new

The Swedish Unimind

Marcellus famously said to Horatio, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Fortunately for today’s Danes, their politicians care about their citizens. This year the Danish Social Democrats, headed by Mette Frederiksen, blunted the rising power of the nationalist Danish People’s Party by co-opting their restrictionist immigration platform, and won over 25 percent of the vote. A young, left-wing female prime minister was poised to oversee a new era of nationalism.

Although the American media questioned Miss Frederiksen’s left-wing credentials, her party was returning to its roots. Before multiculturalism, labor unions throughout the West promoted strict immigration policies to protect workers against cheap “scab” labor. In the United States, Irish-born firebrand Denis Kearney called the Chinese immigrant a “cheap working slave.” There could be no compromise. In 1878 he said, “California must be all American or all Chinese” [1].

Europe’s social democratic parties pursued similar immigration restrictions. Harold Wilson’s government damaged Great Britain, but his Labour administration drafted a white paper in early 1965 that tried to curb immigration from Commonwealth countries. Had it been acted on, Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech three years later would have been unnecessary. In the 1970s, even the French Communist Party emphasized immigration control.

Sadly for the people of Sweden, their Social Democratic Party (SAP) lack the courage either to follow the Danes or to admit that their nation’s generous welfare state is on the brink of collapse due to unchecked immigration.

Journalist and former member of the Swedish Armed Forces, Kajsa Norman, discusses Sweden’s decline in her book Sweden’s Dark Soul, which was translated into English earlier this year. So far, it has received almost no press in the United States. The reason is obvious: Miss Norman exposes Sweden as an oppressive state of social democratic conformity that deals cruelly with dissenters. Miss Norman has a name for Sweden’s spiritual tyranny: the “Unimind.”

The book begins with Saturday, August 15, 2015. On that day, thousands of teenagers gathered inside Stockholm’s Kungstradgarden Park for the pop-music We Are Sthlm festival. Billed as a safe, family-friendly event, the day turned sour when hundreds of young men — the vast majority were Afghan and Somali immigrants — began molesting any girl they could find. They held down some of the victims and shoved fingers into their vaginas. The police and private security detained at least 90 suspects, but let them all go. A middle-aged police psychologist named Hans decided to send Dagens Nyheter, one of Sweden’s major publications, a first-hand account. Even though Hans saw that the perpetrators were foreigners, his initial email to the newspaper said nothing about race because he feared he would “be branded a racist” [2].

The story of the mass assaults was not made public until Saturday, January 9, 2016, nearly five months later. Fed up with the apathy of the mainstream media, Hans took his story to Chang Frick, an independent, Jewish-Gypsy journalist who first made a name for himself in 2013 by documenting riots in the immigrant-heavy suburb of Husby that the Swedish media ignored. Rioters shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and fought off firefighters with a hail of stones [3]. Mr. Frick’s Nyheter Idag not only broke the news on what had happened at the festival; it reported that authorities had been covering up We Are Sthlm assaults for at least a decade.

As Miss Norman writes, a few independent media outlets later noted other facts about mass immigration:

Young girls and women have been sexually assaulted in public swimming pools, parks, subways, and schools, and on buses. For many young people, this has been a part of everyday life, something one just has to learn to live with. In the 2016 Swedish Crime Survey, 14 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds reported that they had been subjected to a sex offence [sic] that same year. In 2007, there were 12,563 reported sex offences [sic], including 4,749 rapes. By 2016, that number has grown to 20,284 reported sex offences [sic], including 6,715 rapes [4].

The mainstream media reacted by accusing Nyheter Idag of xenophobia. They tried to cast the story as one of police incompetence, noting correctly that Swedish police officials barred officers from investigating the crimes. Months before the same accusation became common in the United States, the Swedish establishment accused Mr. Frick and his website of being a mouthpiece for Russian disinformation [5].

This was not surprising coming from the elite media cartel. As Miss Norman points out, in Sweden, the media and the government have a close relationship dating back to the 1960s. Olof Palme, later to be murdered on the streets of Stockholm, spent his time as minister of education using television to “educate the population and convey the correct opinions” [6]. Between the 1960s and early 1990s, publicly owned television networks provided the bulk of news and entertainment to Swedes. Most programs championed left-liberal causes, from anti-colonial movements to feminism. And in Sweden, public shaming and ostracism — punishments typical of a feminized society — are very powerful.

In many respects, Sweden is not like other nations. Miss Norman writes that “according to research projects such as the World Values Survey (WVS), no other country deviates more from the global norm” [7]. Sweden is the least traditional country on Earth; in Sweden, extreme positions on sex equality, abortion, and families are common. The Swedish Unimind, which sees itself as the pinnacle of human achievement, does not permit deviation, but, as those who broke the silence about the We Are Sthlm assaults prove, the Unimind can be broken.

