THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

Sweden illustrates better than any country I know the parasitic character of liberalism-socialism. In the mid-twentieth century, Sweden built itself up into a regional industrial power with a robust export-economy in goods ranging from grain and dairy products to heavy machinery and ships. Sweden’s role as a “neutral” in World War II was somewhat morally ambiguous (neutral now in favor of the Axis and neutral now in favor of the Allies), but it enabled the nation to survive the conflict without going to war. Because of that, Sweden entered the postwar period with intact industries and one of the most educated and disciplined populations in Europe. The decision not to import armaments after the war but to draw on domestic industry for defense needs was sound and had positive effects for the nation. However, the Swedish left and its liberal sympathizers propagandized incessantly about Sweden’s role during the war, pounding the idea that Sweden must share the guilt of Germany, some of whose resource-needs she had supplied. And having instilled that guilt through their control of education, they used it to attack the middle class, the Lutheran State Church, and Swedish tradition generally. 

It was possible, in the 1950s and 60s, and even perhaps still in the 1970s, for the socially deconstructed, sexually liberated, welfare state to go on functioning because it was living off the cultural and social capital of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. As the welfare system grew, incentives for actual work shrank. Why should Sven work forty hours a week in the Volvo factory when his neighbor Eric, who claims to have a bad back, collects a disability pension and has the same amenities, including a new car, as Sven? As a result, Sweden began suffering from a classic “brain drain.” Ambitious Swedes went elsewhere – no few came to the USA. As is the case wherever liberalism-socialism prevails, the regime at first discouraged and then began to outlaw and penalize criticism until today Sweden is probably the most totalitarian nation in Europe (and that’s saying something), with no genuine freedom of the press and insidious institutional pressure on individuals who dissent from the system. 

Since liberal guilt cannot be assuaged, once the Swedish welfare arrangement had absorbed as many Swedes as possible – and once Swedes began refusing to work in “menial jobs” – the government advocated and swiftly put in place the population-replacement program familiar from American coverage at places like Gates of Vienna and View from the Right. A small “Sweden Democrat Party” has attracted enough of a clientele to gain seats in parliament and to alarm the left (i.e., the government), which has responded by banning press-coverage of the party while at the same time smearing it at every opportunity. The “Sweden Democrats” urge sane reforms of existing policy, especially immigration policy, but whether the Swedish nation, after having lobotomized and lamed itself, can save itself from cultural suicide is doubtful. 

As an aside, it is interesting to compare Sweden with Finland. Finland was at war from 1939 to 1945, first against the Soviet Union, which invaded it in Winter 1939; and later, having signed a treaty with Russia that obliged it to do so, against German troops on Finnish soil. The Finns did not suffer from cultural guilt; they were certain of themselves as a nation and have conspicuously not followed Sweden into the nationally deconstructed abyss.

Please follow and like us: