The Swedish Weekly raises a "key nationalist problem"

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2015-05-27 21:12

By Paul Westman

There is a new English-language nationalist website called The Swedish Weekly, subtitled "The latest absurdities from The Great North," published by Motgift Ltd. in Stockholm. 

In their "About Us" section they write:

The Swedish Weekly is a newsletter from the people behind Motgift, Swedens leading alternative media platform.

 All of the former white countries are facing the same threats of mass immigration, liberalism, feminism and the atomization of the family — but Sweden has taken on the leading role regarding these matters. Therefore we find it important to communicate the many times bizarre and almost always frightening development in the country once known for social security, ethnic homogeneity and spirit of work and ingenuity.

We don’t strive to cover all the news from Sweden, instead we cherrypick those we think might be the most interesting to an international audience.\

There is not much content on the site right now, though it does carry the video shot by Nordic Youth (a Swedish group) that I mentioned in a May 15 J&E post, showing one of its members confronting Jan Helin, Leftist editor of the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet at his home in a white Stockholm suburb. (Where else would an anti-white member of the Establishment live?)

Interestingly, Helin and other members of the Leftist elite are able to conceal their home addresses from the public so that they appear nowhere on or off-line-- even as they harass Politically Incorrect but socially powerless whites in their own homes. This was only recently arranged; Nordic Youth obtained Helin's address before it was hidden from the public. 

The Swedish Weekly also has an hour-long audio interview with conservative James Edwards, host of the American radio program The Political Cesspool.

So, where are they coming from, politically and ideologically?
As noted, the site is published by Motgift, which produces the larger, eponymous Swedish-language website Motgift. (Motgift should probably be translated as "Antidote.") The website appears to have gone online late last year (August 2014). Because that website has much more material, it provides clues about what its subsidiary Swedish Weekly will be like.

Currently Motgift is attempting to develop an online Swedish-language radio show that will be broadcast two hours every day.

Several writers are ex-members of the Party of the Swedes (Svenskarnas parti). I mentioned on May 15 that Nordic Youth identifies with the antiracist Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), which is falsely presented to the public (by the media) as pro-white, anti-immigration, etc., while in reality they are multiracialists who seek genetic and cultural "assimilation" along the lines of UKIP in the UK, Marine Le Pen's Front National in France, part-Jew Geert Wilders' fanatically Zionist Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) in the Netherlands, etc. Nordic Youth explicitly rejected the racialist Party of the Swedes as too extreme.

My J&E post was dated May 15. Now I learn that the Party of the Swedes dissolved itself on May 10, 2015 due to lack of popular support. So that party has gone the way of the National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna), which dissolved itself the previous year. The National Democrats were characterized as a radical breakaway faction (in 2001) from the Sweden Democrats, though they weren't all that radical. The founders of Nordic Youth are former National Democrats.

Along with mostly original material, Motgift has translated articles into Swedish from TakiMag, VDare, and at least one from TOO.
Dan Eriksson, the managing editor of Motgift who lives in Berlin, recently made a video asking whether Motgift had become libertarian. Evidently he, at least, has come to see certain virtues in the antistatist arguments of classical liberal thinkers. He's reassessed his former views, the Swedish paternalistic view, that the State should direct everything because people are essentially children who can't make their own decisions responsibly. He now believes that people make stupid decisions primarily because so much power is concentrated in the state. But Motgift nevertheless views this from a nationalist perspective.

This strikes me as very reasonable as long as Erkisson and Motgift don't drift away from racialism into Establishment-style anti-white libertarianism. Racialist individualism is preferable to national socialism. There's nothing inherent in the idea of freedom, or in the American Revolution, for example, that compels adoption of the view that "Freedom demands the genocide of the white race and Western Civilization, combined with racism for Jews and everybody else." That is patently absurd. It is a contemptible (and totally unprincipled and immoral) crime imposed upon the West after WWII by anti-white racists and totalitarians.

In an article entitled "The Swedish Nation State Is Dead," Eriksson maintains that Sweden, in the dictionary sense of "a geographically defined state whose population is largely the same lineage, language and culture," no longer exists, adding, "Sweden Democrats also want to dismantle the Swedish national state by ignoring the Swedish nation, and just like the other globalists do not believe that those who live in Sweden should have 'essentially the same lineage'." Thus, no party in Parliament favors preserving or restoring the Swedish nation.

A key nationalist problem was raised in the comment thread of this article. A young man asked Eriksson if he would be accepted as Swedish by Eriksson's (and by extension Motgift's) criteria because he happened to be born in Germany to a Swedish mother and a Croatian father. He loves and is proud of "his country" (Sweden), its traditions, customs, and "most importantly" the Swedish language. He speaks and writes Swedish better than most "Swedes" (which he puts in quotation marks, signifying everyone within its borders as defined by the government, no matter their race or hybridity), but also better than most "real Swedes" (not in quotation marks).

