Introduction by Lasse Wilhelmson
Since long Jan Milld is a very important and respected person among Swedish nationals. He was earlier a Social Democrat, later a Swedish Democrat (se more in the interview), but he is now independent. In his writings he was advocating a 2-state solution in Palestine, but I always respected him beeing honest to the bone. The questions and the answers, should be red with this in mind. It was a challenge for me, and I hope it ended in a good way.
Introduction by Jan Milld
Here is the promised interview with Lasse Wilhelmson (LW). I have never met LW, our contact has been through emails as is this interview. This has of course its limitations. And LW has given many interviews in different circumstances. Many of the questions I would like to have asked have already been answered in them and in the about 80-odd articles he has written. But several new questions evolve in this interview.
1. Why did you publish the book ”Is the World Upside Down?”?
The book covers a limited time span, that of Bush junior’s two periods of presidency, eight years, when the terror attack on the World Trade Center 2001 (911) became a turning-point for USrael’s foreign policy and the beginning of the neocolonial wars in western Asia. These are signs that Jewish power, through ownership of the economy and the production of ideology, with Zionism as ideology, has definitely established itself ”on the top of the food chain” in today’s world. In my opinion, 911 was an ”outside/inside job” and Israeli involvement with leading neoconservatives in Bush’s administration is obvious.
The book evolves around Zionism as the foremost expression of Anglo-American imperialism.
It was also the period I started to write about these questions and it ended with a manifest for Palestine in 2009, where as one of the speakers I was physically attacked. My account of this has since been a major feature of my blog, and it is the last article in my book, before the epilogue.
I decided to publish the book because I was not allowed to respond anywhere to the continuous media attacks on me. But the book also tells implicitly of my own personal journey and development during this period. Thus the book is typical of its time, with its merits and limitations.
2. Four years have passed since then, what would you have added had you published it today?
I never really had time to write enough about the role of banks in world economy, and take a closer look at ”The King of the Jews” – the Rothschild Group – and its connection.
The central bank of America, The Federal Reserve (Fed) is not owned by the American State but by a number of banks or groups of banks. This is inconsistent with the constitution in US. These banks are dominated by the Rothschild concern and based in the City of London, the financial free zone in the heart of London. Most of the owners are European banks. I told this to a friend who was a senior consultant at one of Sweden’s largest banks, and he didn’t believe me. But it’s all on the internet for anyone who is curious.
Many years ago I looked at the Fed’s website to find out who was on the board and I, of all people, was amazed. All except one were Jews. I was just as amazed when I started to look into how Jews were represented in all the leading institutions after the Bolsheviks’ coup d’etat in 1917. Life always exceeds fiction.
I would also have written more about the official picture of the Holocaust and its political role in the support of the neo-colonial wars. Furthermore, I rather neglected the subject of nationalism in the book. Likewise the significance of migration in this context. The book reflects my thinking at the time I wrote the articles.
3. Why are you accused of being ”antisemitic”?
”Antisemitism” used to mean hatred of Jews as a group. It was occasionally based on racism. However, I have never said or written anything like that. These days, ”antisemite” is used by Jews to define those they do not like. Israel huggers and philo-semites also use the epithet and it has come to lack any other meaning than the violation of their opponents’ reputation. Something similar has happened to the word ”racist” and to some extent ”Nazi”.
It is usually about how those who consider they have the right, interpret as they think fit. I have never seen an example or an explanation of why something is thought to be ”antisemitic” or ”racist”. Hence there is always speculation concerning the innermost thoughts of the targeted object of hatred. The same applies to the epithets ”Holocaust-denier” and ”conspiracy-theorists”.
The reason why I get accused of being ”antisemite”, ”Holocaust-denier” and ”conspiracy-theorist” is because those who defend a world they consider to be upright wish to silence me and anyone else who holds a different view. That I seem to be the main target for these accusations might be due to the fact that I have written quite a lot that it is close to the truth.
Indeed, there is a hatred of Jews that is political. It is based on certain Jews’ behaviour, the policies of the Jewish state and the Jewish power through ownership over economy and media. I have written much about this, including my responses to Expo and Åsa Linderborg in connection with the latest witch-hunt aimed at me.
4. Would you say that you are today a nationalist and critical of immigration?
Nationalism can be very different things. I have always been a nationalist in the sense that I have been ready to defend Sweden’s national independence and Swedish cultural traditions of which I am an organic part. I eventually decided to do my military service for this reason, changing from my previous pacifism.
