FEF Files Complaint Against Department of Justice on Behalf of Austin Franco

The year is 59 BC; Cicero is defending his friend, the governor Lucius Flaccus, in court against Jews who accuse him of stealing their gold.

Everything is already present in Cicero’s defense of Flaccus: gold and the Jews, their penchant for legal chicanery, their propensity to confuse justice with vengeance, their way of manipulating authorities, inciting crowds, threatening, intimidating, slandering, acting like a hateful pack, and posing as victims while defrauding Roman law—along with their brazenness in turning the accusation around against Flaccus, who was merely upholding the law.

Everything is there, except Christ, who would come later; thus, it was not Christianity that invented antisemitism in the Roman world.

Long before the time of the Diaspora, a prosperous Jewish community was established in Rome and periodically made substantial contributions to the guardians of the Temple in Jerusalem. Alongside the site of prayer and sacrifice, a whole world of commerce and intrigue linked to the practice of worship flourished.

The merchants of the Temple were permanently stationed there, protected by a militia under the orders of the Sanhedrin. This “capital flight” compelled the Senate to enact legislation prohibiting gold from crossing the borders of the Imperium Romanum—yet Judea would not be integrated into the Empire until 6 AD.

In 62 BC, Lucius Flaccus, a protégé of Cicero, was appointed governor of the province of Asia Minor, situated between Rome and Jerusalem. It was in the course of his duties that he enforced the law by seizing the gold that the Jews of Rome intended to send to Jerusalem.

The Jews were therefore in the wrong, yet they accused Lucius Flaccus of theft and spoliation. He was compelled to defend himself against these charges with the assistance of Cicero. Consequently, “The trial of Flaccus could only end in an acquittal. […] The court, composed of 25 senators, 25 knights, and 25 treasury tribunes, ruled in his favor.” (Pierre Grimal, Cicéron, Fayard, 1986, p. 191)

Professor Robert Faurisson—who, as a Holocaust denier, had several legal confrontations with Jews and had thoroughly studied the Nuremberg trials—commented on the trial of Lucius Flaccus in these terms:

The few pages in which Cicero describes the Jews are of great historical importance. They utterly refute the widely held theory that antisemitism is essentially a Christian invention. In Pro Flacco, we see the greatest of Roman orators—long before the Christian era—denouncing Jewish behavior in the very same terms later used, century after century, by distinguished authors—whether Christian, agnostic, or atheist; of the Left or the Right; and in any country where a Jewish community lived. Cicero—if one may put it this way—fixed the image of the Jew in a manner that would later be adopted by the most notorious “antisemites,” whether Shakespeare, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, Drumont, or Céline. […]

For Cicero, in Pro Flacco, the words “Jew” and “gold” are immediately linked: “auri Judaici”—Jewish gold. Then comes the notion that Jews are adept at scheming and intimidation.

They know how to unite to exert significant influence in all the assemblies.

They give free rein to their fury there. They are adept at stirring up hatred. They spread slander.

They are violent. They commit fraud. They circumvent the laws of the land. Their only true attachment is to what Cicero calls their “superstition”—that is, their worship of gold. Incidentally, Cicero notes that for this trial—in which they had the audacity to claim that Flaccus had taken their gold—the Jews arrived in large numbers, behaving in the courtroom with the arrogance of a rabble.

Together with others, they succeeded in having a major investigation launched against Flaccus in Asia Minor; yet, as Cicero points out, all the gold allegedly stolen from the Jews was found in the public treasury. In reality, Flaccus had simply confiscated—for the benefit of the public treasury—the gold that the Jews had been in the habit of exporting to Jerusalem on their own behalf. They did so from Rome and all of Italy, as well as from the provinces. On numerous occasions, these exports had been declared illegal, yet the Jews had flouted the law. Flaccus, however, took the initiative to enforce it.

Consequently, the Jews cried theft and filed a complaint against the propraetor, whose primary duty was, after all,”to enforce the laws of Rome.

For Cicero, the story would end badly a few years later, in 43 BC.

While traveling in a litter to embark near Gaeta, Cicero’s life came to an end at the hands of the centurion Herennius, a killer sent by Mark Antony.

Mark Antony was the man of the Jews. Deeply compromised with Eastern profiteers and corrupt figures in Rome, he had been denounced by Cicero as a new Catiline (in 44 BC, in the Philippics). Venal and corrupt, he had spent a large part of his career in Asia Minor and had allied himself with the family of Antipater, the father of King Herod.

