One might wonder why one would pursue the politics of folly when it is obvious that it is not working. This is undoubtedly the hardest question to answer. Is it simply serving a small liberal elite in Government and their perverse nihilistic ideology? The liberal elite might respond by saying that accepting refugees without posing questions is just part of what it means to be Swedish. When I asked Fredrik Reinfeldt (the former Prime Minister of Sweden) at the Oxford Union why he wanted so many ‘refugees’ to come to Sweden, he just shrugged his shoulders and said nonchalantly, ‘Where do you want them to go?’ ‘Well, surely, it is in everybody’s interest if they go to the Muslim Gulf States’, I responded. But, no, there is always the sense that Sweden must do its humanitarian duty irrespective of the prospect of the country ending up as some kind of macédoine of cultural conflict.
A hard-liner might argue the aim is to destroy the traditional Western culture and weaken its civilisation in accordance with the Gramscian cultural Marxist ideologies; to divide and weaken the northern European-derived populations, break down their ethnic consciousness and national cohesion, so that they never again will have the opportunity to organise an ethnically conscious and collectivist movement like the German National Socialism of the 1930s.
Moral relativism, the belief that there are no higher values or moral judgements, and thus that all values are merely the expression of personal values, risks, as we have seen, clashing with fundamentalist radical Islam; and then the seeds of cultural destruction are sown. One society refrains from passing moral judgement on all beliefs and cultural practices beyond its own, and the other will impose death penalties on the practice of beliefs that run counter to its own. One society believes there is no one privileged standpoint and indeed goes as far as legislating against such (assertions of religious superiority might be a criminal offence in Canada and parts of Europe); the other thinks there can be only one standpoint.
Moral relativism can be defended on its own merits or at least accounted for by the declining importance of religion, but for it to practically bring about tolerance it stands to reason that everyone has to subscribe to it. If one has two neighbouring cultures that insist on moral objectivism, one might have the ingredients for cultural conflict. If one culture based on moral relativism is juxtaposed to one based on moral objectivism or absolutism, then a scenario of likely cultural wane on behalf of the relativists is likely to emerge. All that will happen is that an intolerant ideology such as radical Islam based on absolutes will be allowed to spread. An act of benevolence will be perceived as an easy opportunity, and the empty churches might be turned into mosques. Society in the West needs to be remoralised because the prevalence of moral relativism (and the collapse of moral objectivism) means in practice that we are not able to defend ourselves politically. With anti-Enlightenment relativism, the moral discourse implodes because the individual’s truth must be the only truth. But morality has surely always been relational.
The problem of a nation not being able to defend itself politically is acute in Sweden and Germany. It might be asserted that the reason why Sweden and Germany are so open to mass Muslim immigration lies in the devastation of the Second World War. Europeans are living with the burden of guilt of Nazism and Communism, and in response to the former have been conditioned to be passive. Swedes might feel guilty about their neutrality during the war, for trading with the Nazis, about their economy profiting so significantly from the Marshall Plan in the immediate post-war era. It is the guilt of the Protestant variety for a nation that is discarding its Lutheranism. The fascist stigma has become too potent, closing down debate. It is often just recycled as a meaningless label. This is nothing but a misplaced Vergangenheitsbewältigung (‘coming to terms with the past’): unlike the German, there are very few grounds for the Swede to live with a guilt complex. What is more, there are a whole list of nations trying to come to terms with their recent past (Russia, Colombia, Argentina, Cambodia) but it seems that only Germany has created a word for it. These countries have not implemented counter-intuitive policies that explicitly attempt to reverse historic events.
The guilt complex, if there should be one, has anyway nothing to do with Islam. The explanation for such an extremist immigration policy cannot be a post-colonial guilt complex. Sweden was never a colonial nation of any scale. Nor is it reasonable to state that Sweden’s involvement in two world wars can be the explanation. Sweden was neutral. Many may wish to evoke the Swedish Nazi Party, but it was of little relevance, never accounting for more than one per cent of the electorate (Widfeldt, 2015: 74). It had diminished further by the outbreak of the war. The media likes to fuss over such things, but the fact is they were always statistically irrelevant.
It is presumably a delayed, and irrational response to the Swedish post-war mass hysteria — a response to the policies of racial purity and sterilisation that continued in Sweden until 1976, and which are the subject of many revisionist, journalistic publications. For this reason and others perhaps, Sweden, acting as the world’s conscience, has embarked on a dangerous national project.
It is probably also a question of winning votes, as Labour’s experiment with multiculturalism in the 2000s was. It is fair to assume that this has a role to play. The Swedish Social Democratic Party, which has been in Government for three quarters of the last century, needs to bolster its weakened supporter base. Until recently, Swedes would apologise for not voting Social Democrat. The party slogan was gör din plikt, kräv din rätt (‘do your duty, demand your rights’) which meant do your duty and vote Social Democrat, and make sure we see to all of your needs when we are in power. Still today, there is a sense that the election of a non Social Democrat Government (coalition or otherwise) is something of a coup d’état. This is a country where Tage Erlander was Prime Minister for an astonishing twenty-three years. Today, we would call that a dictatorship (even if it was not one).
