It is that dawn of the fall, the coming before the abyss for the white people of Western Europe and North America--when we know that within the next few decades we will no longer be running this world. And oh, how we hate it so.
Anti-immigration sentiment grows in Sweden
STOCKHOLM – A far-right group's election breakthrough has shattered Sweden's reputation as a bastion of tolerance after years of being seemingly inoculated against the backlash on immigration seen elsewhere in Europe.
Sunday's election showed that the country's welcome to refugees is not universally accepted: Nearly 6 percent of the population voted for a nationalist group that accuses immigrants — especially Muslims — of eroding Sweden's national identity and its cherished welfare state.
It's a bitter pill for a nation that frowned upon Denmark's vitriol toward Muslim immigrants, Swiss attempts to ban minarets and France's crackdown on Gypsy camps.
"The banner of tolerance has been hauled down and the forces of darkness have finally taken the Swedish democracy hostage, too," the Expressen tabloid wrote in a post-election editorial.
"It's Monday morning and time for Swedes to get a new self-image," read a bold front-page headline in Svenska Dagbladet.
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's coalition won the election but lost its majority in the 349-seat legislature, weakening its ability to push through crucial legislation.
The Sweden Democrats, a small nationalist party, entered Parliament for the first time, winning 20 seats to hold the balance of power between the 172 seats captured by the four-party center-right bloc and the 154 seats won by the three-party leftist opposition, according to preliminary returns.
Hardening attitudes toward immigrants have helped far-right radicals gain influence elsewhere in western Europe.
The Netherlands, which built a reputation of open-minded policies, took a hard right turn against immigration in 2002, when populist politician Pim Fortuyn broke all taboos against speaking out against multiculturalism and said Holland was "full." Anti-immigrant parties have been significant factors in every election since then.
In June, anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, who has denounced the Quran as a "fascist book" and campaigned to halt more Muslim immigration, more than doubled his seats in Parliament and is the kingmaker of the emerging right-wing coalition. Wilders goes on trial next month for "hate speech" for some of his most outspoken anti-immigrant remarks.
The U.S. also has seen a backlash, underscored by the uproar over Arizona's attempts to get tough on illegal immigration and plans to build an Islamic center near ground zero in New York.
Sweden became barren ground for such groups after the sudden rise and fall of a right-wing populist party in the early 1990s. Since then, Swedes have dealt with immigration issues delicately, at times even apologetically.
When a mainstream political party eight years ago suggested basic Swedish-language skills should be mandatory for citizenship — an uncontroversial requirement in many other countries — it was accused of catering to xenophobes.
Swedish leaders also lashed out at Scandinavian neighbor Denmark for sharply tightening immigration in 2002, and reacted with horror to the anti-Muslim statements by leaders of the nationalist Danish People's Party.
That helped cement Sweden's reputation as being a haven for immigrants, and was one the reasons the nation of 9.4 million attracted more Iraqi refugees following the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein than any other country in the West.
To many, that era is over with the election of the Sweden Democrats to Parliament.
"During the 15 years I have lived in Sweden, I've always been proud of being able to say that if there's racism in Sweden, it's to a small degree," said Richard Aliaga Tello, a 36-year-old immigrant from Peru. "It's sad not being able to have that pride anymore. On the contrary, I'm going to feel a bit ashamed."
Led by Jimmie Akesson, the Sweden Democrats won 20 parliamentary seats and the balance of power between the center-right government and the left-wing opposition. Both main blocs refuse to work with Akesson, 31, and are likely to seek a deal across the political divide just to keep him out. "They will be forced to change their policies, above all on integration and immigration if they don't want to keep losing votes to us," a defiant Akesson told Swedish Radio.
Akesson denies allegations of racism, saying his party has nothing against immigrants as individuals. It's their large number that's a burden on the Swedish welfare state, he says.
"We haven't had the capacity to receive all those who have been let in. We haven't had the capacity to get them out into society, get them to work, to assimilate them into Swedish society," Akesson told The Associated Press in a May 24 interview at the group's secret Stockholm office.
Sweden has undergone a dramatic demographic shift since World War II when it was a largely homogenous country. Labor migration from southern Europe was followed by waves of refugees fleeing Chile's dictatorship, Iran's revolution, Iraq's oppression of Kurds and the Balkans' ethnic strife.
Today, one in seven Swedes is foreign-born, slightly more than the European average, said Jan Ekberg, an economist at Linnaeus University in Vaxjo who has studied immigration across Europe.
While providing a generous welcome, Sweden has struggled to integrate them into the job market. In 2006, 57 percent of immigrants were working, compared with 80 percent of native Swedes, Ekberg said, citing official statistics.
"It's in areas where you see the weakest integration of immigrations in the labor market where the Sweden Democrats have the strongest support," he added.
Akesson wants to cut Sweden's admission of asylum-seekers and immigrants seeking reunification with their families by 90 percent. Last year, Sweden took in 45,000 people in those categories.
