Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 128

Thread: The Origins of Swedish Multiculturalism

  1. #111
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,980
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    824
    Thanked in
    456 Posts
    In all fairness those initial comments raise an issue, whether Sweden would able to get back the way it was at all. Seems they're getting the most refugees out of Europe, 163,000 immigrants last year according to some statistics I found online. Now that's in just a year. What's the real percentage of Swedes nowadays? Sweden has 9.85 million people, according to Wiki,

    As of 2011, Statistics Sweden reported, around 1,858,000 or 19.6% inhabitants of Sweden were from a foreign background: that is, each such person either had been born abroad or had been born in Sweden to two parents who themselves had both been born abroad. According to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population.
    So that's at least 1/5 of the total population of foreigners, if not more, not counting non-Swedes born in Sweden, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants, non-Europeans holding passports, etc. And the trend seems to be increasing:

    In 2013, immigration reached its highest level since records began with 115,845 people migrating to Sweden while the total population grew by 88,971.

    81,300 applied for asylum in 2014, which was an increase of 50% compared to 2013, and the most since 1992. 47% of them come from Syria, followed by 21% from the horn of Africa (mostly Eritrea and Somalia). 77% (63,000) requests were approved but it differs greatly between different groups. Nearly two weeks into October 2015, a record figure of 86,223 asylum applications was reached.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden

    These figures alone are pretty big, and I'm sure as said, the reality must be even bigger.

    What about the Sweden Democrats? Their support has also risen over the years, which seems to correlate with the increased number of immigrants and support of multiculturalism from liberals and the left.



    The Daily Mail paints them as "an anti-immigrant party formed by Nazi sympathizers", although "in the past decade, the Sweden Democrats has done its utmost to wash itself clean of its brown history."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ven-years.html

    However, that story touches on some interesting points:

    To most Swedes, it is an embarrassment that so many fellow countrymen support an anti-immigrant party formed by Nazi-sympathisers. But not even those who vote for SD would touch the word 'racist' with a barge pole.

    Sweden was recently named 'the least racist country in the EU', with just four per cent saying they would not want to have a person of a different ethnicity as a neighbour - compared to 21 per cent of Germans.

    It is clear that Swedes are not racist, we just vote for them. So, what happened in the last seven years that turned a small fringe party to a big political player?

    'The Sweden Democrats got into parliament by becoming the obvious right-wing alternative,' says Daniel Poohl, editor of Expo, the anti-extremism magazine co-founded by the late Stieg Larsson.

    'Then, they made sure they limited their opponents' striking surface. They distanced themselves from their own extremist history and changed their nationalistic standpoint.

    'They started saying: "we needed to preserve Swedish culture", instead of "Swedish ethnicity" - which at the end of the day means the same thing, but using a different rhetoric.'

    This saw a slow increase in polls over the years leading up to the 2014 general election, but the recent spike in SD support is a result of number of key events which all took place simultaneously.
    Here's another 'interesting' point:
    The Moderate Party - 'the Swedish Tories' - changed political direction, from restrictive immigration policies, to 'opening our hearts' for refugees and migrants. This saw many on the right side of the spectrum switch allegiance to SD.
    A number of high-ranking politicians have been caught repeatedly making racist remarks on social media, something which SD tackled by enforcing a 'zero tolerance on racism' policy in 2012.

    During the transformation from a four per cent party to third-biggest, SD has become a well-oiled social media PR machine.

    'They have become more professional. As social media has been their only platform they've had no choice,' Karlsten adds.

    'Previously, SD was very "all over the place" and openly racist on social media.

    'People with extremist views were able to rise in the ranks very quickly, and in recent years there has been revelation after revelation after revelation that they are still high up within the party.

    'So SD has had to come up with a lot of strategies – mainly excluding anyone who openly posts Nazi and racist views - to mark that they are "not racist".

    'There has been a definitive change. They have been polished.'
    Seems like the direction of Geert Wilders/FPÖ/average European "Right Wing" Party.