Mark Antony organized Herod’s official visit to Rome, where he schemed to have him proclaimed “King of Judea” by the Senate. Herod, a bloodthirsty psychopath, would have his wife and children put to death because he suspected them of wanting to eliminate him. Not to mention the Massacre of the Innocents, recounted in the Gospel of Saint Matthew alongside the Flight into Egypt—the result of the ritual slaughter of all children under the age of two in Bethlehem.

Cicero’s head was displayed in the Forum: he was guilty of having attempted to defend the fatherland, threatened by the foreign-aligned faction. His severed hands were held up for the people to see: they were guilty of having pointed out the enemies of Rome. It took Rome some time to recover, but the backlash was devastating for the instigators of the civil war when the sword was driven into the heart of the conspiracy with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the city itself—subsequently renamed Aelia Capitolina—from which the Jews were banished and forbidden to settle. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind.

Given all that, it is easier to understand why a vast campaign to discredit the history of Greco-Latin antiquity—as well as the study of classical letters and dead languages—originated in the United States and is spreading like wildfire to the very heart of Old Europe. Some American academics are convinced that the way we study antiquity is the cause of racism and gender discrimination. For example: Padilla Peralta, a professor of Roman history at Stanford, having disowned the very subject he is supposed to teach, completely capitulated before an audience already won over to his cause: “I hope the subject disappears, and as soon as possible.”

Johanna Haninck, a professor of classics at Brown University, says she views her discipline as “a product and an accomplice of white supremacy.”

Finally, Donna Zuckerberg, a specialist in ancient Rome and a graduate of prestigious Princeton University, disparaged a “discipline that has historically been implicated in racism and colonialism, and that continues to be linked to white supremacy and its misogyny.”

Despite their efforts to the contrary, Cicero’s speech can still easily be found online—in Latin, English, and French; the three versions are included in appendix 1, 2 and 3.

In Appendix 4, we present a few lines by Ariel Toaff regarding other antisemites from the pre-Christian era: two Greeks—Toaff writes of an obscure Greek historian named Democritus, and Apion (20 BC – 40 AD)—and one Roman, Dio Cassius (163 AD – 235 AD). In his *Roman History*, Dio Cassius wrote, in particular, that: “the Jews were accustomed to feasting upon the bodies of Greek and Roman enemies slain in battle. Not contenting themselves with the satisfaction of this alimentary predilection, they painted their bodies with the blood of their enemies and used their intestines as belts.”

As for Apion, he was so antisemitic that the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus deemed it necessary to write Against Apion to refute his allegations. Even if the stories circulating about Jews in antiquity were false (and they likely were not), they would still demonstrate—all the more so if they were false or exaggerated—that neither the Greeks nor the Romans liked the Jews.

It should also be noted that only the pagan Aryans actually waged wars against the Jews (for the Greeks, the Seleucids against the Maccabees; for the Romans, Pompey, siege of Jerusalem, 63 BC, and Titus in 70 AD); on the contrary, all the Popes without exception prevented physical violence against the Jews (it is true, however, that the Inquisition was directed against Jewish converts who were insincere).

References

René-Louis Berclaz, De Cicéron à Faurisson (reseauinternational.net)

Appendix 1: Pro Flacco (in English)

Cicero: Pro Flacco (2)

There follows the odium that is attached to Jewish gold. This is no doubt the reason why this case is being tried not far from the Aurelian Steps [Aurelian Steps: the part of the public square featuring tiered seating arranged like an amphitheater. It was here, above all, that the incited crowds would gather]. You procured this place and that crowd, Laelius, for this trial. You know what a big crowd it is, how they stick together, how influential they are in informal assemblies. So, I will speak in a low voice so that only the jurors may hear ; for those are not wanting who would incite them against me and against every respectable man. I shall not help them to do this more easily.

When every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces, Flaccus forbade by an edict its exportation from Asia. Who is there, gentlemen, who could not honestly praise this action ? The senate often earlier and also in my consulship most urgently forbade the export of gold. But to resist this barbaric superstition [the cult of gold] was an act of firmness, to defy the crowd of Jews when sometimes in our assemblies they were hot with passion, for the welfare of the state was an act of the greatest seriousness. “But Gnaeus Pompeius when Jerusalem was captured laid his victorious hands on nothing in that shrine.” In that he was especially wise — as in many other matters. In a state so given to suspicion and calumny, he left his critics no opportunity for gossip. But I do not think that illustrious general was hindered by the religious feelings of the Jews and his enemies, but by his sense of honour. Where, then, is the ground for an accusation against Flaccus, since, indeed, you never make any charge of theft, you approve his edict, you confess that there was judgement for debt, you do not deny the business was openly proposed and published, and the facts show it was administered by excellent men? At Apamea a little less than a hundred pounds of gold was openly seized and weighed before the seat of the praetor in the forum through the agency of Sextius Caesius, a Roman knight, an upright and honourable man; at Laodicea a little more than twenty pounds by Lucius Peducaeus, our juror. At Adramyttium. . . . by Gnaeus Domitius, the legate, at Pergamum a small amount. The accounting for the gold is correct. The gold is in the treasury, no embezzlement is charged, it is just an attempt to fix odium on him. The plea is not addressed to the jury; the voice the advocate is directed to the attendant crowd and the mob. Each state, Laelius, has its own religious scruples, we have ours. Even while Jerusalem was standing and the Jews were at peace with us, the practice of their sacred rites was at variance with the glory of our empire, the dignity of our name, the customs of our ancestors. But now it is even more so, when that nation by its armed resistance has shown what it thinks of our rule; how dear it was to the immortal gods is shown by the fact that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made a slave.

Appendix 2: *Pro Flacco* in Latin

Cicéron : PLAIDOYER POUR L. FLACCUS. (bilingue)

XXVIII. Sequitur auri illa inuidia Iudaici. Hoc nimirum est illud quod non longe a gradibus Aureliis haec causa dicitur. Ob hoc crimen hic locus abs te, Laeli, atque illa turba quaesita est; scis quanta sit manus, quanta concordia, quantum ualeat in contionibus. Sic submissa uoce agam tantum ut iudices audiant; neque enim desunt qui istos in me atque in optimum quemque incitent; quos ego, quo id facilius faciant, non adiuuabo.

Cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus nostris prouinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret. Quis est, iudices, qui hoc non uere laudare possit? Exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule grauissime iudicauit. Huic autem barbarae superstitioni resistere seueritatis, multitudinem Iudaeorum flagrantem non numquam in contionibus pro re publica contemnere grauitatis summae fuit. At Cn. Pompeius captis Hierosolymis uictor ex illo fano nihil attigit. In primis hoc, ut multa alia, sapienter; in tam suspiciosa ac maledica ciuitate locum sermoni obtrectatorum non reliquit. Non enim credo religionem et Iudaeorum et hostium impedimento praestantissimo imperatori, sed pudorem fuisse. Vbi igitur crimen est, quoniam quidem furtum nusquam reprehendis, edictum probas, iudicatum fateris, quaesitum et prolatum palam non negas, actum esse per uiros primarios res ipsa declarat? Apameae manifesto comprehensum ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum est auri pondo c paulo minus per Sex- Caesium, equitem Romanum, castissimum hominem atque integerrimum, Laodiceae xx pondo paulo amplius per hunc L. Peducaeum, iudicem nostrum, Adramytii {c} per Cn. Domitium legatum, Pergami non multum. Auri ratio constat, aurum in aerario est; furtum non reprehenditur, inuidia quaeritur; a iudicibus oratio auertitur, uox in coronam turbamque effunditur. Sua cuique ciuitati religio, Laeli, est, nostra nobis. Stantibus Hierosolymis pacatisque Iudaeis tamen istorum religio sacrorum a splendore huius imperi, grauitate nominis nostri, maiorum institutis abhorrebat; nunc uero hoc magis, quod illa gens quid de nostro imperio sentiret ostendit armis; quam cara dis immortalibus esset docuit, quod est uicta, quod elocata, quod serua facta.

Appendix 3: Pro Flacco in French

XXVIII. Vient ensuite l’or des Juifs, et cette imputation si odieuse. Voilà, sans doute, pourquoi cette cause est plaidée auprès des degrés Auréliens [degrés Auréliens, partie de la place publique où il y avait des degrés en forme d’amphithéâtre. C’est là surtout que s’attroupait le peuple qu’on avait ameuté] ; c’est pour ce chef d’accusation, Lélius, que vous avez choisi ce lieu et cette foule de Juifs qui nous entourent. Vous savez quel est leur nombre, leur union, leur pouvoir dans nos assemblées. Je parlerai bas, de manière à n’être entendu que des juges. Comme il ne manque pas de gens qui animent contre moi et contre les meilleurs citoyens ceux que vous protégez, je ne veux pas fournir ici de nouvelles armes à leur malveillance.