The Swedish Vietnam movement and parts of the political left of -68 that I belonged to, believed that ”Vietnam’s Cause is Ours”, meaning that our support for their national liberation struggle was also support for our own national independence from the two super powers, USA and the Soviet Union.
I have always supported limited immigration of skilled and unskilled labour, and I still do. Sweden of today is to some degree a result of immigration from different countries. Commerce, ship-building, the production of iron-ore and the car industry to name just a few. I also think that Sweden to a limited extent, should offer asylum to political refugees. I believe that solidarity of this kind is part of Swedish mentality.
But how do you view today’s situation?
The situation today is totally different with the neocolonial wars forcing migration and immigration to an extent that is unmanageable and that creates conflict in our country, and destroys things we previously protected. Furthermore, those who come here are not the poorest, but mainly people who have money and who can bribe their way about, or those who are already reasonably well-off. What is left of our welfare-state, and all its institutions, hard-won and built up by our parents and grand-parents is falling apart. It was intended for a very different situation.
Picture: We like differences.
Discussions about these questions have completely gone off the rails. Those who say ”we like diversity” are wrongly set against those who say ”we like uniformity”. I am all for different cultures and ethnicities, they are like flowers in a summer meadow, they enrich humanity. All cultures and nations tolerate – even thrive on – some elements of other cultures for their development. But it becomes destructive if cultures are mixed so that they are destroyed. And I mean here, that this applies to all parts of the world.
So where does this leave you?
I am definitely against the current mass-immigration. Swedish policy should be to stop it and refrain from taking part in, or supporting, the wars that contravene international rights that cause it. I believe that a discussion about race and racism in this context leads up a blind alley.
Picture: We like similarities
I support ”we like diversity” and I want to stop mass-immigration. I believe that the latter is the power elite’s deliberate strategy to tear apart national states, their culture and values, making way for a new world order.
These are all questions that I have worked on since I published the book. The way in which the media have handled these matters has added freedom of expression to the political agenda. In Sweden of today it is becoming increasingly difficult to make one’s voice heard – darkness is nigh.
5. What is your opinion of the Swedish ”left”? Does it need inverted commas?
Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, both the left and the nationalists in their respective organisations are not in agreement about what a socialist actually is. Secondly, both the left and the nationalists include people and organisations that call themselves socialists and who I believe actually are, but who have different opinions about how the state should be run and who should rule over it. I support neither corporative dictatorship nor the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Sweden today we have a dictatorship of minorities and special interest groups.
Politically, the Marxist left is in the process of de-intellectualising the media and culture. It is the main gate-keeper guarding against opinions that do not fit into the left/right perspective, hence also for Zionism.
A good example of this is when I myself was recently appointed ”national antisemite” after a witch-hunt the magazine Expo (Swedish Serchlight) started at the end of November 2012, and when editor Åsa Lindeborg of the tabloid Aftonbladet subsequently launched an appalling campaign entitled ”Let’s take a look at this shit” in her newspaper. My response to her was denied publication which clarifies this rather well, along with other articles I have written. This time it was the nationalists that defended freedom of expression and were critical of the system. A role previously played by the left.
But some nationalists seem to have fallen into the Zionist trap; they see the Jews as a people, a homogeneous ethnic group, or a ”race” that should have its own country like any other people. The Jewish state is Zionist’s short-term goal. Moreover, such a claim would divide several national states which is one of the main purposes of the ongoing neocolonial wars.
Today’s national movement is in the process of making the same mistakes as did the left I belonged to in 1968. It spends too much time looking for role models outside of Sweden instead of connecting with our own history and cultural inheritance. By this I mean primarily how the Rus/Vikings traded in distant lands and returned with new experiences that benefited Sweden. Rebellious Swedish farmers enjoyed unusual liberty and later on we have the popular movements and the workers’ movements. The diligent consistency, the commitment and the love of nature, a man’s ambition to ”stand on his own two feet” and a woman’s to care for her family.
6. You are critical of Zionism, but are your views still the same?
Yes, this is quite obvious in my book and everything else I have written. My focus has been to de-construct Zionism. But my view of Zionism has moved on and I now see it more as the ideology used by today’s power-elite and that incorporates both left and right in politics. Hence, I have begun to separate Jewish power’s interest in ownership on the one side, from Zionism on the other.
I have also come to realise how tribal mentality, religious and secular, in Muslim countries and at home, has begun to poison universal human solidarity and love of our neighbours, and I have become more aware of the traditional values of Swedish democracy and Christianity – which we don’t see much of today.
In short: I have become more interested in caring for Sweden, our national independence and our cultural heritage and how they are affected by Jewish ideology, Zionism and mass-immigration. Having said that, I realise that my values have actually become more conservative. They say this comes with age, but it might also come with insight.
7. ”A People without Land to a Land without People” – this is obviously how the Zionists imagined their Israel project. In fact the country was already inhabited, whether the people there are called ”Arabs” or ”Palestinians”.
Which causes a dilemma for anyone who respects the human dignity of Arabs/Palestinians.
Here we have two alternatives:
• A two-state solution
• A shared, democratic state as much for Palestinians as for Jews
You favour the latter?
Yes, basically, in the book, but more so in my earliest articles. My speech on Al-Qud’s day 2009 went further. I said then that the Jewish settlers who do not wish to live alongside Palestinians in peace, including those who will return, should go back to the countries they came from. That is, to the US, Europe, Russia and other places. After all, the settlers have stolen the land from those who lived there, thus I believe they lack the moral right to decide on its future.
The ”State” of Israel was proclaimed unilaterally by the Jews and was not a UN decision as many wrongly believe. Israel lacks a constitution and internationally recognised boarders – both necessary when countries recognise one another. This whole process is well-documented in Göran Burén’s new book ”The Murder of Folke Bernadotte”. Also, my book deals with all the fundamental issues.
What, then, is your answer to these three objections?
a) The demographics of Palestinians; they are many more now than when they were driven out in 1948. Jews would be clearly in the minority would they not?
Absolutely, but this was already a problem in the UN proposal for partition in 1948, for which negotiator Folke Bernadotte lost his life when he was murdered by Jewish extremists. The shooter later became bodyguard to Ben Gurion, Israel’s Father of the Nation, when he retired to his home kibbutz. Few experts imagined at that time, that a two-state solution would work, primarily because of the demographics. The partition plan proposal was a result of Jews lobbying amongst UN countries.
However, the Arab states did not accept the plan but the Jews did; they saw it as way of obtaining some legitimacy for their right to large areas in the country of Palestine. But officially that was not so. Immediately following their acceptance of the plan, the Jews expelled about 800.000 Palestinians from what is today considered Israel, unilaterally proclaimed. The genocide, defined in the UN Convention, that is still ongoing, is well-documented by Ilan Pappe in his book ”The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. Because a Jewish state in Palestine is Zionism’s short-term goal, the politics of genocide are thus an integral part of Zionism.
The notion of a two-state solution was unrealistic even before it became a UN proposal and since then has been used by various shades of Zionism to defend and expand the Jewish state and complete the expulsion of Palestinians. The notion allows everyone to look away from the fundamental problem: the expulsion of Palestinians and their inalienable right to return. Every single Palestinian owns this right and it cannot be negotiated away. It is a legally conclusive element of the UN resolutions.
b) South Africa is a discouraging example, surely, bearing in mind the criminal violence there – especially racism aimed at white people?
The comparison with South Africa is inappropriate and leads in the wrong direction, apart from the fact that the Jewish state and, previously, South Africa have/had racist laws that separate. The former Jews from non-Jews, the latter white from coloured.
Israel is a settler state, without a traditional mother-country, typical of traditional colonialism. Expulsion of the original population is a prerequisite for its existence. It is built on the ruins of Palestinian villages on stolen land. The Boers did not evict black Africans from their homeland, South Africa, nor did they use fighter aircraft and forbidden phosphorous bombs against civilians. Nor tear down their houses on a massive scale with bulldozers. All comparisons with South Africa or Nazi Germany are detrimental to the Jewish state; it is one of a kind.
Neither are the Jews an ethnic, homogeneous group, nor a people as normally defined. There are said to be two large groups. Askenazi, mainly from AD 740, who are converted Khazars (northern Turks and Mongolians). They are estimated to make up 80 percent of Jews in the world. The other group are Sephardi who are mostly converted Berbers and make up the remaining 20 percent.
