Jan Guillou has eagerly defended muslims without distinguishing between real sharia muslims and "cultural muslims" who respect real Human Rights not sharia*.
* Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC (also the biggest voting bloc in UN) calls its sharia declaration "islamic human rights" despite the fact that it violates the most basic rights in the original Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948.
Bilan Osman (left) and Hanna Cederin (middle) are top names in the Swedish Communist party (Vänsterpartiet). Jan Guillou (right).
Jan Guillou has been so occupied with "islamophobes", "far-right" and random neo-Nazis, so he - like so many others - hasn't noticed that his chickens have been picking on him already for long.
Jan Guillou’s acceptance speech when getting Jan Myrdal's Lenin award:
Elsa Beskow, August Strindberg and Jan Myrdal are the three Swedish writers who, in turn, have had the greatest significance for me. It always seemed completely unthinkable to receive a literary award in any of their names.
The Jan Myrdal Society’s Lenin Award is a prestigious award, one that is awarded by a jury and also involves a large amount of money. I am not showered with such awards. The latest was 1990 and 1991 but then obviously not in Sweden but in France and Italy. Here at home, until this day, I have mainly received less prestigious awards, those where the readers are allowed to vote and thus greatly lower the prestige value. Moreover, such less prestigious awards are rarely associated with large prize money amounts.
So, let me immediately point out that the prize money this time, in the spirit of Lenin, I dare say, will be transferred in full to the Palestinian freedom struggle.
Lenin, as I said. It was of course a brilliant idea to call Jan Myrdal’s prize the Lenin Award. And I’m not only referring to the effects in publicity. A Lenin award does not go unpunished by Expressen, not even the Swedish Academy, as we have seen. However, the Swedish Academy has only one Lenin award winner, Artur Lundkvist. So, Peter Englund, the old Trotskyist, made himself more than legally stupid when he attacked my predecessor Mattias Gardell by talking about Pol Pot. There is a significant difference between the vision of the classless society and the vision of the literally headless society.
Of course, I have seen in the Swedish Lenin Award annals that some of my predecessors have had difficulties with Lenin. Mattias Gardell referred to the fact that he has also received a medal from the king.
I have no such thing to bring to my defence. I will never get a medal from the king, for the same reasons I am standing here today. But my relation to Lenin is fairly uncomplicated. My way into the political left went through the anti-imperialist movement, which was also solidly anti-Soviet. However, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism stands well. We just need to look around in today’s world where Swedish soldiers are sent to serve under the US in Afghanistan.
Lenin overthrew the Russian slave society in 1917 and in the same year ended Russia’s participation in the human slaughter of the powers which is referred to as the First World War. I have to admit that I am without reservation for those efforts, however shocking it may sound to members of the Swedish Liberal party.
On the other hand, when it comes to Lenin, in 1977 I was excluded from the then Swedish Communist Party for right deviation, as I could not join some theses about the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a decision I have had no difficulties whatsoever to live with. Socialism for me is democracy, the only conceivable form of real democracy.
My relation to Jan Myrdal is more complicated than that to Lenin. We’ve been close friends at least three times. In the interim periods, when Jan Myrdal has had a serious error in some major issue, we have conducted polemics, something we both have not insignificant talents for. I have also learned from him.
But this is not the essential. Now, picture 1968. I am 24 years old and want to be an author. I believe I have certain prerequisites for such a future. But I want to become a famous writer, not an unusual daydream among young people. But at the same time, I want to be a fine and respected writer, one who does not have too many readers, albeit not as big, nuts and easy to read as Strindberg, so at least a Hjalmar Söderberg but more incomprehensible.
But then I read Jan Myrdal. As we all did, especially his columns in Aftonbladet. He was the most rebellious and most read columnist of the time, though he obviously had a different and more difficult word for that matter. Feuilletonist, if I remember correctly.
My writing life was decided there. I was faced with a choice that was clear and concrete. The question to ask oneself was simple:
Should one become a writer or an author, should one write about the most important things in your time or should one write nicely and ambiguously for jury members and distributors of money intended for obedient writers? Or more simply put. Should one write for many readers or for a few with possession of good bourgeois taste?