C’était la coutume de transporter tous les ans de l’Italie, et de toutes les provinces, à Jérusalem, de l’or amassé par les Juifs; un édit de Flaccus défendit cette exportation aux Asiatiques. Qui pourrait, juges, ne pas approuver une telle mesure? Le sénat, par les décrets les plus sévères, avant et sous mon consulat, défendit de transporter de l’or. Il y avait de la sagesse à rompre le cours d’une superstition barbare; de la fermeté à braver, pour le bien de la république, cette multitude de Juifs, qui troublent quelquefois nos assemblées. Mais, dit-on, Pompée, vainqueur et maître de Jérusalem, n’a touché à rien dans le temple. C’est de sa part, entre mille autres, un trait de prudence, de n’avoir point donné lieu aux discours de la calomnie dans une ville aussi soupçonneuse et aussi médisante. Car ce n’est pas, je crois, la religion des Juifs, d’un peuple ennemi, mais sa propre modération, qui a retenu cet illustre général. Où donc est ici le délit? Vous ne nous reprochez aucun vol; vous ne pouvez condamner l’ordonnance de Flaccus; vous convenez que le sénat a prononcé, qu’un jugement a été rendu, que cet or a été recherché et produit au grand jour; les faits mêmes prouvent que ce ministère a été rempli par des hommes de la première distinction. Dans la ville d’Apamée, l’or a été saisi aux yeux de tout le monde, et un peu moins de cent livres ont été pesées dans la place publique, aux pieds du préteur, par Sext. Césius, chevalier 682 romain, homme intègre et désintéressé. A Laodicée, L. Péducéus, un de nos juges, en a pesé lui-même un peu plus de vingt livres; à Adramyttium, Cn. Domitius, lieutenant de la province, a fait aussi cet examen; on en a saisi fort peu à Pergame. Enfin, on sait le compte de l’or; il a été versé dans le trésor public. On ne nous reproche pas de vol, on cherche à nous rendre odieux; on se tourne vers le peuple, on déclame avec affectation du côté de la multitude qui environne le tribunal. Chaque ville a son culte, Lélius; nous avons le nôtre. Lorsque les Juifs étaient en paix avec nous, et Jérusalem florissante, nous trouvions cependant les cérémonies de leurs sacrifices trop peu dignes de la majesté de notre empire, de la splendeur de notre nom, des institutions de nos ancêtres: elles le sont encore plus à présent que cette nation a fait connaître, en nous faisant la guerre, ses sentiments pour la république; et que les dieux immortels, en permettant qu’elle fût vaincue et tributaire, ont montré leur sollicitude pour elle!

Appendix 4: Ariel Toaff – BLOOD PASSOVER – The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder

CHAPTER EIGHT DISTANT PRECEDENTS AND THE SAGA OF PURIM

Ritual murder accusations have been made against the Jews for thousands of years. The murders were sometimes alleged to have been accompanied by ritual cannibalism, but not always. In every case, it is rather improbable that the testimonies which have come down to us from antiquity were known and disseminated in the Middle Ages and could constitute a significant point of reference for later accusations of crucifixion and ritual cannibalism. As early as the second century before Christ, the almost unknown Greek historian, Damocritus, who probably lived in Alexandria, recorded a violently biased anti-Jewish testimony, at that time referred to under his name in Suida’s Greek dictionary. According to Damocritus, the Jews were accustomed to render worship to a golden head of an ass; every seven years, they abducted a foreigner to sacrifice him, tearing the body to pieces. This horrible rite is said to have taken place probably every seven years in the Temple of Jerusalem, sanctuary of the Jewish religion. Damocritus’s report is evidently intended to stress the barbarism of the Jews, the “haters of mankind”, who practiced superstitious and cruel cults. It should nevertheless be noted that the Greek historian made no reference either to any need to collect the victim’s blood or other forms of ritual cannibalism. A report only partly similar to that reported by Damocritus is found in the polemical Contra Apione, by Flavius Josephus, quoting the tendentiously anti-Jewish rhetorician, Apione, who lived at Alexandria during the 1st century of the Christian era. According to Apione, Antiocchus Epiphane, entering the Temple of Jerusalem, is said to have been surprised to find a Greek, stretched on a bed and surrounded by exquisite foods and rich dishes. The prisoner’s report was extraordinary and horrifying. The Greek said that he had been captured by the Jews and taken to the Temple and concealed from everyone, while they force-fed him on all sorts of foods. At first, it the unusual circumstances in which he found himself did not greatly displease him until the sanctuary attendants revealed the fate waiting in store for him:

Sacrificial practices. “(The Jews) carry out this (rite) every year, on a pre-established date. They catch a Greek merchant and feed him for a whole year. They later take him into a forest, kill him and sacrifice him according to their religion. They then savor the viscera, and in the moment of sacrificing the Greek, they swear their hatred of all Greeks. They then dump the remains of the carcass into a ditch”. Flavius Josephus reports that the history recounted by Apione was not invented by him, but was, rather, derived from other Greek writers, an indication that its dissemination must have been much more widespread than we are led to imagine based on the two only surviving accounts, i.e., of Damocritus and Apion. Compared to the first, the second describes a number of variants which are undoubtedly important. The sacrificial ceremony is now annual, and held on a fixed date, even if the account does not specify the Jewish holiday on which it allegedly took place. Furthermore, ritual cannibalism is now stressed in an explicit and brutal manner, even if there is still no mention of any need for human blood, which, as we have seen, is said to have become the preponderant element starting with the Middle Ages. On the other hand, that both Greeks and Romans are alleged to have ended up as a meal for ravenous Jews is shown by the fact that Dio Cassius, writing of their rebellion at Cyrene (115 of the Christian era), hastened to mention, in disgust, that the Jews were accustomed to feasting upon the bodies of Greek and Roman enemies slain in battle. Not contenting themselves with the satisfaction of this alimentary predilection, they painted their bodies with the blood of their enemies and used their intestines as belts

 

Arktos: The Swedish Syndrome: How Elites Commit National Self-Destruction  (Amazon)
Karl-Olov Arnstberg 
Arktos Media, 2025.

In 1973 a bungled bank robbery in the Swedish capital led to an extended hostage situation. Over time the hostages, four bank employees, came to sympathize with their captors, felons who were putting their lives at risk. The phenomenon where captives identify with their captors has been termed the Stockholm Syndrome. Swedish ethnologist Karl-Olov Arnstberg sees parallels to the wider Swedish society where the populace is held in psychological captivity by a hostile elite. The author’s thumbnail description of the Swedish Syndrome is: “an identity-based social psychosis, an illness that takes the form of cultural self-harm.”

This book is a case study of how Swedish society became woke. The affliction has now spread to all Western societies, but various factors led Sweden to become an early and extreme adopter. Today the national ideology is explicitly multicultural. Of course this was not always the case.

The seeds of destruction were planted decades earlier. We see again how pivotal World War II was in Western history, in World history. Sweden was neutral during the war, so they emerged from the conflict with their population and infrastructure intact. While Germany was made to feel guilty for what it did during the war, Sweden was made to feel guilty for what it did not do. Rather than oppose Germany, it was a major trading partner. On a deeper level Swedes needed atone for the purported excesses of National Socialist Germany. While the ideology of the NSDAP was specifically nationalistic, it promoted the Aryan or Germanic ideal. Sweden, being a Nordic nation, was required to accept that alleged war crimes had been perpetrated in the name of their race, creating feelings of guilt.

The post-war years produced a society as peaceful, prosperous, and progressive as humanly possible. So in addition to vicarious war guilt, affluence brought anxiety about unearned privilege. Why should Swedes enjoy the good life while millions in the Third World suffer from malnutrition and disease? This mentality was most pronounced among the elite as most Swedes continued to be patriotic and productive citizens.

In 1960 Sweden had one of the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The few immigrants were European, mostly neighboring Finns. But it was a society with no great cause to work for, no larger projects to accomplish, and a leadership that was becoming estranged from their own people. It turned out that paradise was rather dull. That was soon to change. It began with a change in the zeitgeist that can be illustrated in the work of two Swedish public intellectuals: Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987) and Vilhelm Moberg (1898–1973).

The economist Myrdal is best known as lead author of An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). This social research tome (1500pp) sold over 100,000 copies. It laid out the sociological blueprint for a multiracial American society. To summarize: U.S. Blacks are oppressed by the White majority leading to poverty, ignorance, and vice. These characteristics reinforce White negative attitudes towards Blacks. However, if Whites provided Blacks with better housing, education, and health care, they would achieve White cultural standards facilitating racial integration. Thus, the so-called Negro problem was really a problem of White racism. This was the basic reasoning behind the early civil rights movement, and An American Dilemma was cited in the 1954 Brown Supreme Court decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools.

Yet years earlier Myrdal had different concerns. In 1934 he, along with his wife Alva, wrote Crisis in Population. Sweden was hit hard by the Great Depression. Birth rates plummeted raising the possibility of population decline. Arnstberg quotes from the Myrdals’ book:

The consequent decline in population would signify the degeneration of the race and “the suicide of the family.” As population pressure was reduced, the country would be flooded with immigrants from foreign races with higher fertility rates. By right of the strong these would take over and reshape our precious cultural heritage.

The genesis of the modern welfare state, the Folkhemmet—the people’s home, the national community—lay in pronatal policies designed to save the race.

Between 1935 – 1939 the well-known Swedish novelist Vilhelm Moberg wrote a semi-autobiographical folk and soil trilogy published in English as a single volume, The Earth is Ours (1940). Without romanticizing them, Moberg praised the rural folk who were rooted in the land and part of an authentic community. In contrast were the alienated urbanites of Stockholm.

Both Myrdal and Moberg identified with the Left, but their 1930s versions would be considered ethno-nationalist by current standards. This raises the question of how the Left became explicitly anti-White as it did so starkly in Sweden. Unlike many European countries Sweden did not have a nationalist mass movement during the interwar period, though there was some support among the bourgeoisie for National Socialism as a bulwark against communism. Had Germany prevailed against Bolshevism their influence on postwar Swedish culture and politics would have been immense.

Politically Arnstberg notes a postwar transition from popular rule to elite rule in Sweden. And as non-White immigration increased during the 1970s and 80s there was a shift from assimilating newcomers to multiculturalism. This was inevitable because culture is, in part, genetically based. Assimilation is only possible if the immigrants do not deviate too greatly from the culture and ethnicity of the host population—10,000 Estonians small: problems; 10,000 Somalis: big problems.

The implementation of multiculturalism required a soft totalitarian regime that could turn hard if met with resistance. Important factors were the full cooperation from the mass media and censorship of dissent including internet censorship by both government and private surveillance groups. Labor unions, schools, churches, and NGOs were coopted. Swedish history and culture needed to be deconstructed. Many in leadership actually “despise and deny Swedish culture.” And there was the politicization of the law, resulting in a two-tiered legal system.

It seems that one would need to be in denial to believe that multiculturalism has increased the quality of life for the average Swede. Yet in international surveys Sweden always ranks among the top ten happiest countries. One can image the mindset: “Well, I can’t complain; things could be worse. And think of all the exotic cuisine and football stars we have.”

The book characterizes Swedish society as statist individualist – a strong state plus personal autonomy. The country scores high on both individualism and conformity—what one might call the paradox of individualism (see also Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition on Scandinavia). There is tolerance for individual idiosyncrasies and respect for personal space. But on boarder social issues, Swedes are very compliant, with “no other opinions in the public sphere than the prevailing ones.” In a high-trust society there is trust not only between people, but between the people and the government. Arnstberg references the theories of Belgian psychologist Mattias Desnet on mass formation psychosis leading to groupthink.

Prof. Arnstberg (b. 1943) is old enough to have witnessed the full trajectory of his country’s decline, and The Swedish Syndrome supplies statistical and antidotal evidence to support his thesis (30 percent of the population is foreign-born or children of foreign-born). The author is quite pessimistic about the future. In the last paragraphs of the book, he lays out two future scenarios for Sweden. One, “more of the same,” leading to a poorer and more dangerous country. “There is an even scarier alternative: … In a decade or so we may have civil war-like conditions in Sweden.” Both of these possibilities are tragic, but at least the latter offers some hope for a Swedish instauration, and there is still a lot worth saving.

The Swedish edition, Sverigesyndromet, (2022) was published just as a center-right coalition government came into office promising to limit immigration and crack down on crime. This has led some to believe that the fever has broken and the country has stepped back from the abyss. In the English edition (2025) editor and social psychologist Josh Neal tempers Arnstberg’s gloom. He believes that “Trumpism” has had a positive international impact. There is now a “new intellectual climate” and Arnstberg’s book “will usher in a new era of Swedish conservative intellectualism.” Perhaps, but it will take more than a tepid conservatism to save the nation. In the end it may depend on how much of the spirit of the Varangian Vikings and the pikemen of Gustavus Adolphus still resides in the hearts of the Swedish people.