But there are many who consider the Jews to be a people, not least themselves?
This has been well-researched and rejected, primarily by Shlomo Sand in the book The Invention of the Jewish People. I myself am descended from these Khazars and both my older brother and my youngest son have typically Mongolian skin-folds at the root of the nose and width between their almond-shaped eyes. That most Jews are said to be Semite, or have some kind of historic homeland-right to Palestine, is due to religious myths.
Israel of today consists of 25 percent non-Jews without equal rights, and most of them are Palestinians/Arabs. But there are also many Arabic Jews who are Israeli citizens and who are not Palestinians. They come from other Arab countries like Iraq and North Africa. Those from Yemen look like everyone else in Yemen and are very different from those who come from Europe, the US and Russia.
There is also a small group of Arabic Jews who have always lived in Palestine (now on the West Bank). They have always lived together in peace with their Palestinian neighbours, and mixed marriages are quite common. In fact, this small group consists of Palestinians whose religion is Judaism. Other Palestinians are Christians or Muslims. My article What is Zionism? looks closer at the question of who is a ”Jew”.
When Israel implodes/ceases to be a ”state”, many Arabic Jews will probably choose to stay, while most of the others will choose to return to their homelands. Jewish racism towards Palestinians and Arabs is universal and well-documented. It is, indeed, fundamental to the Jewish state, to its laws and administrative decisions that separate Jews from non-Jews. Furthermore, there is an informal racist ”caste system” in Israel where white Askenazim are top rank and Arabic and coloured Jews are at the bottom.
c) There are about 20.000 Jews in Sweden, enough though to dominate the media and greatly influence public life. Would not this be the case in a joint Palestinian state?
Hardly. Jews who wish to live in a Jewish state will leave. The future Palestinian state will be largely Arabic and Palestinian and, I hope, will have a constitution that allows different religions to get on well together. The significant number of Christian Palestinians in the diaspora will want to return home to Palestine. It is a common mistake that all Palestinians must be Muslims.
A Palestinian state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River will certainly have its own contradictions between classes, religions and ethnic groups. How they solve these problems must be up to them.
8. The arguments against becoming involved in the Palestinian conflict are a) it does not concern us Swedes, b) it is a hopeless cause and will never be resolved, c) if one wishes to become involved, there are other international conflicts where far more people die.
a) It does not concern us Swedes – your thoughts on that?
All international issues and the neocolonial wars in western Asia and North Africa concern us in Sweden too. Sweden still takes part in NATO’s illegal war in Afghanistan, likewise in the equally illegal attack on Libya. Northern Sweden has for many years been a practice area for NATO’s air force. And Sweden is not even a member of NATO. Moreover, being a member of the EU has reduced our national independence and now the government is secretly in the process of affiliating us to the economic collaboration surrounding the Euro.
Thus it is important to work towards bilateral collaboration between all small and middling national states on the issue of national independence from USrael, EU and NATO, but also China and Russia. Disintegration of national states is a prerequisite for the new world order that the world’s power elite works towards. We should support all who are against this. Especially those who actively struggle against this power elite, its economies, wars and occupations.
The Palestinian issue is pivotal because the power elite of today uses Zionism to control people in the West, so that they do not oppose the wars. Zionism’s short-term goal is a Jewish state in Palestine, hence the Palestinians’ struggle for their country is pivotal and special. Their struggle becomes a symbol for the liberty of all people.
But surely it is not all about Palestine?
The Jewish state and its lobby have great influence over US foreign policy, nowadays quite overt and relatively uncontested. The power elite which includes other than Jews, however, is dominated by the Jewish Mafia, particularly the economy and the production of ideology. It exploits the Jewish group and its identification with the Jewish state, the bond that holds it tightly together. Zionism is the main reason for political Jew-hatred, hence also the Jews’ worst enemy.
Zionist ideology also includes the holocaust religion and it is used to legitimise everything done in the interests of the Jewish state, likewise the unfathomable notion that ”antisemitism” lies at the heart of every non-Jew. Nowadays, all heads of countries that are targeted to be deposed, or murdered, or waged war against, are called Hitler. In Sweden we witness how this picture of the world is continually thrown at us by a nomenklatura of journalists and culture personalities who work within the framework dictated by the owners of the media.
