Registered: 1233384002 Posts: 2,465
Reply with quote #1
Thought I'd check in periodically to address the demographic replacement crisis in Europe. This is from the peerless Mad Monarchist about the fate of Sweden – which right now doesn't look good.
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-very-real-crisis-in-sweden.html#comment-form Sorry for quoting this in full:
After one remark by President Trump at a rally for his supporters, everyone is suddenly talking about the Kingdom of Sweden. Trump referred to a huge upsurge in violent crime and sexual assault since the Swedes opened their borders to massive waves of immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. The Swedish Prime Minister immediately said that this was a total fabrication, indeed, seemed shocked and bewildered that someone would make such an outlandish accusation. However, for those who have been keeping your ear to the ground, this was neither shocking nor anything new. In fact, Trump seemed to go overboard in making it sound like it should be hard to believe, that the peaceful, idyllic Kingdom of Sweden could be so beset by violence and social chaos. However, plenty of people have been pointing this out for quite some time, for about as long as this “refugee” crisis has been going on. Sweden is in a perilous state and the government would not be trying so hard to suppress information and retroactively scrub the statistics if everything was all cakes and ale in the land of the Swedes.
For a country with so small a population as Sweden, the amount of non-Swedish immigrants that have already been taken into the country is well beyond the point that the total extinction of the Swedish people has become inevitable in the long term barring drastic measures that most in modern, Western Europe today seem to view as unthinkably horrific, by which I mean mass-deportation of these people to their actual homelands (yes, I know, “the horror”) and that is something most seem unwilling to countenance. The Swedes, of course, would not be the first people to succumb to death by demographic drowning (see if you can find a Manchurian these days) but they do stand out in being so willing to sacrifice themselves and their descendants to oblivion. No one is forcing Sweden to do this. No one is holding a gun to their head. They are, as things stand, willingly allowing themselves to be displaced in their own homeland, willingly giving the land of their ancestors to the descendents of people from a foreign culture, a foreign religion, even foreign continents. That is rather unprecedented.
Some, I have noticed, seem to have no sympathy for the Swedes because of that, even holding them in contempt because of it. I am certainly not among them. Their plight may be their own fault but it is no less tragic in my mind for that. The majority in Sweden seem to have taken liberalism to its ultimate, unfortunate, conclusion and are embracing death purely for reasons of self-image. They seem to think it makes them morally superior to sacrifice themselves for the less fortunate peoples of other lands. That is not something to hate them for but rather something to pity. The Kingdom of Sweden is a part of the rich tapestry of western civilization and I do not wish to see the kingdom nor the Swedes themselves depart from the world. Evidently, saying that, makes yours truly quite an evil person in the eyes of many but so be it. Sweden is more to me than lines on a map. It is for that reason that the level of crime, while certainly terrible and worth talking about, is not finally the point.
In any talk about immigration or the “migrant crisis” or the “refugee crisis” you will usually hear a great deal about how it would all be okay if only the immigrants would, in this case, learn Swedish and adopt Swedish values and customs and assimilate into Swedish society. For me, that is ultimately irrelevant because Sweden is more to me than a language or a name on the map of Europe. As I have said before about France, Sweden, without Swedish people, would not be Sweden to me. There have been many changes in Sweden since the reign of King Eric the Victorious but the Swedish people have always been Swedish, not Arab or African or Pashtun and that is how I would wish it to stay. Such a sentiment should not be sufficient to warrant the label of “racism”. Has the world changed so much in my lifetime that wishing to preserve a people from extinction is “racist” rather than believing your own people are inherently superior to all others? It seems fantastic but, for many, it seems to be the case. Again, so be it.
There is, of course, little I can do about the matter other than what I already have done which is to make my opinion on the subject known. I have also tried, in the small way I can, and as I have done with others, to remind people of their own glorious past. To remind people, in this case Swedish people, that they are better than this current population of willing victims to demographic suicide. I admire the history and heroes of the Kingdom of Sweden, even if I would have been on opposite sides to some of them, for their great achievements. I have posted here before about
King Charles XII
, “the Last Viking”, about the
overseas, the brilliant
, “the father of field artillery”,
King Gustavus Adolphus
, “the Lion of the North”, the controversial
who caused such a splash in her own time, one of only three women to be buried in the crypt beneath St Peter’s Basilica in Rome and
King Sigismund III
of Poland who dominated Eastern Europe and, for a time, was also King of Sweden. The blood that flows through the veins of Swedes today is no different than that which flowed through the people who dominated northern Europe, made the Baltic a Swedish lake and left their mark on far distant shores.