Sweden’s Dark Soul is less about collapse due to immigration and more about how, for almost 100 years, the Social Democrats created a false utopia and millions of citizen sycophants. It is a vivid demonstration of the problems of unchecked central power. The first Swedish centralizer, King Gustav Vasa (1496 – 1560), nationalized the Lutheran church [8] and created the first professional Swedish army and navy. This paved the way for the legendary Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) and the creation of the Swedish Empire. Until the late 19th century, long after the days of Swedish hegemony in the Baltic, “90 percent of Swedish taxes went to the Armed Forces” [9]. Statism, heavy taxation, and enforced opinions combined to create today’s Folkhemmet, or “people’s home.”

Swedes practiced collectivism long before the Social Democrats came to power in the 1930s, but it was the SAP that re-engineered Swedish society by giving power to left-wing technocrats. In 1934, racial hygiene laws were introduced to perform sterilizations on the mentally disabled, chronically ill, and those with “undesirable character traits” such as promiscuity, laziness, and alcoholism [10]. Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, who later won fame in Sweden promoting nuclear disarmament and the destruction of the nuclear family (Gunnar Myrdal also supervised the compilation of the hugely influential An American Dilemma), enthusiastically supported the sterilization of “anti-social” people [11].

After two decades of eugenics, the Swedish state decided to promote itself abroad as a “moral superpower.” A large part of this morality was an open immigration policy. In 1973, Sweden took in refugees from Chile after the military coup that ousted Salvador Allende. In 1979, thousands more entered Sweden from Iran after the fall of the Shah. Despite polls indicating that a plurality of Swedish citizens did not want more immigrants [12], the state decided to purge the country of “superstition and ignorance” [13]. In 1975, the Swedish Parliament wrote multiculturalism into law: “immigrants and minorities should decide for themselves to what extent they wished to be assimilated” [14].

Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are four and three times, respectively, more likely to commit crimes than native-born Swedes [15]. Sweden has a higher percentage of foreign-born citizens than almost any other country in Europe, and rape, bombings, and shootings have become common. The “moral superpower,” which gave $550,000 in aid to the Viet Cong and $443 million to the African National Congress, is destroying itself.

As part of the Unimind, both the Social Democrats and the supposedly conservative Moderate Party parrot each other on the need to accept as many “migrants” as possible. The Unimind blames the patriarchy — not immigrants — for the rise in sex crimes. The Unimind believes that dismantling ancient Swedish tradition of free speech is more important than protecting the people or grappling with the truth. Sweden can be likened to a dictatorship of National Public Radio producers.

Sweden has become a nation of materialism, extreme egalitarianism, with a culture of shaming. Although Miss Norman does note that the Swedish mindset can turn quickly, and that the nationalist Swedish Democrats are winning more votes, Sweden’s Dark Soul reads like an epitaph. In the United States, if demographic change continues and the Democrats become as powerful as the SAP, we will become like Sweden, though far more violent.

South Africa Wins Rugby World Cup. Why Does it Give Me No Joy?

In a Rugby World Cup final in Japan, for which most pundits predicted an easy win for England, the South African rugby team won by 32-12 and became world champions for the third time. All over the country, in bars and on the streets, there were celebratory shouts and honking cars with green Springbok team flags flying from their windows.

I do not follow rugby, nor watch so-called Super Rugby on the pay-TV channels. Our bankrupt public TV corporation, the SABC, can no longer afford the rights to broadcast rugby. However, I discovered that I could stream the match in French on my computer. Boris Johnson and I therefore had something in common: We both seem to have followed it live in our respective studies.

If it had been any other opponent, such as New Zealand or Australia, I probably would not have bothered, but losing against England would have been especially bitter. England is the source of our misfortune, a country whose politicians and diplomats have largely destroyed Western civilization in this part of the world. Not only did the English media, rock stars, and even the royal family enthusiastically support the Afro-Marxist terrorist movement known as the ANC, but their Queen also bestowed a knighthood on Robert Mugabe, the dictator to our north. The now deceased Zimbabwean could be called the king of all anti-white blacks. Admittedly, the British did quietly retract the knighthood once the worst of Mugabe’s excesses became known, but still. How dare they? — as Greta Thunberg would say.

Prince Harry of Sussex, the first British royal to marry someone we in South Africa would call “Coloured,” visited the Springbok rugby team in the changing rooms at Yokohama International Stadium after their brilliant victory. Amazingly — or perhaps not — his brief address to the players was not about rugby at all.