When did we last hear anyone connected with this establishment ask the question why the Jews, immediately after the ”Holocaust”, subjected the Palestinians to the same treatment they had themselves endured? Or whether their regular conflicts with their surroundings could be due to the Jews’ own behaviour throughout history? And why are the members of the power elite never accused of crimes, exposed with their names and pictures?
b) The Palestinian conflict is a hopeless cause and will never be resolved?
Those who think that are only those who have not understood the connotation of the Jewish state and its significance for Zionism and Jewish power and the special destiny of the Palestinians. The Jewish state does not have a future. The very nature of it is incompatible with peace and coexistence within its boundaries and with its neighbours.
c) If one wishes to become involved, there are other international conflicts where far more people die, for example Congo.
I am involved in other conflicts when in these contexts I try to bring to light the Jewish state’s, Zionism’s and Jewish power’s role. The question must always be asked: Cui Bono? To whose benefit?
The Sweden Democrats (SD) are an interesting case as they are nearly always accused of racism because they want to limit mass-immigration, probably along with the majority of the Swedish people. This is not why they are racists. They are racists because they are the most Israel-friendly/Zionist party in parliament. Wishing to limit mass-immigration is not racist as opposed to advocating a Jewish state in Palestine. Leading Zionists of course, try to do all they can to detract attention from this, pointing at Islam instead. Mass-immigration, however, is neither the fault of Islam or of immigrants, but of immigration policy. SD is thus an ideal opponent for the other parties in parliament, who share SD’s views concerning Israel and Zionism. Instead of appearing racists or Zionists themselves, they can accuse SD of being Islamaphobic and racist.
Do you see any positive side to the Sweden Democrats?
Perhaps that at last, we have a discussion about mass-immigration. But it might not be thanks to them. Today, the party is rooting out critics and sliding into the safe slot occupied by the other seven parties in parliament. They are welcomed there as the ideal scapegoat.
SD to me, is a symptom of the situation where immigration policy for many years has been impossible to discuss. They are, in fact, a Trojan Horse in Swedish politics, through which Zionism and Jewish power in Sweden are rendered invisible. Another Trojan Horse is Expo (Swedish Searchlight) which dresses up in anti-racist left-wing garments, but never criticises the Jewish state’s racist foundations, nor its supporters in Sweden.
Here, we can clearly see how ”left” and ”right” are both immersed in Zionist ideology. And what could be better for Zionism and its Jewish interests in Sweden than SD and Expo completely pitched against each other on everything else?
9) How would you sum up your views on the left and the nationalists in Sweden?
Today’s left, especially the Jewish Marxists, are essentially the foremost gate-keepers for Jewish power, but to a certain degree, the left are not in agreement about how to view Zionism and mass-immigration. Nationalists today are all for what is ”Swedish”, and critical of mass-immigration and Islam, but disagree about most other things.
Particularly the left, but the nationalists as well, are not deeply rooted in Swedish cultural heritage, nor our own history. Today’s nationalists have largely adopted the critical role played by the left 45 years ago, including the struggle for freedom of expression and the search for foreign, not Swedish, models. However, there is a strong common denominator amongst parts of the left and parts of the nationalists, about the significance of national independence, and criticism of how the economy is run. Something to build on?
We get the following four categories when analysing the variables Zionism and Jewish power in the table below:
1. Those who are positive to Zionism and Jewish power
2. Those who are negative to Zionism and positive to Jewish power
3. Those who are negative to Zionism and Jewish power
4. Those who are positive to Zionism and negative to Jewish power
Note 1: By Zionism I mean the affirmation of a Jewish state in Palestine. By ”Jewish power”, I mean Jewish/Israeli-friendly associations and Jewish ownership. Which individuals or groups/ organisations belong where in the four categories I leave to the reader to work out. I myself am probably a 3 and both SD and Expo are 1. But that isn’t difficult to work out.
Note 2: If you wish to increase the number of variables, or make combinations – feel free, but may I suggest that you do not keep to the traditional left/right perspective.
I’ll step into the same box as you Lasse.
Well, that’s all for now. Thank you Jan for having the patience to interview me.
Thank you Lasse. This has been an interesting conversation.
Some related articles by Lasse Wilhelmson:
What is Zionism?
We Who Knew it all – Comments on a Book About the ´68 Movement
Paideia for All or just for ”The Chosen”?
Jan Guillou, ethic Swedes and realated questions
Comments on Rehmat´s World blog