesting to discuss an issue a bit closer to home. No, we are not going to discuss the big topics of the election, because none of that matters. Instead, we are going to discuss precisely why it doesn’t matter. In this essay, we are going to look at two points from the Swedish constitution. With these, I intend to show that Sweden, as an institution, is neither legitimate nor sovereign by its own constitutional metrics.
Legitimacy
“All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.” – Regeringsformen, 1 kap. 1§.
”All public authority in Sweden is derived from the people”. This is the very first sentence of the Swedish constitution, and sets the tone for the entirety of the Swedish government. Sweden is a democracy, and all power comes from the people – this is the foundational governing principle of the Swedish state. The paragraphs that follow after further define what this means in practice. Sweden is a representative democracy based on equal voting rights and freedom of opinion, power is to be exercised through rule of law in accordance with the laws passed by parliament, and the law is to be upheld through a system of courts. These paragraphs serve to effectively define exactly what this “public authority” is and how it is exercised, as well as how it is to be “derived” from the people. Two out of three key terms in the principle paragraph have therefore been defined. In addition to these, there are several ideological paragraphs about sustainable development, equal rights regardless of race, sex, etc. Those are not our concern here, however. What is our concern is the missing third key term, which has been left undefined – the people.
Who are the people? The quoted version of the constitution was adopted in 1974, when Sweden could still have been considered a nation state proper. The earlier constitution from 1809 lacks the principle paragraph of the constitution of 1974, being instead focused around the constitutional limitations of the king and of the Swedish monarchy, essentially defining the Swedish government as that of a constitutional monarchy. The constitution of 1809 does, however, make several mentions in its introduction to the Swedish people specifically, and declares the intention to form an enduring fatherland. We can therefore conclude that the only possible meaning that our third key term can have is “the Swedish people”.
This brings us back to the present day. For the last two decades there has been an ongoing discussion in Sweden about what constitutes Swedishness, in particular as it relates to mass immigration and the demographic replacement of ethnic Swedes. It has become the favorite retort of the progressive elite. “But who is Swedish?”, they ask, in that baby voice so commonly employed by Swedes when they wish to signal to others that they’re both naïve and stupid – two traits held in the highest esteem by polite Swedish society. And the progressive elite likewise has offered their own smug answers. Many reduce it to citizenship, a mere bureaucratic technicality. Perhaps the most harebrained answer was given by Åsa Romson, former spokesperson for the left-wing Green Party. She claimed that anyone riding the subway in Stockholm is Swedish – a statement both banal and derogatory, a contemptuous attack on the “rural hicks” unfit for the kind of country that Romson and her ilk in the urban elite wish to build. But regardless of what answer is given by the political caste, it always comes down to the same thing: Swedishness is what the progressive elite decides that it is, and they have uniformly decided that the whole world can be Swedish if it suits their purposes.
We see, therefore, that the public authority in Sweden – supposedly derived from the people – has instead claimed for itself the sole and unquestionable right to define who “the people” are. What this means in practice is that the entire process of political legitimization which the Swedish constitution is built upon has been high-jacked by the progressive elite in order to consolidate their own power. By using mass-immigration and demographic replacement, the public authority in Sweden has been manipulating the make-up of its own constituency, and therefore of the democratic process which guarantees its continued authority.
This process started in earnest during the mid-90:s and early 00:s, as part of a concerted effort to increase immigration by several parties primarily within the left and under the reign of the Social Democrats. Coupled with a generous welfare system, hordes of migrants could come to Sweden and persist as permanent state-financed electoral cattle. This welfare system is almost completely managed by the Social Democrats, either directly as a result of them ruling during its construction, or indirectly through the strong social democratic party sympathies maintained among the bureaucrats tasked with running the system. The result of this is plain to see in the statistics of the Swedish Election Authority. Areas dominated by immigrants – areas such as Rosengård in Malmö, Biskopsgården in Gothenburg, Rinkeby in Stockholm, etc. – vote for the Social Democrats at rates far higher than anywhere else in the country. Herrgården, part of the infamous Rosengård and with 96% of its population having immigrant background, is the Social Democrats’ strongest electoral district in the whole country. In the last election of 2018, a staggering 79% of the population of Herrgården voted for the Social Democrats, compared to 28% for the whole country. Counting the other left-wing parties, more than 90 % of the voters of Herrgården voted for a left-wing party. This should further be understood in the context of the broader political history of Sweden. For the past century, the Social Democrats have ruled for more than 70 years in total.