I hope that the Swedes awake from this nightmare because I don’t want to see the people of Sweden become extinct. The problem is that the longer they wait, the harder it will be to set things right again and it should be of serious concern to people in Sweden that they do not suppress their natural patriotic impulse to the point that drastic solutions become the only possible solutions. That point is rapidly approaching and it is dangerous to ignore it and not, I should add, primarily for the Swedes alone. The only thing more dangerous to them, as a people, is ignoring the problem indefinitely. I want the Swedes to survive, they are a vital part of the tapestry of Europe and western civilization. They are, as I have tried to show in these pages, a great people with a glorious history of fantastic achievements. I do not consider the Swedes expendable or replaceable. It should also go without saying that a key component of this is the Swedish monarchy. Like Sweden itself, I have seen far too many take an ambivalent attitude toward the Swedish monarchy. I am certainly not among them, regardless of the fact that I have no doubt that they would not wish someone so, let us say, ‘politically incorrect’ as myself, as a supporter.
Just as I am unwilling to give up on the Swedes, so too am I unwilling to surrender on the subject of the monarchy. Yes, it would be nice if the Swedish royals themselves were standing up for their people but this is a totally unrealistic expectation. For one thing, as I have said of many other royals, they have been raised to think in much the same way as most people in Sweden have been raised to think. They have no actual political power to effect change, one way or the other, and given how biased and dishonest the mainstream media is, all around the world, they may not even be aware of the full extent of what is going on in their country. If the Swedish royals did speak up in defense of their own people, they would certainly be swiftly denounced and, given current voting patterns, would most likely lose everything they have and all to no effect. Giving up everything in return for nothing is hardly a brilliant move.
I view the Swedish royals as being not far removed from hostages at this point. They are under the power of their captors with a sword of Damocles constantly hanging over their heads. Monarchists who feel no support or sympathy for the Swedish royals because they do not think as you do would be well advised to keep in mind what sort of people you would be making common cause with by opposing them. The Swedish Republican Association, while having some members from what passes for the “conservative” right, is largely dominated by Social Democrats and open-borders globalists. They even considered changing their name in years past for fear of being associated with American Republicans like Sarah Palin. Their Secretary-General, in 2010, Mona Abou-Jeib Broshammar is a native of Lebanon with a Syrian father and Swedish mother. Her father evidently fled Syria for Lebanon and then the family fled Lebanon, due to the war there, for the Kingdom of Sweden. Yet, two failed republics in her own family background has not dissuaded Ms. Broshammar from campaigning to bring republicanism to Sweden.
The Swedish republicans have not hesitated to blast their enemies as racists and to use race as well as “multiculturalism” as a propaganda tool for their own goal of bringing down the Swedish monarchy, the cornerstone of the traditional cultural heritage of Sweden. When President Obama was elected in the United States, the Swedish republicans seized on his widespread popularity in Western Europe to promote their own cause. They put out an ad campaign changing Obama’s slogan of “Yes We Can” to “No We Can’t”, lamenting that Sweden could never have a Black President like those lucky Americans as long as they have that stuffy, old monarchy with its boring, White Swedish Royal Family. Sweden could, of course, have a Black monarch someday, if the proper choices of spouse are made, but then he wouldn’t really be a “Swedish” monarch anymore than a blue-eyed White guy with sandy brown hair could ever really be a “Japanese” emperor even if by some extremely unprecedented marriage arrangements such an heir to the Chrysanthemum Throne was produced. But, all of that would take too long anyway. The Swedish republicans were trying to seize on a moment when it seemed so ‘cool’ and so progressive to have a Black Head of State in a majority White country. Their ad campaign no doubt turned a lot of heads but it did not ultimately bring down the Swedish monarchy in favor of an African presidency. Nonetheless, they made it perfectly clear as to where they stand, not only on their opposition to the monarchy but also on their position that Sweden is just too Swedish to be a really ‘great’ country (though they may not want to be great either as I think Trump has tainted that term for them).
We tend to forget but should not, that even though they rarely make anything of it, practically all the leftist parties in Sweden contain in their programs the ultimate abolition of the monarchy and these are the same people of the same parties who are the ones doing their best to replace the native Swedes with a totally foreign population. This is something that should not be allowed and all I can do is to implore the people of Sweden to come back to reality before it is truly too late and there are no more Swedes in Sweden. I want Sweden to survive. I want Swedes to remember who they are and be proud of their great achievements, be proud of their people and history, to carry on so that their culture is not something to be seen only in isolated pockets of the American Midwest or like a carcass on display in a museum. Read some of the past posts linked to above and remember that you have the same blood in your veins as the people who accomplished all of those great deeds. Do not forget who you are, where you came from and what you are capable of.
Sverige Vakna! <END> Alright comrades, as you were. Save __________________ "For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France "[WWII] would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany." - Winston Churchill
Registered: 1226652036 Posts: 2,545
Reply with quote #2
From 'The Spectator' last year:
It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men… Sweden’s record is shameful It took days for police to acknowledge the extent of the mass attacks on women celebrating New Year’s Eve in Cologne. The Germans were lucky; in Sweden, similar attacks have been taking place for more than a year and the authorities are still playing catch up. Only now is the truth emerging, both about the attacks and the cover-ups. Stefan Löfven, our Prime Minister, has denounced a ‘double betrayal’ of women and has promised an investigation. But he ought to be asking this: what made the police and even journalists cover up the truth? Read the entire article here: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/not-germany-covers-mass-sex-attacks-migrant-men-swedens-record-shameful/ __________________ 'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 839
Reply with quote #3
What happened in Sweden is indeed scandalous. But I have little sympathy for far-right bliggers which call for atrocities like deporting entire religious groups either - it seems like the MadMonarchist and other reactionaries on the internet are very shocked when terrible things happen to Europeans but feel completely confortable doing horrible things to Muslims.
Also, let's get into some facts here, as that's probably more productive than having a big normative debate about this. The MadMonarchist repeatedly claims that the total extinction of the Swedish people has become inevitable in the long run due to them having taken in so many migrants. Poonocrates, you say this is an example of a demographic replacement crisis. If so, can you produce some numbers about that? Wikipedia suggests there are about 500.000 Muslims in a coutry of almost ten million people (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden). That's less than six per cent of the population - enough to create plent of cultural problems perhaps, but hardly something that makes 'extinction' inevitable. Birth rates are probably higher among Muslims than among native Swedes, but if it is anything like here in the Netherlands there are little Muslims walking around with four or five children. But I would be interested in having some exact numbers about the birth rate differences in Sweden as I wasn't able to find any in a quick search online, and perhaps you can make me stand corrected. For now I see some very big claims but little hard numbers.
Registered: 1233384002 Posts: 2,465
Reply with quote #4
18.3 percent are foreign born.
This isn't just Islam, Dutch. I think the Mad Monarchist made that clear. It's Sweden for the Swedes. I think it's a natural instinct for people to try to preserve their own for themselves and their posterity. I see nothing noble in giving this up, just as I expect everyone in the world to try to do the same for themselves. Healthier peoples do this. Decadent peoples don't. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/15/immigrant-share-of-population-jumps-in-some-european-countries/ __________________ "For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France "[WWII] would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany." - Winston Churchill
Registered: 1233384002 Posts: 2,465
Reply with quote #5
In good fun.
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun, where the hot springs flow The hammer of the gods W'ell drive our ships to new lands To fight the horde, and sing and cry Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow How soft your fields so green Can whisper tales of gore Of how we calmed the tides of war We are your overlords
On we sweep with threshing oarSo now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins
Our only goal will be the western shore For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing __________________ "For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France "[WWII] would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany." - Winston Churchill
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 839
Reply with quote #6
Ponocrates, I think the text of the MadMonarchist makes it clear he is talking about people from foreign religions, continents and cultures. So, if you say this is not just about Muslims, what other groups in Sweden are you talking about that meet this definition?
The 18.3% of the population you mention seems to include all the Norwegian, Finnish and Danish people that live just across the Swedish borders, have married to a Swedish person and/or work in Sweden. That certainly does not qualify as being from a different religion or continent (and I would argue it's not that much of a different culture either, although that is more debatable). Is this the kind of phenomenon that you consider a problem? Such migration has always taken place in Europe (people also moved to the Netherlands constantly from Germany for work, for example), so it doesn't seem very traditionalist to have strong objections to that. Nor do these people seem to clash with the native Swedes in any way. The only thing that's new and the only thing that seems to create problems is the migration from other continents. So again there's my question to you: how much more than the 6% Muslims is this? Concerning your other point: thinking about your own people first is not that much of a problem for me, just like I think it's perfectly fine that people take good care of themselves first in life. But that doesn't mean I approve of committing crimes to advance yourself. Looking after yourself first is one thing; violating others to further what you consider your own interest is another. What you seem to want - assuming you agree with the MadMonarchist on that as you copied his text - seems quite heinous to me. Think about what it would mean to deport all Muslims from Sweden. Increasingly, Muslims are being born in Sweden, raised in Sweden and live their whole life in Sweden. You would want to take them away from their houses, schools, jobs and friends to put them in some country where their ancestors came from and which they may not even have seen in their life? To wrap up this post (I realize it has gotten rather long), you say that you would not mind other people looking after their own people in the same way as you suggest should be done in Europe. In that case, would you be comfortable with all whites being deported from South Africa, or all Christians being deported from Egypt?
Registered: 1262548452 Posts: 361
Reply with quote #7
Thanks for all of the information posted above.
The author of the article seems to be attributing the Swedish welcome of immigrants to altruism on their part, and a desire to aid refugees from overseas, even at the expense of their own culture. This is probably accurate, but I don't think it's the only motivation for the Swedish welcome accorded to refugees and immigrants. I believe that there are economic motivations as well, which are just as important, maybe more important, than Swedish altruism. Without large-scale, continuous immigration from overseas, the Swedish people will have to be willing to take over the low-paid jobs that have for the past generation or two been done by immigrant laborers. These include janitorial work, manual labor, warehouse workers, factory assembly-line work, food-service work, domestic service work, health-aides, security-guards, cashiers, agricultural field-workers and migrant laborers,and a multitude of other drudgery-type jobs that are unskilled but still absolutely necessary to Swedish society. If these jobs were being done by native-born Swedes, certainly the pay and benefits would inevitably have to rise, but they would still be working-class jobs, without the prestige of the careers that I imagine most native Swedish young people are aspiring to. Swedish employers presently doubtless appreciate the low-paid labor cost that the large pool of immigrant labor provides. The cost to employers (in higher wages) will rise considerably if they must hire and employ a native-born Swedish workforce for unskilled occupations. Employers have always wanted to make the greatest profit possible, with the least expense. They will inevitably pass on as much as possible of the increased labor costs to the Swedish people, and the cost of food, homes, and all sorts of consumer goods will rise. The middleclass, who make up the bulk of the Swedish population, will have to be willing to accept this increased cost of living, just as employers (the upperclass) will have to accept a lower profit margin for themselves. The Swedish native birthrate (which I believe is now quite low, below replacement level) will have to rise to compensate for the lack of immigrants coming into the country. This means that Swedish families would have to raise at least 2 or 3 children, with all of the enormous additional investments in time, effort, labor, financial resources, etc. that would bring, just to maintain a self-sustaining population. They will have to forsake the annual vacations, trips to the beach, cruises, overseas travel, spacious homes & yards filled with expensive household accoutrements. In most cases, all but the most affluent Swedish parents, and especially women, would have to forgo some of their career aspirations, and focus on mundane, child-rearing duties. Were these changes in the typical middleclass Swedish lifestyle to come about, there would be some benefits to society, and Sweden would become a stronger, more self-sufficient and reliant nation, as well as preserving the traditional Swedish culture.But I imagine that the native-born Swedish people have grown accustomed to the comfortable middleclass, moderately affluent type of lifestyles that have come into being over the past 60 or so years. They would have to make some fundamental adjustments to that lifestyle if they wish to limit immigration. Actions speak louder than words, and I'm not sure that most of the Swedish people would be willing to accept these changes. __________________ Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 839
Reply with quote #8
Windemere, I think the accuracy of what you are saying depends on what kind of migrant groups we are talking about. Concerning the Islamic minorities in Europe there is a lot of unemployment - for example, people of Moroccan descent are very much over-represented in social benefits in the Netherlands. So I'm not sure if letting these groups come to Europe has really contributed all that much economically.
On the other hand, if you are talking about Eastern European migrants, almost all of them seem to have work, and indeed that work is usually the lower paid jobs. Another big difference is that these groups tend to go back to their home country more often.
