Before I get to the main subject matter here, I’ll just say I hope everyone out there is well and that you are staying away from the dread virus (which must not be called by an ethnic name). Truly, readers, I hope you and yours are staying healthy.
A short while ago I wrote a piece about the state of ethnic consciousness in Sweden, after seeing a dismaying article in which some Swedish spokesman said that there was no Swedish identity, or words to that effect.
I just happened across a book published some 10 years ago by an American-born anthropologist or archaeologist in Sweden, Noel Broadbent. The book deals with the ethnic minority Sami or ‘Lapp’ people in Sweden, and the relations between the indigenous Sami and the Swedish people.
I have not gotten to the gist of the book yet, but parts of the Foreword and Preface provoked some thoughts. My experiences from my reading, and from meeting people from Sweden left me with the impression that years ago, Sweden had years ago succumbed to a self-abnegating attitude towards their own ethnic identity and culture, as witnessed by the fact that they seem to have adopted a kind of ethnic/cultural suicide pact. I know the average liberal/leftist or ‘progressive’ objects strongly to that kind of assessment of their policies and beliefs, protesting that they are simply “tolerant, open, and welcoming” or other such buzzwords signalling their multicult virtue.
Maybe this stems from their guilt about being the dominant group vs. the childlike indigenous population. The guilt is about having surpassed or outpaced the indigenous people. If ”equality” is your ever-elusive ideal, it makes you a little bit — or a lot — crazy, because equality can never be truly achieved. You cannot remake people and engineer a society of absolute equals — not in a world of disparate peoples and not without constant adjustment or coercion. Reality gets in the way. Mother Nature interferes.
The strange thing is that Sweden, according to the writer of the book’s foreword, was still too ”ethnocentric” according to the writer of the foreword, in 2010 — yet we know that Sweden was already compromised, and committed to a globalist, multicultural society long before that, as witness their demographic choices. I suppose it’s like in the old Soviet Union, where they won’t stop until the perfect socialist society exists.
But how can it be healthy for a people to reject their own culture and history, choosing self-criticism and condemnation where more positive assessments ought to prevail? After all, isn’t it the hardshell left the place of origin for the pop-psychology belief in the gospel of ”self-esteem”,”positive self-talk” and self-love? Where is the self-love amongst the left now? They marinate themselves in guilt and demand that the rest of us do likewise, wearing sackcloth for the sins of our ancestors, mainly their sin of being too successful, too strong, while the left fusses over the ‘victim’ groups, pitying them as helpless children who have to be spoon-fed and led by the hand and told what to think. The people who are in charge are overcome with paternalistic feelings towards the ‘wretched of the earth’ or, more accurately, maternalistic feeling, because most Western leftist countries are run, more or less, by Nice White Lady Leaders who want to coddle all those they see as victim-children.
Scandinavia as a whole is, I believe, dominated by young, unmarred women leaders who govern like overbearingly-nice kindergarten teachers with children in tow.
Be that as it may, the dominant liberal ideas developed decades ago, in the days of Swedish sociologist/economist Gunnar Myrdal, who became for some reason the best-known “race analyst”, mostly a critic of American racial attitudes, even though being Swedish-born he had little first-hand experience of the subject. His professional experience was mostly in Europe and in the U.N., which, though sited in the U.S., is hardly representative of American life and culture. Nevertheless he gained a name as the expert on racial attitudes and relations in America, writing a book called The American Dilemma: The Negro [sic] Problem in Modern Democracy, with Myrdal ultimately being awarded a Nobel Prize. The book had a considerable impact among the ‘intelligentsia’ obviously, and it was required reading for college students well into the 1970s, when it was required for my sociology class.
The effect on our country’s racial policies was noticeable; during the Cold War era, this country became obsessed with trying to outdo the Soviet Union in courting minorities; we’ve all heard of the Space Race in which the USSR and the U.S. vied to be the first into space, and the first to land on the moon, but then there was the Race Race, wherein the USSR ostentatiously courted African students, setting up a special university for them in Russia. That was the era of Lumumba University,named after a Congolese nationalist leader. The Communist bloc countries wanted to display that they were more ‘tolerant’ and unprejudiced than the Western countries and the U.S. seemed willing to enter into a propaganda competition with the Eastern bloc countries, thus leaning more and more to the left in order to win an improved image among the communist countries. This is in part what took the U.S. down the path of catering to the ‘victim’ groups, thus adopting more of the ”Culture of Critique”, Frankfurt School political correctness. Entering into the more-PC-than-thou competition was a fateful choice for this country.
The liberal Western European countries, especially Sweden, seemed to go all-in for this approach. Sweden became known by the 1960s as the most sexually permissive of countries, and by the mid-1960s was also known as a country which welcomed American draft-dodgers and deserters. Many of those who took advantage of the Swedish welcome-mat for anti-war activists were soldiers or draftees ‘of color’. While there were laws against miscegeny in America until about 1967, Sweden had no such laws. This may also have encouraged liberal politicians in the U.S. to drop those laws against intermarriage, so that Sweden’s tolerance might not make us ”look bad” by comparison.
Sweden and the Soviet Union, among others, exerted a lot of influence on our social policies, especially those regarding race and ethnicity. Our country, being far too image-conscious, and wanting to present a more ‘tolerant’ image to the world, in comparison with the USSR, was willing to ‘cave’ too easily.
Gunnar Myrdal appears to have been one of those do-gooders who was sure he was on the ”side of the Angels”, believing that self-sacrifice and self-effacement constitutes the moral high ground, while wanting to preserve one’s heritage and traditions — and one’s genetics — is seen in today’s upside-down world as selfish and bigoted. People would rather go extinct than be ”bigoted” or (gasp!) “hateful.” But is it wrong or ”hateful” to want to have a country, a nation, a folk? If so, why?
Is today’s confused (and dangerous) Sweden the better for having chosen that path? Bizarrely, some still cling to their ideas despite the chaos and disorder in their country.
And what about the UK, which has (so far) tolerated ‘grooming gangs’ and sporadic terror attacks, rather than say ”no” to open borders and second-class citizenship in the UK?
Not to mention the U.S.: how are we doing, especially we of old-stock Anglo background?
Is today’s Sweden better for having chosen the path it is obviously choosing?