One comes across, from time to time, the argument that Muslims are being treated today as the Jews were being treated prior to the Second World War.
To me it is obvious that the comparison between Muslims in Western Europe today and Jews in 1930’s Germany is not valid. In the 1930’s, it was claimed that Jews produced decadent and corruptive art, literature, culture. In other words, Jews were often among the elite of modern art, literature, philosophy, and so on. It is a question of an elite influencing the masses.
With Muslims today it is a question of the right to a national culture vs. state-funded multiculture, or an artificial identity based on “civic” nationalism. Muslims do not attempt to corrupt indigenous cultures in Europe, they hardly influence or take part in them at all. They either confine themselves to segragated little caliphates, or alternatively, they share in the American-produced globoculture, adopting mass-produced pop-idols like 50 cent as their guiding role models. Either option affects national culture as we nationalists see it very little. Thus, its a question of physical space, colonization, numbers, quantity. When an Arab girl living in Sweden’s second largest city, Malmö, says that she likes it there because it is “like any other arab country,” chances are Swedes living in Malmö cannot help but wonder, where their country disappeared.
Where are we [indigenous Europeans] supposed to be socialized into our own cultures? We aren’t. We have no culture. We are culturally neutral, ready to be molded to suit the demands of any globalist project our leaders come up with. We are the ones stuck with the bill. I’ll try to explain.
The Swedish state [and established socio-political elite] does not support Swedish culture, it actively undermines it, as is the case with most ex-nation-states of Europe. Why? In the name of integration, in the name of creating a new identity for those who inhabit the territory confined for now by the borders of the Swedish state. In the name of these things, our old ethnic identities are being undermined.
For me its not a question of whether or not Ahmed goes to work and contributes to society and refrains from raping Finnish women, its a question of when did we turn away from the core idea of the nation state that is at the foundation of our country? I don’t recall such a debate, for there has never been one. The issue has been made into one of tolerance vs. racism, good vs. evil. The concepts have been directly imported from America and can thus only be seen as an American import into Europe. I don’t think its a coincidence that this type of thinking is most advanced in Britain, which is part of the Anglosphere, and is most vigorously enforced in Germany, which has a strong tradition of anti-liberalism and as a cultural counter-weight to Anglophilia.
Early Swedish Social Democrats realized the benefit of a small culturally homogenous population. Such circumstances as prevailed in Sweden only some decades ago were ideal for the establishment of the Folkhemmet, or “the peoples’ home,” the much praised “Swedish” or “Nordic” model.
From the pragmatic point of view, the loss of trust in society, in your very neighbours, signals the collapse of such a model. Multiethnic societies are less cohesive and distrustful, with ever looming violence simmering beneath the surface. From the ideological point of view, we’ve abandoned the ideal of the nation-state, or rather, the ideal that created the nation-state. That ideal is a national homeland ruled by the nation for the benefit of the nation, and it is an ideal that I defend. No amount of newspeak and labels can shroud that fact.
