Henrik Palmgren: The New Normal In Sweden

Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio addresses the Identitarian Ideas IX conference in Stockholm, Sweden. He talks about refugee resettlement and the burden of multiculturalism in Sweden.

Note: Henrik’s speech begins at 40:00. If you haven’t already done so, subscribe to Red Ice Radio’s YouTube channel.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I am a great fan of Henrik as well as Lana, Reinhard, and the rest of the crew. What most of us tend to forget about these foreign nations is that their governments and media are pulling a fast one on them. A lot of Swedes don’t have a clue as to what is really going on. If you watch the YT video “Stockholm Syndrome” by Ami Horowitz, it is not a wonder why the interviewees at the end do not blame the Muslims. Of course, those that have been negatively impacted by the invaders have no excuse — lying government & media or not!

  2. Why aren’t Palmgren and his lovely wife Lena Lokteff producing a bunch of good looking, fashy Aryan children? Yeah, I know it’s none of my business but I’m making it my business.

    • The interview of a Swedish journalist with Stefan Molyneux in a prior post, made it relatively clear. The Swedes are the most secular nation on the European continent, so they have no place for God. Because they have no place for God, they have no understanding of the covenant. Because they have no understanding of the covenant anymore, it doesn’t matter that they should have children, or raise them in the fear and nurture of the Lord.

      Besides which both of those two are too busy talking at conferences, to “demean” themselves into changing diapers and teaching moral values to children.

      • Well stated. The Sweden of today is but a faint shadow of its former glory under Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus.

        • It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Are you ready for the final judgment? Only asking in my professional capacity, you understand…

          • I sincerely hope to meet you at a future event, but I won’t hold my breath. You’re not only a narcissist, you’re a coward.

          • Empty words, young man. Utterly and completely empty words. And someone who would strike a priest, as your comment alludes to… But safely does not state, deserves the damnation he is courting. While you may not be one ethnically, you are fully in line with the ideological Jews, that struck Christ. Which means that you definitely are among the accursed of God. I pity you.

          • You’re as much a Priest as that fraud the Pope. Add that to your list. Narcissist, cowardly, fraud.
            2 Corinthians 11

            12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

          • The final judgement? Eschatalogical nonsense. The end has been nigh for nigh on a millennium according to your “scholars”. If the end is going to come it will be our own doing, not some judeochrislamic “demiurge”. It is our own responsibly. That’s what these old monotheistic abrahamic religions do to people – “trust in the lord”. No. Stop being a child and blaming the sky-daddy and take responsibility for yourselves. But hey, no enemies on the right, right? Agree to disagree and move on and focus on the common enemy.

          • You keep believing the lies Satan tells you, buddy. I will have the last word on this topic, because I serve the Person who gives the sentences. You’ve already lost both your life, your soul, and the gamble that you might actually have any merit to your opinion.

          • You’re obviously a troll or agent provocateur (congrats! It worked – for a short time!) or childish fool who believes the superstitions fed to them by a system designed to control them and keep them in fear. But of course the only fear we should have is that there are still millions if not billions of unfortunate ignorant people who still are deceived by this cruel hoax being used to control and destroy their lives. The most unfortunate part is the rest of us have to participate in your tragedy. With the likes of yourself infesting this website clearly this is the wrong place for more enlightened souls. It’s a shame because it looks like an interesting website. But people like you just drive away newcomers – that’s really more a heads up to the admin here who might want to consider reviewing their policy on trolls or troll like behaviour.

            Won’t be coming back to this site thanks to the good “Father” here. Yeah, it’s a shame.

          • There are plenty of other religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems to facilitate a pro-family and pro-children life for our people.

    • There are multiple good reasons today why people may not be having “a bunch” of kids. How many dozen do you and Fr. John have??????????

      • Bullshit, there is only one reason why most White couples don’t have lots of kids these days and it’s because they’re selfish. They are more concerned with “personal fulfillment” and their la-di-da careers in an office cubicle than they are with raising kids and keeping the White race strong and healthy. They lavish their attention on pets and on trendy liberal causes instead of on children, where it belongs.

        I can’t speak for Fr. John, but as a man of the cloth I imagine his primary concern is with ecclesiastical affairs. As for myself I have yet to meet the woman who is worthy of carrying my child. So in the meantime I shall have to content myself with meaningless relationships involving 20 year old co-eds.

        Now that you have your answer you and big ol’ middle-age beer belly can get lost.

        • Right. You don’t have any. Just what I thought. You’re just talking out your ass. When/IF you ever have a kid, come tell us all after about a year about the seven or eight more you’re going to have and raise. Then someone besides a few keyboard Aryan Saviors might take you serious.

          And I don’t have a beer belly. 32 inch waist. That is my photo you see (and also my daughter).

          • Too stupid to see your own hypocrisy or too short of an attention span to keep your BS together for more than two paragraphs?

            it’s because they’re selfish

            I shall have to content myself with meaningless relationships

            You’re a childless misanthrope who complains about women on the Internet and gives real parents with real kids advice and insight on how to raise their kids. You talk about not finding a “woman who is worthy,” oblivious to the fact that what you’ve really admitted to is that the women “worthy enough” probably just aren’t attracted to YOU. Like all insecure men, you’re scared to death of women who have choices and opinions and the freedom to express them without fear of retribution. Why? Because deep down inside you know that if they can choose something/someone, it won’t be you.