As far as Sweden is concerned, it is difficult to see if there is any grand conspiracy at work, but one might not want to rule it out. Sweden apparently set off on this multiculturalist path because of a feeling of collective historical guilt regarding the Nazi supporters in inter-war Sweden. It is as if some kind of colonialist debt must be paid which was never owed. Thirty years later, it was decided for whatever reason that one way Sweden could address this problem and show the world that it meant well was to accept refugees from war zones. Thirty years down the road again, there was surely an at least private recognition amongst some of the political elite that the policy had got out of control, and that things were going badly wrong.
It started off as a form of national benevolence, but few saw the magnitude of the humanitarian crises coming, nor did militant Islam enter the equation. But, they had gone far down the road and worked so hard to get people to accept their policies by effectively outlawing any discussion of them that they could not turn round and admit that the experiment had been one enormous failure. Instead, they saw the rise of the SD party, whom they had excluded from debate and labelled fascists and racists, and proceeded on that basis to convince the electorate that they would have to continue with the policy no matter how disastrous it was.
And ‘excluded’ they were. Up until recently, they were completely ostracised from the public debate. Now, polling on 20 per cent, that is more difficult for Sweden to accomplish without appearing democratically flawed. Swedish journalists are open about the fact that the media should not ‘reflect’ what is going on in society, but that journalists should ‘evaluate what they should promote’ (Booth, 2015: 336).166 The Swedish State and its journalists like to treat its electorate like children, shielding them from any ‘deviant’ opinions, spoon-feeding them with the multiculturalist discourse.
The Norwegian Government has calculated that the costs of supporting a refugee in Norway for a year are roughly ten times what they would be to support one in the same manner in Iraq.167 Spending the same money, Norway and Sweden could help ten times as many refugees if they sta
yed where they are (and granted, this would currently be unworkable in Syria with the current situation in 2017). It is not then always about ‘helping’ people, but perhaps getting some kind of personal gratification for thinking one is helping people (just as we saw with many of those who work for NGOs). This is liberalism after all. Furthermore, these Governments would of course save billions on policing, schooling etc. In 2016, having watched its neighbour Sweden almost collapse, Norway offered asylum seekers £1,000 to leave the country.168
Having used obfuscation and criticism of the State as harmful ideological tools, Sweden went one step further by telling Swedes that race is nothing more than a social construct. But if race does not exist, how can racism, the perpetual obsession of the liberal politicians, exist? If race does not exist, why do they talk of mixed-race children? The response from the spokesman for the Afrosvenskarnas Riksförbund (National Afro-Swedish Association), Kitimbwa Sabuni, was: ‘The Government is lost in a fantasy’ (31st July, 2014). Sweden’s liberals are indeed lost in their own self-delusion. This is clearly a flawed attempt at controlling language and limiting the freedom of thought. These kinds of policies have Orwellian undertones, as the ultimate objective is clearly to render the very conception of race impossible.
Sweden has gone from being a country that had a eugenics programme to ensure that the State would not have to give financial support to the ‘unfit’ to a country that has actively promoted immigration from the least developed countries in the world. This represents a 180 degree swing from the radical right to the radical left, and presumably the latter is a response to the former. This is how politico-ideological cycles tend to work. Multiculturalism might be perceived as a reversal of an historic event. The Nazis promoted racial superiority where Arabs were at the bottom of the ladder. Sweden’s current policy is the diametrical opposite of this, and thus one might call it anti-Nazist.
And, yet, Sweden has so many advantages over other countries that she need not muddle herself with such ideological self-laceration: a diversified economy, a very highly educated workforce and most importantly of all a low population. Sweden’s blessing is its relatively low population. It should be something that is preserved at any cost, for most of the world’s problems would be irrelevant had it not been for the silent population explosion that has taken place in the world these last fifty years. For him who comes from an overpopulated land, the benefits are absolutely obvious.
The average birth rate in the EU is 1.38 children per family, but the population of countries like Sweden and the UK is increasing rapidly. The reason for this is solely immigration. Sweden’s Leftist politicians seem completely blind to the advantages that space to move gives people, and are anxious instead to fill up the country with people who share nothing in common with them. They might benefit from living for a while in an overpopulated country such as the UK; then, they would be in no doubt as to all the tremendous advantages that are bestowed upon a country with a low population density. They would see how overcrowding threatens to tatter the shires of England.
XI. Over the Brow of the Hill
A day without laughter is a day wasted.
— Charlie Chaplin
An election win for Trump, the Brexit referendum result and the Italian General Election in 2018 tell us amongst other things that there is a willingness to put aside our political correctness and confront the real issues before the chaos of a Jacquerie ensues. Many have resolutely decided they will no longer sit in silence and bite their proverbial tongues. They do not want to wake up a few years down the road just to discover that they have become part of a different Mitsein riddled with angst and meaninglessness, where their social norms, customs and traditions have been washed away in the name of secularist multiculturalism.
The ideologies behind mass migration and community-denying globalism are now proving to be self-defeating. Until they are defeated, Britain risks becoming some kind of desperate prophetical microcosm for an overpopulated world where mobility is completely impossible, where London is bursting at the seams with new, inhuman skyscrapers that foster a secular, consumerist spirit that reduces productive decisions to simulacra of consumer choices and where tempers match the exigencies of overcrowding. Our overspilling island might metaphorically resemble one of those large rubber dinghies in the Mediterranean with African refugees clinging to the side. Surely, we do not just want to be left with a disappearing countryside, forlorn-looking cottages, a crippling nostalgia, and an attempt to reconfigure an identity overseas.
A small island cannot continue to take in quarter of a million people each year ad infinitum. But because politicians refuse to discuss the issue, let alone tackle it, we should indeed expect the system to collapse long before might even be anticipated. Analogous to this, the EU open-borders policy now looks like a bad joke. EU Commissioners ignore the outright failure of their own policies and as a result now risk causing total collapse of the EU project. One is left wondering if many of these Commissioners are complicit in the globalist project that has been referred to in some of these essays. It is not unreasonable to assume that is the case, especially as some of them are funded (indirectly) by one of the key architects of the crisis: George Soros.
In these changing times, when people have awoken to the true motivations behind globalism and EU federalism, there are now thankfully more and more islands of sensible level-headedness, with a clear vision unpolluted by globalist ideology about how the plurality of humanity should unfold. It is these few, rightly flustered by the things-being-not-altogether mood, that realise we cannot continue to turn the other cheek, that we have to confront the illiberal mob, trudge right through their groupthink and laugh at their debate-silencing tactics.
They understand that we are now at a point where more than ever before, we need ‘nobility’ (in the Nietzschean sense of the word), and not a demoralising legacy. We need a community of people who possess themselves entirely, are philosophically autonomous, unruffled by the weak, herd morality and the hegemony of ideologies which try to undermine sovereign nations and people. These men will greet danger and threats with splendid sangfroid, with veritas et fortitudo. They will not allow the principles of sovereignty to be demonised because they will have recognised the mental prison that the globalists are trying to herd us into. Globalism can only function if sovereignty, borders, notions of separate cultures and group beliefs are erased. There is an ulterior motive to their rhetoric. It might be that the unelected elite wish to rule over us without the slightest hindrance.
This community of people must be strong enough to undemonise notions such as ‘tradition’ and conservatism by making people realise that tradition, customs, morality and social norms are not just our past, but are our present and future. Globalism should be undermined through decentralisation and localism. This group of people will not look up to or be persuaded by any faux-utopian vision or false self-opinion because they can still experience and revel in their authentic instincts. They are not incarcerated in the mental and linguistic prison invoked in earlier essays. Instead, they look at life from within, not from above, not from the lofty unreality of inflated grandiloquence. They do not suffer from the Nietzschean ‘slave vanity’ (Eitelkeit) — the propensity to accede in one’s self-estimations to the opinion of others. These forces of ‘slave vanity’ bring about a recognition of the liberal Holy Grail — the doctrine of universal equality — but do not translate into equality at the ontological level.
No brow of the hill is without danger. As one approaches the hill, one might feel confident about one’s prospects. But then comes the moment when one has not quite reached the top. One cannot yet see down the other side of the hill. It is not a blind spot, but something could potentially come shooting the other way, shatter one’s optimism and change everything forever. That is the point we are at with this migration mêlée, and that is why this final, incoherent, slightly stream-of-consciousness bundle of thoughts has the title ‘Over the Brow of the Hill�
�. Like the brow of a hill, it represents a moment of potentially very false ontological security.
In looking over the brow of the hill, one of the many problems conservatives are going to have to tackle is language and the cultural grammar that has been described herein. It should be apparent to everybody that the Left in conjunction with the globalists have a monopoly on the political shibboleths of the day: universalism, human rights, equality and diversity, and all the other tired old platitudes that are trotted out time and again in the institutionalised meta-drivel. As platitudinous as they are, these terms are not innocuous, but are used by the globalists as an ideological agenda to beguile the masses. In this book, I have attempted to provide a critical analysis of the speech code that liberalism weds itself to: groupthink sceptics must now work together to expose the real intentions of this speech code.
One can call the likes of Le Pen, Farage and Trump ‘racist’, but any un-ideologised, intelligent person can see that their message has very little to do with ‘race’, and everything to do with anti-globalism and anti-Establishment. The ‘race’ word is almost always nothing more than a red-herring to deflect from the real issue, which is globalism. Judging by how frequently liberal globalists recycle these catch-words such as ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, one might assume that they believe through their constant repetition alone that they can actually change reality, that they have entirely penetrated the liberal psyche.
Liberal globalism with its psycho-cultural agenda should really concern everybody except for the completely rootless ensemble of Swiss-boarding-school-educated, nose-jobbed brats. Its agenda is the global mobility of capital goods, people and information at lightning speed. Any impediment to this, such as borders, national jurisdiction, notions of belonging, but also freedom of speech, must be removed as they will create obstacles to the globalist multinationals. All these things problematise control for a global elite who hypocritically preach cultural relativism, and at the same time overthrow any regime that they oppose in the name of liberal democracy. It is always about control and power.
The Ideology of Failure Page 27
