A GenX/Millennial Scottish guy pontificating about the world we live in, and are heading towards.
Woes is on a roll.
‘Blacks do need help’ – I know what you mean Woes, that Blacks seem to the Swedes to need help, but that’s not what you said. It is not the role of Swedes, other Whites or anyone else to help Blacks be something they can never be without gene change: humans capable of living like Eurasians.
You got some good points there Woes but some things got to be added to the picture.
It was the establishment, wich was affected by nonswedes, wich started this journey towards massimmigration and multiculturalism. The normal Swede never wanted this. The establishment took the natural altruism wich the swedish people posses and exploited, twisted and perverted it really really hard.
The real altruism towards migrants is not very common wich we can se when we look how many swedes act. They vote for massimmigration and can pay some tax to “help” these migrants but almost none want to live among them or have their children in schools with them. Its not a coincidence that the Swedish households are in great debt. Many have huge mortgages just because they dont want to live in our MENA-suburbs. They rather work for the banks for the rest of their lives than go and live among arabs and africans.
So yes swedes want to help but many don’t want to take the consequenses of “helping”.
Sweden may look nice for some with the altruism but if you go under the surface theres much hypocrasi, and fear of going against what the establishment says.
Some swedes have awoken and gets more ethnocentric but there need to be more and more active nationalists if we gonna get our country and future back.
Since the Swedish society is ingrained with Zeitgeist of unparalled conformism, most Swedes have just succumbed to hypocrisy. As an (Christian) immigrant from Eastern Europe, I have had many opportunities to get a taste of the double standard à la suedois, e.g. the same persons could willingly express their support for influx of non-Whites at meetings but proved themselves unable to succesfully disguise their problems with accepting me as an equal (my “half-breed for a daughter experienced the same in her early years). That I was married to a Swede, had two children with him – and was thoroughly Swedenized – did not weigh much. The recent mass influx of non-Whites however might have improved my “prospects” in this respect. Not that I care anymore, as I’m 65 years of age. Having said that, I want to underline that I have nothing against nationalism. The tiny Swedish nation of about 7,5 million (I mean ethnic Swedes) apparently needs it more than many other nations, what I oppose is the bigotry.
Yes the Swedes will openly hate on White’s of ANY White nation outside of Scandinavia and have a special place in their heart for hatred of Eastern Europeans. This is in my opinion something passed down unconsciously through the generations because Sweden was an Eastern European empire and the Slavs, Balts and Finns were their vassals. I saw it lots in the generation a little older than you. And in the same breath they will accuse a fellow Swede who doesn’t support massive third world immigration of being a “racist”. Incredible hypocrisy. Also the Swedes just really don’t like people. They are loners and extremely anti-social. It is all very sad.
MW, you are wrong about Swedes helping strangers. I once picked up some students at the school where I worked who were walking to the ferry. They were former Yugoslavs. The first thing they said it, “we know you are not Swedish because you stopped to ask if we needed a lift.” Try hitch hiking in Sweden. Try asking for help in much of anything.
You can learn some of it by reading Ake Daun’s Swedish Mentality. Some of it is online in English.
I wish I could disagree with you, craicher.
It was Jewish moralistic terrorism that murdered the Swedish nation. It might be fair to say that a very common self-image as a “humanitarian nation” among the Swedes was a necessary precondition. And it might also be true that the totalitarian aspect of Swedish (and Norwegian, though to a somewhat lesser extent) social democracy would not have come about without that prehistory of Lutheran pietism. But the terroristic exploitation of that mindset and self-image by a certain Jewish clicque in Stockholm was the major active ingredient in this genocidal witches’ brew. The newspaper mentioned in the long quote below was, and still is, owned by the Jewish Bonnier family. In that sense they were the main instigators, by way of moralistic terrorism and extortion, of the murderous “multicult” in Sweden. And that same newspaper, still owned by that same family, has also been the most aggressive promoter of mass immigration during the last couple of decades.