His use of such terminology shows that he has a concept in his mind of "real Swedes." Doubtless he means people of unmixed Swedish ancestry going back many generations, a criterion he objectively does not meet. Yet he identifies as Swedish: so, does he belong?

This question of who belongs biologically, is of course, one that white nationalists of all stripes refuse to deal with. They pretend the answer is obvious. After all, it would be unkind to exclude anyone! Intermarried? Hybrid children? Of mixed race or ethnicity yourself? "Don't ask, don't tell!" 

Or, if that fails: "Be inclusive!" It would be a form of intrawhite racism to exclude anybody! And that's a sin

This rot shows how deeply imbued with the prevailing culture-distortion everybody is.

Eriksson thanked the writer for raising the question, which he thought was "quite common." (You bet it is!) He said that if somebody's mixed ancestry were African or Asian, they could not be Swedish, "but if you're a European with a Swedish identity [emphasis added], then you are Swedish and can be part of the Swedish national community."

This is wrong on many levels, but demonstrates the state of psychological and moral paralysis and intellectual confusion whites are currently wallowing in. Though not a terribly important question in the past, in the current maelstrom it is essential to explicitly specify biological, ethnic, genetic, racial, and genealogical (or, as Eriksson and his correspondent were implicitly doing, national) boundaries.

The problem cannot be kicked down the road forever--if white survival is the objective.


"This question of who belongs biologically, is of course, one that white nationalists of all stripes refuse to deal with."^ In fact, I encounter talk of this issue quite frequently among racialists. White Nationalism is a catch-all term. In general it simply means nationalism based on race, people of the White race. White nationalism = racial nationalism as expressed by White peoples.As far as I'm concerned National-Socialism was a form of White Nationalism because the Germans were a White people. There is no good reason to assume a consensus among White Nationalists in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (or in Europe proper) of wanting to see Europe become regionally racially egalitarian and universalist in regards to who can settle where.

I invited the author of this essay to reply but he may not want to. You recognized the main point and made this comment:

There is no good reason to assume a consensus among White Nationalists in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (or in Europe proper) of wanting to see Europe become regionally racially egalitarian and universalist in regards to who can settle where.

In National Socialism there was consensus about an issue like this; in White Nationalism there is not.  National Socialism was a real movement with a real leader and defined objectives, while White Nationalism is "a catch-all term" for varying viewpoints of pro-White people. "Talk" or discussion of this issue of biological, vs cultural belonging is not deciding and accomplishing anything, but a way of "kicking the can down the road." There is not even an expectation of consensus because of the "egalitarian and universalist" influences that dominate the thinking of many adherents of White Nationalism. This affects White survival detrimentally because as long as there is no White consensus on stopping White immigration, all immigration continues.

I think you've pretty much just re-stated the problem.

Carolyn what you said is what I was trying to say, I didn't see your comment when I replied. We need common goals no matter what country we're in, like racial and ethnic preservation and stopping immigration. I feel like the old Fascist, NS, and inspired groups, that were all over pre-war Europe, better understood the unique needs of their individual ethnic groups, and were more focused on helping them survive and thrive. At the same time also saw themselves as needing to work together to protect Western civilization, like against Communism, so it shows there's no conflict between helping our own groups and also working together.      

The impression I've gotten from reading about National Socialism is that they saw each nation like it was a living thing itself, just composed of many people. So when one person did something, it affected the whole. I think this is more true to how life works, and shows that alot of libertarian ideas that we can all live separately and do our own thing is a lie. At the same time, as people trying to preserve our collective races and cultures, we are sort of going against what much of the whole is trying to do at the moment, which is to destroy itself. So ironically we are being forced to do our own thing, to save the whole in the long run.  

Lets face it. When it comes to White immigration in Europe it comes from the east and goes to the west. It is also made up of far more Slavic Russians, Poles and Serbs than, say, non-Slavic Hungarians, Croatians, and Greeks. It is Slavs who are leaving their own mis-managed, often corrupt and economically backward national homes and looking to "have a better life" in the West among higher paying jobs and generous welfare benefits. The real reason for the difference in the quality of life can be seen on the IQ map of Europe. Enlarge

This is what White Nationalists can't deal with. It doesn't agree with the enforced "Political Correctness" of White egalitarianism.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, give me an example of White Nationalists doing it.

"If anyone thinks I'm wrong, give me an example of White Nationalists doing it."^ Well, it happens in forums and comment sections, lol, but, of course, we all know what ends up happening to those persons. They invariably end up being scolded as Nordicists.

But my question was not directed at "talking about it", but doing something about it, ie stopping the immigration. If they can't agree on what is right and acceptable action, they are far from taking any action.

Many Slavs who call themselves White Nationalists have no problem moving into Western countries in order to "better themselves."

should accept Germanic leadership in their lands to better their situations or remain on the level they are. Much like non-Whites. Sad but true.