            …… and you’re calling someone else a cuck?

            Why don’t you shut the fuck up, go sit in the back of the room and observe how real men operate. You might learn something.

          • Look how defensive and antagonistic he became in reaction to a simple statement I made and an obvious begged question I asked. Also estimate how likely, in light of how I set him off, is his implication that he beds down numerous hot, 20 year-old women.

  3. More headstones toppled in Philly.

    Satellite view of area.

    I noticed that these is another school very close by. School identifiable by the baseball diamonds. The cemetary in question is in second image large green lawn to the left of satellite view frame.

    Anyone know what the student population is like? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca9e80da5360a40b79ccc5f68d1b9ec914524246e80c8f3269e7f89f602add55.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d62dd33de87e7689fdb79fd8541d9d7cfe53c54c4c478ed14fd7b7cf249e5bf.jpg

  4. Australian mohammedian turd says islamm is screwed up because of whites colonizing islammic countries


    The Q&A sharia shout-out


    The cool and hip, if occasionally shouty, face of young Islam in Australia,
    Yassmin Abdel-Magied, opines that if sharia law has got some rough
    edges it’s all the fault of dead white males. Yes, you’ve read it
    correctly – the White European colonisers have turned the progressive
    and feminist sharia into a tool of patriarchal oppression:
    The advent
    of modern colonisation, starting with the British East India Company
    (EIC) and the Dutch entering India and Indonesia in the late sixteenth
    and seventeeth Centuries, would eventually lead to some pretty drastic
    changes in how Sharia was practised and understood. With the arrival of
    the colonisers in predominantly Islamic communities came the concept of
    the nation-state — and with it, codifying (translating and writing
    down) laws. The colonisers viewed Islam as a threat to the system and
    civilisation they understood, and began thoroughly remodelling Islamic
    legal systems.
    Started by the Governor of Bengal Warren Hastings in
    the 1770s and followed by the Dutch in the 1880s, western powers began
    separate projects to translate, write down and convert the Sharia — as
    they understood it — into written law. In doing so they turned Sharia’s
    fluidity rigid, and hollowed out the interpretive core that Sharia law
    depended on. Islamic law became unable to do what it needed to do to
    What’s more, this process actually wound back progressive
    aspects of Islamic law to conservative Western standards. Sharia and
    Islamic law had bestowed women with rights and privileges that were
    advanced and equalising; when the laws were translated into colonising
    languages, those nuances were removed and the patriarchal colonising
    culture prevailed, writing the rights women had enjoyed under Sharia out
    of the system entirely. The “Sharia” notion that a man is the head of
    the family to be obeyed without question was a post-colonial inclusion
    that completely changed the original intention of the Islamic ruling,
    and Governor Hastings, along with his counterpart Governor-General of
    India Charles Cornwallis, felt like Islamic law allowed criminals to
    escape punishment too easily, complaining that Sharia was “founded on
    the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed”.
    Given Islamic law’s current reputation, this is kind of ironic.
    White man is truly the devil; is there anything evil he can’t do?

    loath to argue Islam with Ms Abdel-Magied – she is a Muslim, I’m not –
    but when she strays into history and politics I feel quite free to call
    bullshit when I see it. And this is the biggest pile of bullshit I’ve
    read this year.

    Firstly, even if you accept Ms Abdel-Magied’s
    reading of history (a big if), the supposedly nefarious influence of the
    British and Dutch colonisers only really applies to the Dutch East
    Indies and British India, or what is now Indonesia, India, Pakistan and
    Bangladesh. These are essentially the countries of eastern Islam, away
    from the Arab heart of ummah. Ironically, with the exception of
    Pakistan, these are today reasonably liberal Islamic polities, which
    kind of defeats her argument. Deobandi, the most conservative and
    hard-line school or popular movement of Islam in South Asia, was
    actually a reaction against the British colonialism, seen as corrupting
    the pure Islam. Deobandis can be seen as the Wahhabis of the
    sub-continent – these are the people whose madrassas gave us the Taliban
    and the whole host of other Islamist extremist groups throughout the
    And what about everywhere else? Turkey was never colonised by
    anyone; neither was Saudi Arabia (except by Turkey). Neither was
    Persia/Iran, or Afghanistan in any meaningful sense. Egypt wasn’t until
    the end of the nineteenth century, and the countries of the Levant
    (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria) as well as Jordan and Iraq not until the
    aftermath of the First World War. How is the fact that women can’t drive
    in Saudi Arabia today somehow the fault of Warren Hastings in India in
    the eighteenth century? Indeed, what is the European legal contribution
    to the Wahhabism, which poisons Islam throughout the region and, thanks
    to the Saudi petro-money, the rest of the world? Muslim Brotherhood,
    which competes with Wahhabism in the poison stakes (with their
    progressive motto “God is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The
    Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of God is our
    highest hope. God is greater!” and all that), like Deobandism, was a
    reaction against the corrupting liberal Western influences brought by
    the Brits to Egypt.

Comments are closed.