The choice will determine the young prospective author’s entire social, political and economic future. In the worst case, also his dress code. Much is at stake. It was still a simple choice, then, in 1968.
One should write as Jan Myrdal, one should practice to become a columnist in his succession, one should find a form of novel that can carry the discussion about right and left, one should become a solidarity writer, not an adapted, not obedient, one should talk back until the last breath and one should give the finger to every fine literary jury.
That is also the way it went. Up until now, when I receive a prestigious award from a highly unforeseen jury. I am surprised, this wasn’t part of my plan. But I also feel extremely honoured.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Human Rights Atheist Peter Klevius and Maoist Marxist Atheist Carl-Olof Selenius: A telling historical background to a divided world.
The 1968 divide and its long and far lasting consequences: The right to be poor doesn't include the right to be a Marxist Maoist communist or a sharia islamofascist.
The cultural segregation (and genocides) caused by Maoist poverty communism is here exemplified by a Finland-Swedish (Selenius) and a Swedish (Myrdal) family history.
Demand for Resources (Resursbegär 1992) Peter Klevius thanks Carl-Olof Selenius for coming up with the sub title On the Right to be Poor - although the book per se didn't necessarily appeal to his Maoist views. Carl-Olof Selenius has worked mostly for the Swedish state sponsored SIDA and Afrikagrupperna aid organizations*.
* As a side note, when Peter Klevius made his second family he unsuccessfully asked Carl-Olof Selenius if he could possibly arrange for Peter Klevius (who couldn't get a mortgage) to buy a piece of land from the big estate Carl-Olof was to inherit from and which was neighboring the big estate that used to be Peter's foster home where he worked as almost a slave and was kicked out at age 17 alone to a foreign country without a penny or education. Yes, Peter has many good childhood memories - but only together with other children and adults outside the foster family.
A Google search on 'human rights carl-olof selenius' doens't produce anything. Does it reflect a socialist (or Maxist) aversion against the rights of the individual?
Sweden was a hotspot for Maoism and Uppsala its very center. The Selenius family moved from Finland to Uppsala 1968 when Carl-Olof turned 18.
Finland-Swedish Carl-Olof Selenius has spent most of his life with state supported aid organizations such as SIDA and Afrikagrupperna. This brought him to Pol Pot's Kampuchea, Mugabe's Zimbabve etc. Marxist hot spots. His Finland-Swedish dad Clas-Olof Selenius, who belonged to the same generation as Sweden's top Maoist Jan Myrdal, was a professor in mathematics at Uppsala University and an eager proponent of Finland-Swedish culture etc. - and very far from Maoism. When Peter Klevius was a child Clas-Olof Selenius thought he was intelligent and encouraged him to check out Albert Einstein - which he certainly did.
The social democratic Myrdal family parents shaped the Swedish social state and their son hated them and turned Maoist.Jan Myrdal's father Gunnar Myrdal is best known in the United States for his study of race relations, which culminated in his some 2,500 pages 1944 book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. The study was influential in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Board of Education. In Sweden his work and political influence were important to the establishment of the Folkhemmet and the welfare state.
Both in its Stalinist and in its Maoist variety, Jan Myrdal's radical Communism added to the already severe tension within the Myrdal family, as both his parents were leading figures within Sweden's ruling Social Democrat party. His ties with Alva and Gunnar would eventually be severed completely, dividing and scandalizing what had long been perceived as a "model family" in social-democratic Sweden. Myrdal went on to pen unflattering portraits of his parents in several autobiographical books, while acknowledging their importance as intellectuals.
Carl-Olof Selenius dad Clas-Olof Selenius was the first professor to encourage Peter Klevius intellectual life as a child- followed by an other Finland-Swede, Georgh Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's preferred successor at Cambridge), and the Finnish professor in neuro science Jyrki Juurmaa, who gave the most flattering review of Peter Klevius thinking skills (based on a discussion re. how the visual cortex works in people who are blind from birth - see Peter Klevius EMAH theory on AI and "consciousness").