By Lars Møller
For Westerners to denounce their own cultural inheritance became a provocative, embarrassing, and ill-conceived political ritual in the late twentieth century. A case in point is the Swedish social democrat Mona Sahlin.
A Western counterpart of anocratic movements from the Third World, e.g. the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico, Sahlin’s democratic party has ruled Sweden for nearly a century on end. Without any substantial interference from the center-right opposition, it has had ample time to create a modern myth, which goes by the name “Folkhemmet” (i.e. the “People’s Home”), and effectively appropriates the state apparatus, educational institutions, and public news media. In addition, state subsidies have provided a reliable means of managing trends in cultural life. Instilling the tripartite idea of (a) social justice, (b) redistribution, and (c) social democratic government in the citizens, the party has achieved an ideological dominance comparable to that of the communist parties before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The former Prime Minister Olof Palme, if any single person, symbolized the arrogance of power; he took government for granted and loathed his political adversaries.
A rising star in the social democratic party, Sahlin accepted her first appointment as a minister in 1990. A series of scandals, however, suggesting a fearless person with an insatiable appetite for power and privilege, compelled her to leave office in 1995. She had not entirely run out of luck yet, though. In 1997, she was nominated as chairperson of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. It must have looked as if she were born for that position, a person so perfectly void of judgment and fidelity. Then she became minister again in 1998. Finally, as the crowning glory of her career, she became party leader in 2007. Having nothing to show for it, given the traditional party expectation of infinite government, she resigned as leader in 2011.
A champion of the socialist cause, Sahlin would be expected, if only for ceremonial purposes, to show interest in the living conditions and expectations of ordinary workers. However, she left the impression of a shallow person whose sole purpose in life could have been her own narcissistic gratification. She did not foster any original thoughts on any subject. She had no depth of spirit. A genuine opportunist, she was prepared to adopt the hypocritical-fashionable, if also, at least occasionally, rather extreme, attitudes of her time. Whenever she appeared in public, she revealed an astonishing ignorance of — and indifference to — Swedish history. She made it obvious that she did not love her own country. Instead, she indulged in ridicule and depreciation of national rites, including Maypole.
Characteristically, Sahlin displayed a complementary fascination of foreign habits as if they represented a richer, worthier culture. They intrigued her. In short, she cultivated a romance of sorts: “Malignant exoticism” — a phenomenon implying more than an escapist interest in everything alien and mysterious, i.e. the additional willingness to sacrifice your own culture for another.
An opportunist, but not necessarily a coward, at heart, Sahlin consistently avoided criticizing the barbarism, including street and family violence, introduced to her home country as a way of life by non-Western immigrants. In a Europe tormented by terrorist actions, she similarly refused to acknowledge jihadist responsibility but turned the charge against the Europeans whom she blamed for “Islamophobia” and provoking hostility from extremist circles. So an opportunist, yes, but not without a cause: “The Fall of the West”.
Eventually, the self-willed socialist darling lost everything because of a behavior pattern raising the suspicion of unbridled narcissism (bordering on the antisocial). She acted as if the rules that governed the lives of everybody else in her social democratic society, i.e. the model “welfare state” par excellence, did not apply to her personally. Thus, she — the epitome of hypocrisy and falsehood — thought that she could get away with everything and (a) abuse her working-expense credit card, (b) ignore her parking tickets (altogether nineteen at the time), (c) hide parts of her salaries and exempt herself from income tax, refusing to pay some of the highest income taxes of the world, and (d) commit document forgery without penalty. Promoting the socialist cause of “redistribution,” income taxes in particular, but also taxes and charges in general, form the basis of the Scandinavian welfare state: The “millennial kingdom” of the social democratic party.
Hypocrisy on a grand scale pervades the social democratic movement. In October 2014, having formed his cabinet in the wake of the parliamentary election, former Prime Minister Stefan Löfven declared his government the “first feminist government” in the world. With a puffed-up sense of self fit for a Third-World head of government (bent on ruling indefinitely), he thought it would become a “global role model.” However, Sahlin’s feminist sisters showed their true colors in Teheran, February 2017. To the amazement of the world press, they were all seen wearing headscarves and accepting the denial of handshakes in front of the Iranian hosts — a sickening picture of submission!
In a display of privileged, drama-seeking egocentricity, Western feminists — seconded by equally aggressive “anti-racism” and “LGBT+” activists — may engage in furious attacks on alleged “inequality” and (white) “male privilege.” Fortunately, this belligerence in public debate — or even extended to public space as in connection with street protests — does not carry any particular risk. (By contrast, you literally risk your life by fighting for women’s rights in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
It is a foregone conclusion that nobody should seriously expect violent reprisals from the declared archenemy (i.e. the “white man”). In fact, from a security point of view, it is perfectly safe to proceed with increasingly fanciful accusations as they are in fashion these years. Hence, it does not require any real courage to speak up for “gender equality” in the West, if not so-called “equity.”
As indicated, the demand for “emancipation,” “liberation,” or whatever is exclusive. Far from expressing true sisterly solidarity, it is usually limited to “white women” who benefit from Western rule of law as long as they narrow the scope of their polemical interference to purely Western affairs. In reality, the feminists — Swedish or otherwise — do not have to move far away from the (safe spaces of) auditoriums, newsrooms, or cafes to see the true misery of this world for themselves.
As a rule, however, the same polemicists, who surpass each other in accusations against the “straw man” of white maleness, are reluctant to interfere publicly in the living conditions of their veiled sisters. They simply dare not condemn the enslavement of women in the suburban enclaves because interference is associated with, not only accusations of “bigotry,” “racism,” and “intolerance” (i.e. the standard heresy of today, preceding “cancellation,” “peaching”, and other social sanctions), but also an imminent, credible risk of violence.
Sweden, the self-perceived role model of social engineering, is disintegrating. The experiment failed. “Demography is destiny.” Now, demographic changes are taking their toll. It is for all to see.
Sweden is not Sweden any longer. The Swedish people have primarily their elected rulers to blame. Swedish streets belong to immigrant gangs. Hence, Swedish women are losing their personal freedom in public space; they cannot move freely for fear of faith-based molestation (e.g. catcalling, groping, and rape), considered second-rank persons as both women and infidels.
Robbery, homicide, and gang rape are skyrocketing. Leading to unsuspecting victims, the use of automatic weapons and grenades is now commonplace in the gang wars. Sweden is becoming the horror example of a homogenous, civilized, and peaceful society that collapses in the face of cultural-moral decadence, self-denial, and hostile mass immigration in conjunction. Division replaces social cohesion.
With cold contempt for Christianity, patriotism, and the plight of Swedish workers (i.e. the “deplorables” of Hillary Clinton), Sahlin and like-minded people from the political elite have staged the suicide of a nation.
Folkhemmet, the myth from the foundation of the welfare state, is irretrievably dead. Worse yet, Swedes have lost their only “home” in the world.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/the_swedish_tragedy.html