He is especially concerned about Islam, calling its impact on Swedish society "our biggest foreign threat since World War II." He mentions cases of public schools that have stopped serving pork and no longer celebrate the end of the school year in church.
A TV campaign advertisement by the Sweden Democrats showed an elderly Swedish woman trying to reach an emergency brake labeled "Immigration" before a mob of burqa-clad women pushing strollers could get to another brake with a sign saying "Pensions."
A Swedish private TV network refused to show the commercial, saying it was inciting hatred against Muslims.
To the Sweden Democrats, it was one of many examples of how mainstream media and the political establishment were trying to silence its views. Akesson was not invited to the final party leader debate on Swedish national broadcaster SVT even though polls suggested his party would enter Parliament.
On Monday, Reinfeldt had difficulty digesting the fact that 330,000 Swedes had voted for the Sweden Democrats, whose roots go back to an explicitly xenophobic movement in the 1980s.
They couldn't all be xenophobes, he said at a news conference, but instead may be people who have lost faith in the way integration has been handled in Sweden.
"There is every reason to try to understand and try to address those feelings," Reinfeldt said.
Daniel Poohl, the editor of anti-racism magazine Expo, suggested Sweden's self-image "as the world's most tolerant nation" was wrong.
"Racism and xenophobia constitute a serious problem for society," he said. "Combined with dissatisfaction and frustration, it has now gotten a voice in parliament."
Associated Press writer Malin Rising contributed to this report.
The liberals in Sweden are being too nice to those voters. They deserve the same vitriol as those forces in this country, particularly in Arizona, who want to turn this nation into a non-white free zone. Sounds harsh and mean to say about our white right brethren? I always give credit to conservatives who bother to write about these issues. They are, if nothing else, brutal in stating their actual intentions.
What Do White Nationalists Want?
by Jared Taylor
Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.
Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”
The national-origins immigration policy that lasted until 1965 embodied this basic understanding of race. As one of the supporters of that policy, Congressman William Vaile of Colorado explained in 1924, “[the United States] is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” I might add that even if this sentiment shocks Americans today, it is exactly the view of their own country held by virtually every Japanese, Israeli, or Mexican.
What perhaps most succinctly characterizes those whom Mr. Raimondo calls “white nationalists” is the conviction that it was a terrible mistake to abandon national-origins quotas and throw the United States open to immigration from everywhere. As Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina wondered at the time: “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people? What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?” There were no good answers to those questions then and there is none today.
I believe Sam Ervin—and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt—shared my desire for a country in which our ancestors were respected as pioneers and statesmen, not reviled as murderers and thieves. I believe they wanted a country in which their children’s children would walk in the ways of their forebears, sing the same songs, worship the same God, revere the same heroes, and proudly carry forward the civilization and culture of the West. I am certain they believed this would be possible only in a nation whose majority people were the biological heirs to the creators of that culture and civilization.
My hopes for the land in which my descendants will live are no different from those of virtually every person who has ever lived anywhere. The idea that nothing will be lost if a founding population is replaced with aliens is a new disease that strikes only whites. Our Mexican neighbors would scoff at the notion that “diversity” is a strength or that millions of English-speaking, white-skinned immigrants were a form of “cultural enrichment.” They would be astonished at the idea of elevating to a position of power a gringa who claimed white women made better decisions than Mexican men. In all these things they could not be more natural, normal, or healthy. It is we who have betrayed the ideals of our ancestors and diced with our children’s future by opening the doors to dispossession.
Is dispossession too strong a word? Just visit Detroit or Miami or parts of Los Angeles. You will not find the civilization Jefferson or Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt thought they were building for their children. There are great swathes of America in which Spanish—or even Chinese—is the lingua franca, and where English-speakers are out of place. At the college down the road there are footbaths in the student union so Muslim immigrants can clean their feet before salaaming in the worship area they demanded be set aside for them. Washington’s and Jefferson’s names are being pulled down from public schools to be replaced with Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King.
I am not certain it is possible to salvage from the chaos immigration is bringing to this country a nation of which my grandchildren can even feel a part, much less be proud. But unless whites wake up from their stupor, unless they—like the white firemen of New Haven—realize they have legitimate rights as a group and are prepared to fight for them, they will be shoved aside by Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Haitians, and Muslims who have, in addition to very sharp elbows, a keen sense of their own interests.
It is certainly true that there are many group identifications besides race. Our deepest ties are to our families, and our loyalties expand in concentric and overlapping circles: clubs, friends, work groups, nationalities, even cities and states. But the largest group to which most people feel a natural loyalty is race. That is because race marks the limit of our extended families, and defines the group to which we are genetically closer than to any other.
Loyalties of this kind are not rational but they are no less powerful for this reason. I love my own children more than I love the children of strangers, not because they are objectively superior but because they are mine. No one disputes my right to this irrational loyalty—nor should they dispute my right to an equally irrational, equally deep and genetic loyalty to my extended family.
At the same time, though I make sacrifices for my own children that I would never make for the children of others, this implies no ill feeling for other children. I can even have great affection for other children but mine come first. It should not require pointing out that, in like manner, loyalty to a race or nation need imply no ill feeling for any other. I can admire and like the Chinese or the Watusi without wanting my own country or my own descendants to become Chinese or Watusi. They, in turn, have no desire to fill their countries with Europeans.
Mr. Raimondo seems to think only a Nazi could oppose miscegenation or care about the racial/ethnic composition of his country. I’m sure we can count on him to explain to Israelis who want a Jewish state, and to the many Jews and blacks who oppose inter-marriage that they are actually Nazis. And, of course, the many Americans who opposed what they called “amalgamation” and even passed laws to forbid it were all Nazis long before Nazism. The Japanese, who would rather invent clever robots than encourage immigrants, and the Mexicans who do not let non-citizens own property are no doubt Nazis, too. This is the sort of silliness that comes from thinking in clichés, from swallowing the mantras of liberal egalitarianism.
Mr. Raimondo seems to insist on looking at everything from a libertarian perspective so let us adopt one. Mr. Raimondo does not appear to understand that I am not proposing a state-enforced caste system; I want to dismantle the one we have, the one that turned the New Haven firemen into untouchables. Likewise, I have always stood for completely free association, and if someone wants to associate across racial lines that is his business. In 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation laws for the same reason I oppose them: healthy societies don’t need them.
Many doctrinaire libertarians think there should not even be immigration control. They argue that in an ideal world of private property each property owner could set his own immigration policy. Until that day comes, I am certainly not proposing an expansion of state power; merely a policy that preserves our heritage rather than devour it.
And what if, like Mr. Raimondo, we are to put libertarianism before the preservation of race or heritage? Perhaps he has not noticed that it is only whites who have even imagined an individualism as pure as libertarianism. How many non-white allies has he found in his battle against the state? Does he really think Mexicans and Africans will help him dismantle state power rather than seize it for their own purposes? By ignoring race Mr. Raimondo is ensuring the failure of what I take to be his most cherished project.
Where Mr. Raimondo and I most clearly part company is that I am in earnest about the survival of my people and their civilization. For that I apologize to no one. If Mr. Raimondo does not see the crisis, he has every right to enjoy his ignorance, but he joins forces with the very multi-culturalists he claims to oppose when he denies to whites an awareness of their group interests without which they are doomed to oblivion.
Such are the twists and turns of the most honest conservatives in this country. Twenty years ago, Taylor was writing books about how the welfare state really hurt blacks and how we should be kind to non-white peoples by cutting everyone off (with the assumption that somehow welfare was only for minorities), along with other posited remedies like sterilizing 'welfare mothers'. Jared just simply took his views on race and immigration to their logical extreme, which is where the right in this country and everywhere in the West is moving these days (much like their forebears in the eugenics movement in the 19th and early 20th century). I do not anticipate it getting better, either, but worse, a lot worse and soon. What we are seeing in the Park51-Islamic center/mosque "controversy" in New York City is a mere precursor of what conservatives in this country will be doing in the very near future, which is advocating and trying to use (when allowed) the power of the government to punish and restrict non-Christian religious practice, much in the same way they are trying to set up a system of internal passports for anyone who is Latino.
The next step in this game is what is happening in Europe, where open racism by the white population against non-white immigrants and non-whites in general is more accepted and widespread. This means that in the very near future, we can expect proposals to banish new immigration from Muslim majority countries, as well as most of Latin America, a ban or restrictions on the practice of Islam (headscarf ban in public schools, targeting minaret construction, etc.), which will culminate in state-sanctioned, wholesale rights-violations of non-white and especially Muslim immigrants in the US. I would not exclude the advocacy or attempted reintroduction of internment camps, particularly if there is another terrorist attack on our soil (couched in Orwellian language of "protecting" the people they want to see interned or worse). The same people who cry Communism and big government when it comes to anything that impacts them will transform into the kind of statists that Madison warned us against.
I hope I am wrong about all of this, but I do not think I am. The hardening and closing of the white mind, or the majority thereof (since I am white and do not have the political values and culture of most white people in this country), has begun (and has been under way in this country for at least the last few years). We are already to the point that the conservatives of the recent past, like ex-President Reagan, would look like a bleeding heart today. When Pat Buchanan ran for the Presidency in 1992, against then-President George H.W. Bush in the Republican primaries, he was attacked by his own party, including by people like William Bennett for being a "xenophobe" for advocating the construction of a fence along the US-Mexican border. We are to the point that even a supposedly black liberal-Maoist-Kenyan-Muslim is fulfilling what Buchanan wanted almost two decades ago (with little opposition--that is, unless you want to risk being called a Mexico lover). As 2050 arrives (year zero for the coming numerical minority in this country for peoples of European descent), it is only going to descend into more extreme language, expressed views of paranoia, that it will make Glenn Beck seem multiculturalist for desecrating the memory of Martin Luther King.