Registered: 1403955979 Posts: 1,044
Reply with quote #9
I'm not sure it is traditionalist to welcome mass immigration from neighbouring countries. That seems to be something from the last century or two. A traditionalist cannot welcome mass immigration, as that means uprooting settled communities and ways of life, which are one of the central concerns for the traditionalist. Heck, a traditionalist would hardly cheer on massive internal migration and mobility.
I'm also not quite sure that peaceful repatriation is a crime, per se. It is extreme, of course. I found the Mad Monarchist's post very interesting. It does raise some questions though. There is the issue of just how much we owe to our fellow countrymen versus what we owe to strangers. Also, there is the issue of what it means to be Swedish. The Mad Monarchist seems to imply both racial and a cultural aspects of Swedishness, but he doesn't spell out just how he understands it. Many contemporary Swedes think of being Swedish in a very different light than they would a few centuries ago. You'd need some more definite idea of Swedishness to really build on the points he makes.
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 839
Reply with quote #10
Wessexman, I don't think migration between neighboring countries is something of the last two centuries at all in mainland Europe. For example, lots of people from the Germany came to the Netherlands to work during the golden age, protestants from southern Europe came to us in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, and so forth.
I'm less sure about the UK though, and of course I don't mean to suggest in any way that this is comparable to mass migration from the Islamic world. It was a response to the point of Ponocrates that the 20% non-natives in Sweden suggests that country's population could be getting extinct. The number even includes people from other parts of Scandinavia that used to belong to Sweden. These people are not going to contribute to demographic replacement anymore than people from Ireland are in the UK. Repatriation could perhaps be peaceful on a gradual and small scale, but on a large scale it could never be. Most Muslims in Europe will never move to a poorer and less safe part of the world willingly - it would only be possible with bloody force. I think I do agree with the Madmonarchist that being of a European nationality can have several dimensions, including language, norms and religion. The problematic part for me is the 'solutions' part - the idea that you can just force people to leave the place where you live after you've let them in and given them a passport.
Registered: 1403955979 Posts: 1,044
Reply with quote #11
Certainly, there has been immigration in the past, but it has been far from all good in its consequences. Whether it was forced or peaceful, it was often disruptive, socially and culturally. The traditionalist doesn't want complete lack of movement, but he values rooted communities and stability, and is cautious about all migration. Indeed, this goes even for internal migration and mobility. The English traditionalist regrets the high levels of movement, and abandonment of the countryside, seen within England. The traditionalist will think it best if most, though not all, live and die in the same local community they were born in, preferably the same one in which their ancestors did as well.
I think the Monday Club used to advocate voluntary repatriation. I think the idea was to offer inducements. I think you could also emphasis assimilation, which would make those less open to taking on their host state's culture more willing to leave. I am not sure I would back repatriation, though I am not entirely opposed to the idea that someone who hasn't assimilated isn't quite as much English (or whatever) than one who takes on the native culture. But repatriation might be able to be done without real bloodshed. I think a lot more work needs to be done by those arguing like Mad Monarchist on just what it Swedishness means, though. I am not opposed to all ethnic and racial aspects of identity here, but I wouldn't want it to be the main criteria. And if cultural and social factors are to be the main ones, that opens up a whole lot of issues that need sorting out.
Registered: 1233384002 Posts: 2,465
Reply with quote #12
Originally Posted by
DM What you seem to want - assuming you agree with the MadMonarchist on that as you copied his text - seems quite heinous to me. My simple take on DutchMonarchist from many interactions in the past is that he is an apologist for globalism. He loves the EU. He mostly excuses the immigration crisis of the last two years or softens its effects. I don't sense that he cares deeply for the continuity of peoples and traditions in Europe. This is what I mean by decadence. To Windemere, if the Swedes are willing to sign over their patrimony for a comfortable middle class lifestyle for their own generation – then let's agree to call that a disgrace and unworthy of their ancestors or posterity. They should try reflecting on their weakness and cowardice and not try to dress it up as virtue. They are pathetic and contemptible. Mostly agree with what Wessexman has written about this. __________________ "For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France "[WWII] would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany." - Winston Churchill
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,754
Reply with quote #13
The personal attack on DutchMonarchist does not help the debate. It is perfectly possible to feel at one and the same time that allowing the immigration of large numbers of people of an alien and inimical culture and faith was foolish and wrong, and that compulsory mass repatriation of those people would be inhumane and wrong. The question then is how you go forward from where you are without committing further wrongs. My starting point certainly would be not forced assimilation of the new population, but a firm insistence that while their culture will be respected so must the host culture be, and its norms and laws observed.