Lars-Erik Hansen’s dissertation Equality and freedom to choose. A study in the emergence of Swedish Immigration Policy (Stockholm University, Department of History, 2001) lists the actors who were a driving force in the debate to introduce the new multicultural policy. Regarding the actors, the study confirms previous academic research on how multiculturalism arose, such as Henry Román’s study En invandrarpolitisk oppositionell : debattören David Schwarz syn på svensk invandrarpolitik åren 1964-1993 [An immigration policy opponent: commentator David Schwarz’s view of Swedish immigration policy 1964-1993] who attributes Schwarz “a crucial role” in the game behind the introduction of the new policy. Thus, the ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and “Holocaust” survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books. Hansen (2001) writes in his thesis (p. 115):
The leading debaters who were the first to claim minority rights and conditions were especially David Schwarz, Inga Gottfarb, Amadeo Cottio, Voldemer Kiviaed, Géza Thinsz and Lukasz Winiarki – all of which had an immigrant background.
Besides Schwarz, Gottfarb had Jewish descent. Kiviaed was Estonian, Géza Thinsz immigrated from Hungary in 1956 (the same year as the massive persecution of Jews started which would have the effect that within a few decades half of Hungary’s Jews had fled the country) and Lukasz Winiarki immigrated from Poland. Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. Hansen writes (pp. 114, 126-128, 217):
An increasing number of commentators and publishers made similar criticisms against what they saw as the majority’s lack of understanding of minorities’ conditions, particularly in the non-clearly stated, yet what many saw as a real policy of assimilation, which they feared would lead to an erasure of the different minority cultures and life patterns to amount to the rectifying or conformist national majority’s established pattern. Strongest in this criticism was David Schwarz and Voldemar Kiviaed – they claimed that the assimilation zealots appeared in the spirit of the Russians in the Baltic states and that their approach could also be compared with Eichmann’s ‘final solution’, although in more humane shape. Increased government action was required to avoid assimilation, partly by direct financial support to minorities, partly by an official policy for a pluralistic society. […]
The policy toward Jewish immigration to Sweden, especially during World War II, was put forward as a blot in the Swedish political history. Bruno Kaplan, head of the teaching of the Jewish community in Stockholm and represented in the World Jewish Congress, lined up a number of examples of this regulatory policy (exclusion model), partly student protest against importation of some Jewish doctors in 1938, partly a number of leading newspapers which warned of this immigration. Leif Zern [who, like Kaplan, is Jewish, blogger’s note] emphasized Kaplan’s view that it was clear from the then existing policy that there was anti-Semitism, and stressed: “Of course there are no statistics on how many Jews the feature (the regulation of Jewish immigration) led to the gas chambers.” […]
Bruno Kaplan was convinced that the survival of a small Jewish minority depended on how the state and municipalities acted – a policy that advocated tolerance and respect for minority distinctiveness was necessary. In this spirit should the Jewish minority, in their efforts to preserve their identity, get the full support from Swedish society. […]
David Schwarz was the most active debater in the immigrant issue, his views and values had a major impact. David Schwarz became the first and foremost spokesman of the pluralistic state intervention model […]
In the official immigrant debate, some players played a big role in the policy process, especially adherents of multiculturalism. […] They encouraged the political parties to address the issue of ethnic equality on the agenda. Then, a veritable race began to see who was the biggest and best in the immigrant issue.
The (((anti-whites))) know how to encourage certain instincts in a host population and suppress others. Don’t assume that just because certain instincts of the Swedes are being used against them that it has to be this way.
Clearly not cold enough in Scotland as MW ran away in shame making everything he says complete drivel
A hypocrite – undeserving and a disgrace to the white race
I’d like to see advances you’ve contributed to the cause beside pity critique on internet forums. If they are even a TENTH of what MW has done, I’ll throw in a free Hitler salute in your honor.