  2. #112
    The lion's gate Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    34 Minutes Ago @ 01:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,316
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,606
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,753
    Thanked in
    1,222 Posts
    This is one of the favorite messages progs like to spread and repeat in the hope it will become true. "There's no going back, we'll never have a white country again." *quickly invites another million foreigners into your country* A good question would be: Why did you let it come this far? You wanted not having a white country in the first place, why? Their other favorite message is, of course, that of fake unity. It always revolves around calling everyone with, let's say a French passport, "Swedish". Example: "He's been born over here, how long do they have to be here before they're considered Swedes???" That sort of thing. Not that it even matters to progs (or ourselves) whether they've been born over here or even have the correct papers.
    “Every integral man has inside him, in his heart of hearts, a mystic center around which all else revolves. This mystic whirling lends unity to his thoughts and actions; it helps him find or invent the cosmic harmony. For some this center is love, for others kindness or beauty, others the thirst for knowledge or the longing for gold and power. They examine the relative value of all else and subordinate it to this central passion.” - Nikos Kazantzakis, 'Report to Greco'

  3. #113
    Senior Member NSFreja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 @ 01:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    Vanaheim
    Gender
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    559
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I fly upon the blackest of wings - I soar through the dark night sky
    I answer no call but my own - I alone forge my reality
    For I am the Raven - The child of Odin

  4. #114
    Moderator Leliana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 14th, 2019 @ 02:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Aus Süddeutschland und Österreich
    Subrace
    Nordoalpine
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    An der blauen Donau
    Gender
    Age
    28
    Politics
    Patriotisch; Anti-Islam
    Religion
    Heidentum
    Posts
    464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    576
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    343
    Thanked in
    133 Posts
    Uhm, the problem is that we all know what must be done to re-conquer our own European lands like Sweden, but speaking it out would be discomforting... All this sanctimonious questions like "What can be done, how can we give our people & culture a future again?" are a bluff because you know the answer. And that answer is made of steel.

    This mess can't be undone by changing some laws, winning some fishy elections and sipping on a relaxing cup of coffee.

  5. #115
    Senior Member RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 08:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    What some people don't understand very well is that there's a huge difference between public sentiment and how that necessarily translates into political action and results.

    Just because there are some murmurings on ground level that doesn't necessarily mean that the well established and entrenched political status quo (which is pro-globalist, Zionist and hates Europeans) is necessarily going to be changed any time soon.

    The Globalists own most of the mainstream political parties and movements, in the same way that they control most of the popular media, the financial sectors and so on. It's only on the ground level aka amongst the local population where they don't have complete control over their sentiment. Not yet anyway.

    But even if amongst part of the population there were discontent, it is hardly (yet) a threat to the globalists because ordinary people just don't understand politics very well and they have no clue that 99% of the political movements out there are just variations on the same theme and owned by the same Globalists who keep screwing them. So even if they were to support this or that party, will it make much difference? No.

    It's going to be a long hard struggle to wake most people up to this reality, in Sweden and elsewhere. In fact, most them probably cannot be woken up... even if many of them understand on a subconscious level that something's wrong in society, they just couldn't figure out exactly what it was.

    Mrs von Trepp's right, there is more awareness and anti-mass-immigration sentiment amongst the general population but translating that into political action is not so simple.
    ~ **** Democracy! It's 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 03:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leliana View Post
    And that answer is made of steel.
    OMFG I found a new soul-mate!

  7. #117
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ingvaeonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, July 12th, 2019 @ 03:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English/German combo
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    18 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    What some people don't understand very well is that there's a huge difference between public sentiment and how that necessarily translates into political action and results.

    Just because there are some murmurings on ground level that doesn't necessarily mean that the well established and entrenched political status quo (which is pro-globalist, Zionist and hates Europeans) is necessarily going to be changed any time soon.

    The Globalists own most of the mainstream political parties and movements, in the same way that they control most of the popular media, the financial sectors and so on. It's only on the ground level aka amongst the local population where they don't have complete control over their sentiment. Not yet anyway.

    But even if amongst part of the population there were discontent, it is hardly (yet) a threat to the globalists because ordinary people just don't understand politics very well and they have no clue that 99% of the political movements out there are just variations on the same theme and owned by the same Globalists who keep screwing them. So even if they were to support this or that party, will it make much difference? No.

    It's going to be a long hard struggle to wake most people up to this reality, in Sweden and elsewhere. In fact, most them probably cannot be woken up... even if many of them understand on a subconscious level that something's wrong in society, they just couldn't figure out exactly what it was.

    Mrs von Trepp's right, there is more awareness and anti-mass-immigration sentiment amongst the general population but translating that into political action is not so simple.
    Quite. Translating popular discontent or disaffection into political action is not easy, but that is no excuse for not trying.
    Between the devil and the deep blue sea.

  8. #118
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,980
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    824
    Thanked in
    456 Posts

    Sweden is the World's Best Country for Immigrants: US Study

    Sweden is the best place in the world for immigrants, at least according to a new ranking.
    The Nordic country was ranked in top spot followed by Canada and Switzerland in the US News & World Reports' list of "Best Countries to be an immigrant", released on Monday.

    It said it based the scores on responses from more than 21,000 people quizzed for its Best Countries survey measuring global perceptions of countries, as well as factors including economic data and immigration and integration policies.

    "Nordic nations – Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark – take four of the top-ten spots due in large part to favourable global perceptions of their economies and commitment to income equality," read a press release about the ranking.

    The other countries in the top-ten were Australia, Germany, Norway, United States, Netherlands, Finland and Denmark.

    Record-high immigration is believed to be a major part of the reason behind Sweden's population boom, including an unprecedented 163,000 asylum seekers during the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015. Workers and families have also travelled to the country in recent years, attracted by its reputation for a high quality of life, booming startup scene, gender equality and being one of the best countries to raise a family.
    https://www.thelocal.se/20170710/swe...rants-us-study

  9. #119
    Senior Member The Aesthete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 2nd, 2020 @ 05:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordish Preservationist
    Posts
    2,203
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    302
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    157
    Thanked in
    100 Posts
    Welfare State! Derp
    Our beauty is our power, our strength. We can’t allow them to change us, to lessen us. I will never grant them that satisfaction, and neither should you!

    White Oleander

  10. #120
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,980
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    824
    Thanked in
    456 Posts

    The Origins of Swedish Multiculturalism

    How Sweden became Multicultural
    M. Eckehart
    Helsingborg, Sweden: Logik Förlag, 2017

    This brief (96 pages) study of the historical origins of Sweden’s multicultural policy was published ten years ago in Swedish, but has just now been made available to the English reading public. It is not a history of immigration to Sweden, which would require a much longer treatment, but of the spread and triumph of the multicultural idea. Massive extra-European immigration only happened afterwards, partly as a consequence of this shift in thinking.

    In the early 1960s, when the story begins, the most significant minority ethnic groups in the country were of northern European stock: Finns were most numerous, followed by Estonians and the Sami, or Lapps, native to northern Sweden itself.

    But following the end of World War II, others began arriving. In 1963–4, calls for restricting immigration began to be heard. This helped spark a series of debates in the press on the status of ethnic minorities in Sweden. It is generally agreed that the multicultural policy formally inaugurated in 1975 had its origin in these debates; but as the author of the present study points out, the background of the debaters and their motivations have seldom been inquired into.

    Their initiator and most important contributor was David Schwarz (1928–2008), a Polish-born Jew who arrived in Sweden in 1950 for medical treatment related to typhus and tuberculosis he had contracted while a concentration camp inmate in Germany.

    On October 21, 1964, Schwarz published “The Foreigner Problem in Sweden” in Dagens Nyheter, one of several Swedish dailies published by the Jewish-owned Bonnier Group, writing:

    Before the Second World War Sweden was relatively restrictive with regards to allowing in refugees. The need for labor was not as great as it is today, and some professions feared foreign competition. But by the end of the war the government’s attitude changed, and over time 14,000 Jews and many others were transferred here from the German concentration camps. Simultaneously tens of thousands of Baltic refugees and several thousand stateless people fleeing the Russians came. Since then Sweden has continued to receive foreigners […] In other words Sweden got a large group of people, approximately 400,000, who were not born in the country.

    Schwarz went on to argue that immigrant groups should face no pressure to assimilate; they should unconditionally be permitted to retain their cultural particularity. He recommended the appointment of a parliamentary inquiry with a view to formulating a culturally pluralist immigration and minority policy.

    A week later, Schwarz’s fellow Jew Inga Goldfarb wrote in support of his position, asserting that Sweden had “a need for different cultural groups,” and that their presence would “give our life new content.” Such vague, unsupported statements would become typical of the debate.

    The author of the present study counts seventeen distinct debates on immigration and minority policy in prominent Swedish newspapers and magazines between 1964 and 1968, consisting altogether of 118 articles. Schwarz personally wrote or co-wrote 37 of these, or 31% of the total. He also initiated no less than twelve of the debates; no one else initiated more than one.

    Adding in other Jewish contributions, we find that this smallest of established minority groups in Sweden was responsible for 46 articles, or 39% of the total, despite constituting less than 1% of the country’s population. All Jewish contributors favored the multiculturalist position. The author has performed a valuable service in assembling this objective data, for discussion of the Jewish role in promoting multiculturalism in Sweden (as elsewhere) has often been dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.”

    Ethnic Swedes contributed 19 articles to the debates, or 16% of the total, and were found on both sides. It may be significant, however, that the three Swedes who gave most support to the multiculturalist position co-wrote most of their articles with Jews.

    Other groups contributed 38 articles (32%), and 15 articles are classed as “unknown” (e.g., unsigned editorials). Next to Jews, Estonians provided the strongest support for multiculturalism. Three Catholic immigrant contributors actually argued against the multicultural position.

    If the passages quoted in Eckehard’s book are representative, the arguments deployed by the multiculturalists do not seem to have been very sophisticated. “Sterile homogeneity” was contrasted with “enrichment.” Increased immigration in the future was alleged to be “inevitable.” Schwartz claimed that Swedes’ abandonment of their ethnic interests domestically would somehow help them promote those same interests internationally. He portrayed cultural pluralism as a precondition for cooperation between groups and a key to avoiding conflict, although without explaining how assimilation could produce conflict and ignoring the social science data on the many costs of multiculturalism, including increased conflict, less willingness to contribute to public goods, etc.

    Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at the poverty of such reasoning. It was never the goal of minority activists to bring Swedes the (dubious) benefits of a pluralistic society, but only for Swedish ethnic interests to give way to their own.

    Schwarz was very clear about placing responsibility for good intercommunal relations exclusively with the Swedish majority, writing, e.g., “It is the host population’s responsibility to insure that insidious slander of foreigners (‘They’re taking our houses’, ‘they’re taking our jobs’ etc.) ceases.” — essentially proposing that empirical data on the effects of immigration on the labor market, ecological pressures and housing were off limits.

    The most important representative of the assimilationist position was the ethnic Swede Michaёl Wächter, who wrote, e.g.:

    Assimilation is not only a possibility but also the solution which in the long-run is the most conflict-free and therefore happiest for most people and society. In Swedish society the conditions for assimilation are extraordinarily good. In fact, that’s precisely what concerns some individuals who are captive to their ethnocentric ideas, and so they call for help to protect their own localized interests.

    Yet Wächter may have made some unnecessary compromises: e.g., accepting Schwarz’s contention that responsibility for intergroup relations lies with the Swedes: “There should not be demands for the minorities to assimilate. The demand should be for society to create more opportunities for assimilation.”

    Eckehart notes that “the argument that foreign minorities would let themselves be assimilated, and that such an assimilation was practically possible, was brought up on repeated occasions by the assimilationists and was one of the primary reasons they lost the debate.” This may have been plausible in regard to the northern European minorities of that time, especially given their small numbers; today, over 30% of Sweden’s population is of foreign origin, and the largest groups include Syrians, Iraqis and Somalis.

    Public discussion of immigration and minority issues was accompanied by increased political activity in the same area, with an average of thirty relevant bills being introduced into the Swedish legislature each year between 1965 and 1968. By comparison, the period 1945–60 had seen an average of three bills per year.

    A review of the positions taken by the various political parties in the 1960s offers some surprises. The Right Wing Party [Högerpartiet] was the most active in proposing bills related to immigration. In August 1968, the party adopted the first political program that proposed extensive support for ethnic minorities in Sweden. This party subsequently changed its name to the “Moderate Party.”

