There is a rising tide of aggressive anti-Semitism in Europe. This primarily comes from Muslim youth. In cities like Malmo, Paris and London, Jewish religious life is coming under attack by Muslim youth. I do not think this is acute conflict, but at least Jews are not as well-protected as before.
The Jewish establishment have always pushed for new laws to protect their interests but now, when there millions of Muslims and Africans in Europe it is not as easy as before. Muslims and Africans are quite difficult to blame, because that would undermine the elitist notion that immigration is “always good and always provides economic and cultural value” to the West. The only way for the politicians to protect the society is to establish new departments that control public opinion and increase surveillance and law enforcement. Their hope is that the conflicts arising from multiculturalism are manageable. They will not change immigration policy.
Last night there was a large debate between the leaders of the eight parties in the Swedish Parliament. It was only the Swedish Democrats that wanted to lower the immigration levels (by 90 percent). The conservative, liberals and socialist parties wanted no change in policy and the Green Party said they wanted a policy of more open borders. The key argument from the establishment was “humanism”, “anti-racism”, “human rights” and that these immigrants will soon show that they are an asset to the Sweden. They also told stories about poor Somali children. It was quite extraordinary that they could not put forth any empirical argument, but relied instead on moral exhortations.
But much more are on stake now. Sweden has taken in two million immigrants since 1975 and now at least twenty percent of the population is non-European. Crime rates are rising and whole municipalities are now at least partly controlled by foreigners. The state spends billions just to keep things running smoothly on the surface but schools, hospitals and police are on their knees. The conservative government ran on a pledge to lower taxes in the elections of 2006 and 2010. Now they must indirectly raise taxes just to keep up with the failed immigration policy. Some scholars have pointed out that one fourth of the public budget goes straight into the immigration industry. Immigrants are using hospitals, committing crimes at higher rates, live fully or partly on welfare (half of them if not more), are unemployed, and are addicted to a variety of other social programs.
A couple of years ago, the Swedish government lowered immigration from Somalia. Somalis have a 90 percent unemployment rate and the crime rate it off the charts. They are very difficult to assimilate or “integrate” (to use the term favored by the Swedish establishment). After heavy lobbying from the media and identity politics organizations, has now decided to grant all Somalis asylum or residency. That means that Sweden has a completely open border policy when it comes to Somalia.
Many people are getting worried. Even the Prime Minister observed it at the debate last night that “it all will just be fine.” Two or three months ago some municipalities (financing of welfare is decentralized to municipalities) stated that they were not able to take in more refugees, especially not Somalis. They cannot afford it without saying to the voters in the upcoming election in 2014 that they have to cut down libraries, swimming pools, school teachers and municipal government workers. The State sent some money – but it will not be enough. Financial issues related to the costs of immigration are on the minds of the elites and the people. The municipality of Borlänge noted in a policy document that at least 50 percent of adult Somalis are illiterate. They also concluded that most of the Somalis in Borlänge will never enter the workforce. Nevertheless, these and many more municipalities will continue to take all these people. Because of the burden of immigration the more well-off municipalities use every way possible not take any responsibility for these immigrants. The conservatives refuse to change the law to force them to – why? They would quickly lose all support. Now, the socialists who run the municipalities are buying up castles (not a joke), large estates (not a joke) in order to remake them into apartments for immigrants. They also buy large private homes in well-off communities for large immigrant families to live there rent free.
The Swedish elites are afraid. The mainstream media have made it impossible to put comments under online articles. They use all their powers and there a lot of propaganda for multiculturalism and free immigration. The largest media companies are also lobbying heavily for abolishing civil rights.
But something is happening pretty rapidly now. The middle class are waking up. You see it at the University and at private and public institutions. You notice it in your family and among your friends. There are actually normal people who are quite critical of current immigration policy. Before it was the working class that first protested immigration and multiculturalism. Now it has become more common among the middle class. What I have also seen is that people working for the government are worried. Before it has been social workers, nurses, teachers, police and doctors — people on the frontline that have seen all the mess. Now, even the statisticians, investigators, public officers, clerks and other administrators see what is going on. People in the private sector are also wondering what is going on just by looking out the window.
Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki are now infested by gypsy beggars from Romania and Bulgaria. You see Africans taking over the drug trade, exploiting White misery. You see Yugoslavian, Russian, Albanian and Syrian Mafia control restaurants. You see Muslim fundamentalism taking place right on the streets of Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki, at currency exchange offices and small banks. You see organized crime on the street and the police do nothing. In the upcoming election, the Green Party will run on a platform of lower funding for police. They are the third largest party in Sweden and are rising.
Currently part of the elites has tried to direct public anger on Muslims. This neo-conservative tactic has been reasonably successful. A couple of years ago a lot of nationalists in Europe seem to have taken it to heart and pushed for support for Israel and American intervention. This has been the case for the Swedish Democrats – where two Jewish brothers together with a couple of Christian Zionists have pushed the discourse into hating Muslims because of their religion. The terrorist act of Anders Breivik changed things; it is not as easy anymore to be Islamophobic. The elites have also discovered that they will gain little support for it. Sweden had a version of EDL, but it never grew beyond a few members.
There is a new star on the Swedish Internet scene. A couple of years ago, Widar Nord, a former IT consultant, established his own online paper. He came from the libertarian camp but was quite critical of typical libertarian attitudes on immigration policy, their pro-Israeli views, and their lack of nationalism. His idea was to present an anti-establishment nationalist, paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative fast-paced news site. Until his arrival on the scene, most of the anti-establishment opinion came from Politically Incorrect, a site close to the Swedish Democrats. It was strictly a counter-Jihad blog. Later it turned into Avpixlat. Both Avpixlat and Politically Incorrect are quite similar to the American Jihad Watch blog run by Robert Spencer.
Widar named his site Fria Tider (Free Times). It quickly became a success, rising to among the 200–300 most visited sites in Sweden. Because of not following the Counter-Jihad ideology it was pushed out – though it continued to grow. Now it is the 56th most popular site in Sweden (approximately as popular as Avpixlat and the 9th largest newspaper in Sweden on the Internet).
Fria Tider is successful because
1) They publish fast pace news.
2) They report what the MSM does not report, especially on the costs of multiculturalism. For example, this article deals with claims of sexual harassment of Swedish girls by immigrant youth. There are many articles on immigrant crime.
3) They post articles from famous paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and classical Marxists. Paul Gottfried has appeared there.
4) They are critical of Israel and the establishment;
5) They publish their own material. Just an hour ago they published an article about 9/11 and its connection to Israel;
6) They write about culture, economics, society, technology and many other things.
This is done with a quite low budget and freelance writers that do much for free or for a very low fee. These guys have no problems writing about race, traditionalism and many other subjects that are taboo. The difference between Fria Tider and “White nationalist”, “traditionalist” or “Counter-Jihad” sites is that Fria Tider does not “work” for anything. They have no explicit political agenda other than to publish free news from alternative perspectives. This explains also how difficult it will be for the establishments to push Fria Tider down. Media and anti-racist organizations have tried to do so, but have poured most of their energy into attacking Avpixlat because of its connection to the Swedish Democrats.
A couple of weeks ago – The nationalists took control over the Swedish Democratic Youth – so things are changing here.
Elite Ideologies—Flexible in the Face of Multiculturalism: Immigration at all Costs
It is very true that libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism focus on materialism, but it’s also very true to point out that these ideologies were created in another time. These ideologies were exclusively for Whites in a White and Christian context. These discourses sometimes included Jews, but seldom non-White races.
In fact, mainstream social-democracy in Europe was more similar to National Socialism in Germany then this “post-Marxism” we see today. Before the 1930s in United States, ideologies like libertarianism and liberalism were often pro-White. The idea of ethnic, cultural, racial and religious conservatism was often embedded in these radical liberal, libertarian or Marxist ideologies. In the Third World we still see ethnic or racial versions of Marxism.
Often libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism were exported to the Third World, but that was rather a way for the first and second world to control different civilizations – not to create a paradise. It was after WWII that these old ideologies took a turn toward open borders and criticism of White culture and Christianity.