What happened after WWII and to a lesser extent WWI, which amounted to the ethnic cleansing (though I don't think the term had been coined then) of countries of historically mixed culture and race, expelling millions from their homelands where their ancestors had been, in some cases, literally since time immemorial, was a shame, a blot and a disgrace on the victors in those conflicts. The persecution and frequent expulsions of anciently settled Jewish populations that occurred throughout the history of Christian Europe were a disgrace to the Christian faith. Among the many abominable acts of Stalinist Russia were frequent mass expulsions of whole nations of people from their ancient homelands. There may not be the same ancientry about this latest wave of immigration, but I am not willing to see anything happen that in any way resembles those actions of the past. As DM said, if you admit people to your country, give them a passport and make them citizens then they are citizens, with the same rights as any other. You're worried about the social impact of the new population? Perfectly understandable. Now find a solution, but one that is not exclusionary, racist, wicked and cruel. And also one that does not involve hysterical alarmism about native culture being extirpated by what is still a minority, even if a substantial and fairly recently-arrived one. As recently as the 19th century Catholics were prohibited from entering Sweden, and Swedes who converted were subject to confiscation of property and permanent exile. I wonder whether MM feels that Swedes should resume this part of their traditional culture also? Or does he, for once, feel that the despised liberalism did something good in this particular case?
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 839
Reply with quote #14
Ponocrates, like Peter I am also sorry that you feel the need to make a personal attack. I was simply trying to have a debate about this matter. I hope it was a one time thing and that we can continue to have more friendly conversations about this and other topics in the future. No hard feelings from my side.
I do care for the traditions of Europe. From my perspective, it is the most extreme forms of anti-immigrant attitudes that go against those traditions, especially when it even starts including people from very similar cultures and religions. When I read such posts from the MadMonarchist or others it certainly seems that they even mind people moving between similar countries. This is not always spelled out explicitly, but it is certainly suggested since such migrants are a good share of the 20% born abroad living in Sweden (and in another recent post the MadMonarchist spoke about the King of Sweden removing all non-ethnic Swedes from the country, although that was fake news so perhaps he was exaggerating). It seems clear to me that Scandinavians, Germans and the like who go to work or marry in Sweden are clearly not 'threatening' to replace anyone at all. Germans who have moved to the Netherlands have assimilated perfectly over the centuries. Although I will admit, in response to Wessexman, that it was probably wrong of me to suggest that traditionalists should support such migration.
Registered: 1403955979 Posts: 1,044
Reply with quote #15
I too value DutchMonarchist as a contributor here.
Anyway, I do think to rule out anything exclusionary is a bit much. Obviously, that term can mean many things, but I, for one, don't think it wrong that the government align itself with a particular cultural and social identity - the one native to the country. This doesn't have to mean giving less legal rights to newcomers. To (mis)use the Aristotelian terminology, in their essence anyone who is a citizen is as much an Englishman as anyone else. In this sense all are equal. But if someone hardly speaks English and has taken on little of English culture, then their Englishness seems much more potential (in potency) than actual to me. I don't see why it would be wrong to consider them, in this sense, less English than someone who had embraced, or been brought up in, the culture. I don't even see why it would be wrong for the state recognise this distinction between English culture and identity and foreign ones, even though some would consider it exclusionary. Again this need not mean any difference in legal rights. It could be as little as the state itself being enthused with native English culture and history. It is obviously contemporary left-liberal orthodoxy (and perhaps some forms of classical liberalism might echo it, on slightly different lines) that the state not act in this way, but I don't see why we need accept this orthodoxy. Indeed, I suspect it not healthy, especially today when the state is so important in our society, for a state to try and abstract away all cultural supports, as if it could exist as some abstraction and still bind men together in any proper way. An example of this, beyond the usual multicultural silliness, is the infamous neocon idea that America is a nation of ideas. I think Pat Buchanan and the paleocons were right here. Or, as Russell Kirk put it, take away the British and colonial history, culture, and institutions and you take away the very glue that forms America into one nation, whatever pious nonsense is spoken about democracy, equality, and freedom.