“Congratulations,” the red-haired Prince said. “I generally think that rugby has the ability to unite everyone around the world. And I could not think of a nation who needs it more than you guys right now.” And raising a bottle of Heineken given to him by one of the Afrikaner players: “So on that, well done.” He then posed next to the lock (a player in the second row of the scrum) Eben Etzebeth, apparently saying, “F*ck, you’re tall.”
And that’s where rugby, politics, and race collide. For over a century, the Springboks have been very successful against teams from much larger Western countries because of our physical advantages. The torturous evolution we have gone through on the African savanna, being constantly attacked by wild animals, poisonous snakes, and above all, black tribes for whom killing sometimes seems like their form of rugby, seems to have bestowed gifts on us, one of which is size. We are a race of giants. At least you can get that impression from meeting rugby players, especially the tall locks who have to jump for the ball during line-outs.

During the semi-final game against Wales, the two French commentators were clearly biased against the Springboks, hoping the lumbering Welsh team with their heavy pack of forwards grinding toward the goal line would win. However, as it became obvious that the Springboks would carry the day, the two Frenchmen ascribed it to their niveau d’aggressivité (level of aggressiveness).

The Left in South Africa, especially the English Left, has long decried Afrikaner dominance in rugby, which they call a sport for “racist, white males.” Our universities and other leftists have already provided us with endless denunciations of the Afrikaner passion for rugby and its alleged celebration of whiteness, toxic masculinity, racism, and Afrikaner fascism. What the 1936 Olympic Games were to Nazism, we are told, rugby has always been to the Afrikaner.

Since we have been excluded from politics, the military, the police, academia, big business, and soon the church, the game of the egg-shaped ball is perhaps the last thing we are allowed to do. Or not. The relentless demands of affirmative action have seen to it that even rugby is no longer an all-white, all-Afrikaner game. Ever since the days of anti-apartheid protests and sports boycotts, the agile little gazelle that gives the Springboks their team name has been unpopular. Successive sports ministers of the ANC regime have tried to suppress the name, a quintessentially Afrikaans word that does not have an English translation.

South Africa is the only country in the world where there are racial quotas in sport — against whites. Such quotas are essentially aimed at rugby, as well as netball — a sport like basketball but for women — in which Afrikaner women excel. Various complicated rules have accumulated over the years of ANC rule or — more correctly — social engineering. At any given moment, a certain number of “players of colour” have to be on the field. Otherwise, teams are fined, coaches are fired, or sponsors withhold funds.

During the World Cup in Japan, for the first time ever, the Springbok captain was a black player. Siya Kolisi happens be married to a blonde wife with whom he has two children. Most of the media coverage focused on him, as a kind of “miracle man,” and not on the white players.

Inside South Africa, the black players — who are normally less than half of the team — get all the credit and are lauded as “rugby geniuses.” Outside the country, there are sometimes more objective views. One British columnist, Stuart Barnes, was candid enough to write in the London Times before the final game that Captain Kolisi would serve the team best by sitting on the bench:

"Strip the politics and emotion out of the equation and the rugby case for benching Kolisi is powerful. Pieter-Steph du Toit [a white player] has been far more influential in his lineout and counter-rucking than his fellow flanker. He has to start."

Indeed, shortly after the final game, the lamentably white Mr. du Toit was named World Rugby Player of the Year, and the equally white Afrikaner Rassie Erasmus was crowned World Rugby Coach of the Year.

Many commentators, both sports and political, compared this year’s victory and the “sense of unity” it supposedly engendered to the one in 1995 when we beat New Zealand’s All Blacks in the World Cup final in Johannesburg – with one black player on the team. Nelson Mandela ingratiated himself with whites, especially Afrikaners, by donning a number-6 Springbok shirt like the one worn by captain Francois Pienaar, and appearing at the stadium in front of the crowd and the cameras.

During their three decades as an international terrorist group, headquartered in London and supported financially by both the Soviet Union and Sweden, the ANC had always boycotted rugby. The very image of the Springbok was “racist,” and the ANC regime is still trying to have it removed or even banned, like our old South African flag and anthem.

At the time, Mandela’s gesture was called “reconciliation,” but in South Africa, that word means establishing black domination. Not long afterward, Mandela clashed with the rugby administration over affirmative action and racial quotas.

Nearly 30 years later, some are still unsatisfied. On the eve of the final game in Japan, liberal journalist Pieter du Toit wrote:

"Because of its place in history and the architecture of society – a team once rooted in chauvinistic nationalism and exclusion, now diverse, humble and welcoming – the Boks will always be controversial. Whilst many live and breathe the green-and-gold, there are still many for whom it remains symbolic of subjugation and segregation."