Libertarianism, Liberalism and Marxism are today just shells and are disconnected from their roots. What we see today is something we should call post-Marxism, post-liberalism or post-libertarianism. Let me give you some examples of how their arguments are used:
1) Post-liberals use liberal rhetoric and arguments, but their agenda is different from that of the old liberals. Post-liberals claim that White people do not exist when Whites claim emancipation and nationhood. In another context, Whites do exist for the post-liberals but and are responsible for oppression and racism. They also claim that Whites should not talk in terms of “We vs. them” because such thinking is racist, sexist and “fascist.” This argument is taken from French post-modernism and the Frankfurt school. But this is only the case when Whites criticize non-White behavior. When the opposite is done by minorities or the post-liberals, the dichotomy “we vs. them” is no longer immoral.
2) Post-libertarians claims that they are only for individual rights. But when it comes to Israel, they suddenly are all for ethnic nationalism. When it comes to illiberal Jewish practices like circumcision and Kosher slaughter, libertarians are supportive. In such contexts post-libertarians have no problem accepting a libertarianism that is connected to communitarian philosophy. The right to property is one of the key notions in libertarianism but when it stands between free immigration and people’s property (e.g., higher taxes to support public goods for immigrants), they claim they are rather for free immigration. In fact, many libertarians would rather live in a socialist society then have national borders. When Christians want to baptize their children, these atheist libertarians call it an act of religious cruelty. To cut body parts of Jewish children is “okay” but to flush a few drops of blessed water on an infant’s head is “pushing religion on individuals.”
3) Look at the post-Marxists way for arguing. They reason the same way. They rather live in a libertarian or a liberal state then changing the immigration policy or outlaw Jewish (and Muslim) practices. Many post-Marxists go even further and are all okay with the most barbaric cultural practices that minorities do – just to push for “tolerance for diversity”. Now, many of the most extreme post-Marxists are marginalized. They are so because they sometimes push Israel in a corner and the establishment does not like that.
These three political elitist groups have other agendas alongside their open border and multicultural ideology. Often it boils downs to LGBT rights, abortion, polygamy and feminism. This is an “old” agenda that was and still is used as a tool to deconstruct Western culture and to socialize Whites in weakness, self-deception and self-hate. What we can see now is a shift. Feminism is now dominated by post-colonialist feminism critique instead of Western feminism. Years ago, the veil was looked at as oppression. Today’s feminists have little problem with Muslim conservative faith, even if it from a Western view it is quite the opposite to what these feminists fought to push on White women. Today, liberal and socialist feminists are still aiming their message at White women but not on non-White women. The reason is quite obvious. If Western feminism was applied and non-White women were forced to assimilate into this Western feminism, there would be a clash with the “Other” and maybe even lowering the immigration numbers.
Muslims, Africans, Arabs and people from the Third World are not keen on abortion, feminism and LGBT-rights. Nevertheless, multicultural elites have said and continue to say “We are all the same and all people share the same fundamental norms.”
They project their own ideas on the rest of the world. When you read the academic literature you quite clearly understand that this is a political tactic rather than anything else. In fact, they all realize that people are different but that if they would “talk about the differences” that would lead to racism, so we must not talk about it. It is quite extra-ordinary that they remain in the mode of critiquing the bourgeois power structure but use this tactic to further their political goals. Still, there is a reality out there and all these ethnic minority groups are not very keen on liberalism, Marxism and Libertarianism. These minorities are also not very keen on the multicultural utopias they are presented.
Some of these protected groups or ideals need to be dropped to ensure open borders. The first protected group that the elites drop is children. If some of the ethnic minorities want to keep children from school, beat them or practice barbaric customs on them (e.g., female genital mutilation), the multicultural elites are perfectly happy with it. This is seen quite clearly in Europe where children’s rights have been undermined so that the Muslim, Jewish and African communities do not feel offended and leave. In the circumcision debate in Germany, Jewish identity organizations said quite clearly that if Europe wants to continue to be multicultural and not chase away minorities, this ban on circumcision need to be rescinded.
Of course, politicians were afraid and obeyed the pressure groups. It also shows us that politicians care more for foreign norms then northern European norms. Soon, these protected groups will have more political power and not be so dependent on terrified politicians of European descent to promote multiculturalism.
Interesting enough, the elites do not change any laws to satisfy ethnic minority groups in Europe. Just as in the United States when dealing with illegal aliens, European states instead undermine existing laws by refusing to enforce them.