The Moderates, the main political rivals of the Social Democrats, tried to co-opt this strategy during their eight year reign in 2006-2014 under Fredrik Reinfeldt. Running on a party program which emphasized tax reductions for working Swedes, they won the election by forming a coalition known as the Alliance with the other mainstream center-right parties. During this period, the Reinfeldt regime began pushing an aggressive policy of mass-immigration which rivaled anything Sweden had seen up until then – presumably in the hopes of consolidating their power by establishing electoral cattle of their own. This strategy ultimately failed, as the Reinfeldt regime also pursued a program of massive cuts to the very welfare system which was being used to buy migrant loyalty. As a result, the Reinfeldt regime lost the election of 2014 to a coalition of the left-wing parties under the Social Democrats. It was at the end of this election that Reinfeldt would deliver his now infamous “Open your hearts” speech, where he admitted that the immigration policy pursued by his regime would lead to economic and social hardship for Sweden, and that Swedes should accept this and “open their hearts”.
We can therefore conclude that mass-immigration, and the mass of migrants now residing in the country, has become an important political weapon in Sweden. With a class of electoral cattle comprising a fifth of the whole population of Sweden, and whose loyalties can be bought at the expense of Swedish taxpayers, it becomes possible for the occupational class to rule in opposition to the will of the Swedish people. This is in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of the Swedish constitution. By allowing the elite to define who “the people” are, rather than basing it on the reality of the Swedish people as a unique and distinct ethnos, Swedish democracy has become a sham. It is now possible for the elite to enact policies which are not only directly harmful to ethnic Swedes but also to do it in direct opposition to their stated will. If the current demographic and political patterns hold over time, Sweden stands before the very real possibility of becoming a de facto one-party state under the Social Democrats and the broader left. The rise of the Sweden Democrats and the populist right has caused the mainstream right to make several attempts at building alliances with the left, further exacerbating the current situation in direct opposition to the will of mainstream right voters. As it stands, the best hope for Swedish democracy lies in the incompetence of the disparate parties that comprise the progressive elite, who have shown themselves largely incapable of working together to consolidate their power. Since the orderly functioning of Swedish democracy is itself a threat to Swedish democracy, and only political chaos can keep the country from becoming a de facto one-party state, the institutional and governmental authority in Sweden must be considered wholly illegitimate.
Sovereignty
”Sverige är medlem i Europeiska unionen. Sverige deltar även inom ramen för Förenta nationerna och Europarådet samt i andra sammanhang i internationellt samarbete.” – Regeringsformen, 1 kap. §10.
Continuing to the end of the first chapter of Regeringsformen, we find the tenth paragraph. “Sweden is a member of the European Union. Sweden will also partake in international cooperation within the framework of the United Nation, the Council of Europe and other contexts”. Yes, this means exactly what you think it does. Since 2010, when this amendment was ratified, it has been illegal for Sweden to leave the European Union. What was sold to the Swedish people as a voluntary intergovernmental trade agreement has become a legal requirement requiring two elections to overturn. What makes this even worse is that it was an amendment which was passed almost completely without public debate. Though this fact is staggering enough on its own, we must also consider that Swedish membership in the EU was preceded by a referendum that only narrowly passed in favor of EU membership – 52% of the Swedish people voted in favor. This means that EU membership is in no way uncontroversial in Sweden, and yet all mainstream parties in parliament (Sweden Democrats excepted) thought it reasonable to cement Swedish membership in the constitution itself without so much as a public debate on the matter.
What this means in practice is that Sweden ceased to be a sovereign nation after 2010. Since EU membership obligates every member state to follow the policies adopted by the Union, Sweden no longer has any legal recourse to challenge the policies adopted. The ultimate recourse – that of leaving the Union – is now barred by our own constitution. For all intents and purposes, Sweden is now a mere province or vassal state of the EU. And this change was made almost entirely without the consent of the governed, who were neither consulted on the matter nor allowed to make their voices heard for or against it in a referendum.
To any sober mind, what I have described above has the stench of treason. Let us therefore take a look at what Swedish law defines as treason.
“Den som, med uppsåt att riket eller del därav ska, med våldsamma eller annars lagstridiga medel eller med utländskt bistånd, läggas under främmande makt eller bringas i beroende av sådan makt eller att del av riket på så sätt ska lösryckas, företar en handling som innebär fara för uppsåtets förverkligande, döms för högförräderi […]” – Brottsbalken, 19 kap. §1.
”He who, with the intent that the kingdom or a part thereof, with violent or otherwise illegal means or with foreign aid, is to come under the control of a foreign power or be brought into a state of dependency on such a power or that part of the kingdom is to secede under such circumstances, attempts such an action that risks making such an intent a reality, is found guilty of high treason […]”
Reading this, we see that an action intended to put the country under the control of a foreign power through violent or illegal means or with foreign aid is defined as high treason. The first two points – the EU being a foreign power and our country being put under their control – are fulfilled. What’s left to discuss is whether or not this was done through illegal means or with foreign aid. The amendment itself was legal, in the sense that it went through the established legal process for ratifying changes to the constitution. But what role did the EU itself play in affecting this decision? That’s impossible for me to say, but considering what career opportunities are available to politicians within the EU, I do not think we can exclude the possibility of some kind of bribery. This is especially the case given that this amendment – which for all intents and purposes stripped Sweden of its sovereignty – was passed under the noses of the Swedish people. The whole thing reeks of treachery, and the people of Sweden would be wise to investigate this to the fullest.
In conclusion, Sweden is no longer a sovereign nation as a result of the 2010 amendment to the constitution. With this amendment, Sweden is legally bound by its own constitution to remain in the EU, and has for all intents and purposes forfeited its right to leave the Union. This means that Sweden must be considered a province or – at best – a vassal state under the EU. It has long been discussed what the endgame of the EU is, and some have brought forward the idea that the EU aims to become a United States of Europe. In the case of Sweden, the process of federalization has already begun in earnest, and we won’t be seeing any meaningful resistance to the machinations of the EU in Sweden since any weapon to fight those machinations with have been taken from us. The extent to which bribery and treachery played a role in this is difficult to say, but the unanimous support for this amendment by the mainstream parties, the silence regarding the meaning of these changes and the very real opportunities for money, prestige and power within the EU leave a dark shadow hanging over the whole affair.
Conclusion
Swedish public authority is a sham. Between manipulating the demographics of the constituency to maintain power at the expense of the very people the democracy is meant to safeguard, and signing away the sovereignty of the nation itself, Sweden cannot be considered a legitimate country. Electoral politics in Sweden is little more than a puppet show for the masses, as any choice relating to the future of Sweden has been taken from the hands of the people by a hostile elite concerned only with their own careers. The laws are not worth the paper they are printed on, as the very process which gives these laws their authority has been compromised. Likewise, the demands made by our societal institutions cannot be taken seriously, as they come from the mouths of people serving foreign interests. Finally, the constitution itself must be viewed with suspicion, as we cannot exclude the possibility that the 2010 amendment was illegal according to Brottsbalken 19 kap. §1, which would render the constitution illegitimate.
The Swedish people have been reduced to little more than a subject population kept as hostages by an institutional control system which they no longer play a part in ruling over. As such, any sane and clear-minded Swede must view mainstream Swedish society as an obstacle to be handled pragmatically. No talk of duty or responsibility is worth listening to, and the system should be shown deference only so far as is needed to protect oneself from institutional tyranny. Political chaos should be welcomed – a terrifying prospect for the skittish Swede! – as the orderly functioning of a hostile system is not in your interest. Anything that undermines the capacity of the elite to further their aims must be defended, and anything which consolidates or increases their power must be prevented and disobeyed. The Swede, in short, must consider himself without state or country, as those things have effectively been taken from him. His future depends on his ability to navigate such a world and to work for his interests in opposition to a system designed solely to take advantage of him.
Of what significance is the level support for membership in 1995? Today 65% support membership, while less than 12% oppose it.