Nobody knows the inner feelings of blacks better than liberal white journalists, but in the wake of the Springbok triumph in Japan, “reconciliation,” “unity between the races,” and the slogan “stronger together” are being bandied about by both the media and politicians. Of course, despite the euphoria, we are not together.

In the run-up to the World Cup, the above-mentioned giant, Eben Etzebeth, was accused of assaulting a Coloured man in a bar and calling him the “H-word.” That was “hotnot” in Afrikaans, a shortened form of “Hottentot,” which was the original European word for the primitive hunter-gatherer tribes on the Cape coast, whom we now must call Khoikhoi. “Hottentot” is thought to have originated from the German hotteren-totteren or “stutter,” referring to the click-sound language of the tribes.

The list of taboo words in South Africa grows all the time. In 1996, shortly after the ANC came to power, a Springbok coach, André Markgraaff, was forced to resign after calling one of the new black sports administrators a “kaffir.” South Africa, like the USA, represents a semantic minefield.

As soon as Eben Etzebeth steps off the plane from Japan, he will face the wrath of the South African Human Rights Commission, which has little to do with human rights but more with race-baiting and the persecution of whites who stray from the code of subservience. The head of legal services at the Human Rights Commission has promised that Mr. Etzebeth will be charged with attempted murder.

Rugby, like the Afrikaans language or the very presence of the white minority in South Africa, is a relic of the hated past, but that past, despite all the propaganda efforts to the contrary, is looking increasingly like a lost golden age. It was a time when South Africa was not only winning on the rugby field but also in education, health, construction, industrialization, honest government, municipal services, electricity generation, water treatment, administration, etc. Needless to say, the ANC regime is failing in all these areas and many others. We have blackouts or so-called “load shedding,” and many rural towns do not have potable water.

Even Prince Harry’s “unity” comments echo an awareness of South Africa’s increasing status as a failed state. Rugby is therefore the lone swallow that does not a summer make. The team’s meticulous Afrikaner coach, Rassie Erasmus, who has brought strategy and daring to their game, is a man of yesterday, an anachronism from a time before black sports ministers and the so-called Human Rights Commission.

It gave me a few moments of satisfaction that we had, once more, beaten our arch-rival England, but that soon gave way to a sense of tragedy. Our players, from the gargantuan Eben Etzebeth to the diminutive scrumhalf Faf de Klerk, are gladiators in green-and-gold. Like most gladiators, they are doomed to die in the arena. Instead of their undoubted talent and prowess counting toward the esteem of our Afrikaner nation, they are glorifying the ANC’s zombie nation, as well as the giant corporations whose brands they bear and who are contributing to the demise of whites.

Under apartheid, we had military, economic, energy and financial boycotts against us. In Amsterdam, they threw Afrikaans books in the canal next to South Africa House; elsewhere they spat on our diplomats. But the worst, it seems, was the sports boycott. In a sunny country dedicated to outdoor pursuits, it prevented us from showing off our athletes and our rugby players on the international stage.

Patti Waldmeir, a correspondent for the Financial Times in South Africa during the early ’90s, wrote in her book, Anatomy of a Miracle, that “the Afrikaners swapped apartheid for rugby, and thought they had made a good deal.”

Hence the Faustian Pact that our hapless leaders made with the ANC’s communist politicians: If only we handed them our country, we could play rugby against the All Blacks again — the same New Zealanders who held up placards saying, “Boks go home,” and who spread broken glass on the field in their country where we were supposed to practice.

Like every Faustian Pact, this one was bound to go bad. We have already paid a staggering price, with trillions of rand looted from the state and state-owned companies by corrupt ANC politicians and their cronies. Our infrastructure has been gutted, our environment polluted, our language and culture suppressed.

Rugby is not worth it. Seeing two Afrikaans high-school teams playing each other should satisfy our need for rugby. Why play against other nations from the British imperial system who hate us? It might help if we could have our own team, free of racial quotas and affirmative action. It would be an Afrikaner team, just as there are three national teams in the United Kingdom: Scotland, Wales, and England.

We would fly our orange, white and blue flag, the one which has been officially declared “hate speech” by a South African court. We would play our national anthem, “Die Stem,” at international matches.

This is all unthinkable. Probably the Springbok will be replaced by some ANC symbol soon, just as our street names have been changed. Then the so-called “transformation” of the team will be complete. A few Afrikaner gladiators will still be allowed to play.

Our triumph over England in Japan is a Pyrrhic victory. We have won a game but we have lost a nation, our nation, the real one, not the meretricious, multicultural hodgepodge that the media and the beer advertisements with their gleeful images of blacks and whites “happy together” promote.

I have nothing to celebrate.