    The Social Democrats—with the crucial exception of rising star Olof Palme—were at first more skeptical of the new trend than one might expect. David Schwarz once related that, shortly before initiating the first newspaper debate, he had asked the Social Democratic Foreign Minister Torsten Nilsson at a public meeting how the government sought to solve the minority problem; Nilsson had said simply: “They’ll have to become Swedes or move somewhere else.”

    Hans Hagness, a Social Democratic legislator, made the following statement in parliament on December 9, 1966:

    It is of course in the interests of the employers to increase cheap labor and keep wages down and this has been the motivation that has been supported by the bourgeois newspapers. They’ve also organized sob stories about deportations and how bad we should feel for them. But one cannot build a policy on sob stories featured in liberal newspapers; instead we are obliged to pursue a conscious policy in the interests of the average worker.

    In short, the Swedish left still thought in terms of social class.

    In 1966, David Schwarz obtained a meeting with Social Democratic Prime Minister Tage Erlander through the latter’s speechwriter Olle Svenning. Svenning later recalled:

    The old PM agreed to meet and brought his considerably younger assistant Olof Palme. [Schwarz] explained how important multiculturalism was, that Sweden already was a nation of immigrants and how the demands for linguistic and religious tolerance were growing strong. Palme, having been raised in a multicultural and multilingual environment, understood what David was talking about.

    The following year Palme, now Minister of Education, announced his endorsement of multiculturalism in a speech at the Stockholm Jewish Center amid praise for Israel and the aspirations of Zionists. Yet this same man was so hostile to any display of Swedish patriotism that he expressed distaste for Sweden’s innocent Flag Day celebrations! Two years later, Palme succeeded Erlander as Sweden’s Prime Minister.

    Another crucial landmark on the road to Swedish multiculturalism came in 1967 when the Swedish Trade Union Confederation reversed its opposition. Yet the reasons for this momentous change of heart remain obscure; historian Thomas Gür has written:

    In literature dealing with Swedish immigration policy I have not found any accounts detailing the background and motives for [the Trade Union Confederation’s] stance on the matter. Nor is there any explanation in works dealing with [the Confederation’s] history.

    As elsewhere in the West, the Swedish left was shifting its thinking from a class-based model of society to one centered on race and ethnicity. We have certainly seen the material interests of union members sacrificed to ethno-pluralist ideology elsewhere as well: notably America’s AFL-CIO.

    The final result of the debates and political activity of the period 1964–68 was the appointment by the Swedish parliament of the Immigrant Investigation, with the task of studying the status of immigrants and minorities in Sweden. This body’s recommendations were released in 1974, and coincided almost perfectly with the arguments of David Schwarz and other multiculturalists.

    The Immigration Investigation’s recommendations became the basis for government bill 1975:26 which formally declared that “Sweden was no longer a nation dominated by Swedish culture, but a culturally pluralist society where different minority cultures were going to be allowed to thrive.” The bill was unanimously passed by the Swedish parliament in 1975. It had only been eleven years since David Schwarz published his first essay.

    As Eckehart points out, the dynamic which led to the rapid triumphal march of multiculturalism in Sweden is perfectly expressed in this observation by ethnologist Frank Salter:

    Minorities have an advantage in ethnic competition in being more mobilized than majorities. Mobilization is the willingness to make sacrifices for a cause, for example, by donating money, time and work. Even a small group with limited resources can exercise disproportionate influence when its members are highly mobilized and its opponents, though superior in numbers, are indifferent.

    The curse of Democratic states in our time has proven to be not the “tyranny of the majority” predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, but a “tyranny of the minorities”—of highly motivated and politically activist minorities over naïve and complacent native majorities.

    As the author observes, nearly all political changes produce winners and losers. In the shift from an assimilationist to a multicultural policy, non-Swedes living in Sweden gained a victory for themselves by persuading the native Swedish population to cede sovereignty over the only geographic area in the world solely dedicated to the Swedish people and Swedish culture.
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ticulturalism/

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does Swedish Culture Hinder Swedish Children?
    By Nachtengel in forum Sweden
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 8th, 2011, 03:00 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Saturday, February 11th, 2006, 10:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •