Kevin D. Williamson:
The curious task of the American Left is to eliminate “white privilege” by forcing people to adopt Nordic social arrangements at gunpoint.
Progressives have a longstanding love affair with the nations of northern Europe, which are, or in some cases were until the day before yesterday, ethnically homogeneous, overwhelmingly white, hostile to immigration, nationalistic, and frankly racist in much of their domestic policy.
In this the so-called progressives are joined, as they traditionally have been, by brutish white supremacists and knuckle-dragging anti-Semites, who believe that they discern within the Nordic peoples the last remnant of white European purity and who frequently adopt Nordic icons and myths, incorporating them into an oddball cult of whiteness. American progressivism is a cult of whiteness, too: It imagines re-creating Danish society in Los Angeles, which is not full of Danish people, ascribing to Scandinavian social policies certain mystical tendencies that render them universal in their applicability.
Call it “Nordic Exceptionalism.”
The Left occasionally indulges in bouts of romantic exoticism — its pin-ups have included Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Mao Zedong; we might even count Benito Mussolini, “that admirable Italian gentleman” who would not have been counted sufficiently white to join Franklin Roosevelt’s country club — but the welfare states that progressives dream about are the whitest ones: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc. The significance of this never quite seems to occur to progressives. When it is suggested that the central-planning, welfare-statist policies that they favor are bound to produce results familiar to the unhappy residents of, e.g., Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia — privation, chaos, repression, political violence — American progressives reliably reply: “No, no, we don’t want that kind of socialism. We want socialism like they have it in Finland.”
Translation: “We want white socialism, not brown socialism!”
The real differences between relatively homogeneous northern European societies and the sort of society we have here in the United States is rarely if ever seriously addressed by our democratic socialist friends. The unspoken assumption — that all of us will either learn to behave like good little Scandinavians or be enemies of the state in this new metaphysically blond utopia — is, as our feminist friends like to say, problematic.
Set aside for a moment the conflation of socialism with high-tax welfare-statism — Sweden, with its entrepreneurial, trade-driven economy and very little in the way of state-owned enterprises constitutes anything but centrally planned socialism — Nordic practice is what self-described socialists such as Senator Bernie Sanders generally have in mind when they talk about socialism. (We can ignore, for the moment, the old Castroite holdouts and youthful Chavistas writing for Rolling Stone; everybody else does.) The racial aspects of Nordic welfare-statism are studiously not talked about, even when Stockholm burns while members of its unassimilated Muslim minority riot.
Sweden is the most diverse of the Nordic countries, and its immigration history has been a start-and-stop affair. The most dramatic immigration episode in Swedish history is, of course, the dramatic emigration of Swedes to North America in the early 20th century, when grinding poverty and famine sent one in four Swedes packing to the United States and Canada. It is estimated that there are today more people of Swedish ancestry living in the United States and Canada than in Sweden. Political and economic realities encouraged Sweden to recruit labor immigrants for many years, and its formal and informal relationships with other Scandinavian countries — as well as the veto power over immigration policy held by its trade-union confederation, which made familiar Buchananite noises about the peril of cheap foreign labor — ensured that the vast majority of Swedish immigrants were other Nordic people. When Jews fleeing National Socialism sought refuge in Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s, “the majority were rejected due to anti-semitism and discriminatory racial ideology prevalent in Sweden at that time,” as Charles Westin puts it.
Sweden had virtually no non-European immigrants, and few non-Nordic immigrants, until the 1970s. In popular usage, the modern Swedish word for “immigrant” does not mean “foreign-born person,” but “non-Nordic person in Sweden.”
Socialism and welfare-statism, like nationalism and racism, are based on appeals to solidarity — solidarity that is enforced at gunpoint, if necessary. That appeal is more than a decent-hearted concern for the downtrodden or the broad public good. It is, rather, an exclusionary solidarity, a superstitious notion that understands “body politic” not as a mere figure of speech but as a substantive description of the state and the people as a unitary organism, the health of which is of such paramount importance that individual rights — property, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association — must be curtailed or eliminated when they are perceived to be insalubrious. If the nation is an organism, it’s no surprise to find Donald Trump describing foreigners as an infection. Thus the by-now-familiar xenophobia prevalent in Democratic rhetoric (and the Trumpkin anti-capitalist Right’s rhetoric) about Asians and Latin Americans “stealing our jobs.” The Swedes, the Swiss, and the Germans often are in direct competition with key American industries, but there is never any talk about the Swedes “stealing our jobs.”
Funny thing, that. As is the curious fact that the socialism you might read about in The Nation is cosmopolitan and liberal, whereas the socialism presented to the voters by Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, etc., is nationalistic and xenophobic, us-and-them stuff that would have warmed the heart of Father Coughlin or Henry Ford.
Kevin W is far more judicious and polite in his speech than I am.
Fact is, Swedes, Norwegians, Fins and Danes here in the states all work themselves to death.
These are those folks who would rather go without than take charity.
And in their native lands they never relied on welfare programs unless they absolutely had to.
But their lack of babies after WWII led to a need for workers.
So, they looked, charitably, at North Africa and the Islamic world so as to be helpful in many ways.
These imports did not share their attitude about welfare.
In point of fact, as Bono learned, give these people food or money and they sit around doing nothing but making more babies.
When polygamous Muslims began claiming welfare for themselves, their legal wife and children AND their other three wives and children, these Nordics charitably handed out the goodies.
White guilt, they were cultivated into calling it.
Even the crime waves have been forgiven.
Swedish department stores sell total female covers for all Swedish women, so they might avoid rape.
The lack of assimilation has been given up on as well.
There had been a move to place immigrants equally all up and down each country, but the immigrants prefer enclaves where they are a majority.
Maybe, before each of these countries goes under it will legally cede a province in their south to their immigrants and let them support themselves as a country named: Swedistan, Noristan, Finistan and Danistan.
@Nanny G: #1
Nanny G, we can infer from your comment that you feel the Swedes, Danes, etc., don’t have a solution after all these years of racist stagnation and confusion within their borders. And you would be right.
Just as in France, and England, they have ghettos. The multicultural assimilation didn’t happen principally because the influx of immigrants came too quickly. That is occurring in the U.S. and in Canada. The tide cannot be reversed. It has not helped the immigrants and hasn’t helped the resident population. Too many immigrants are not finding work.
Your entire comment is quite correct.
As to the above, only after seeing that the assimilation just was not happening, Sweden and Norway enacted a plan to spread their immigrants into every corner of their cold countries.
The Muslim enclaves in the southern (warmer) cities would be broken up.
But their immigrants refused to live apart from one another in little northern villages and towns.
The experiment failed.
The enclaves are growing as are the ethnic cleansing of any left-over non-Muslims still living in their traditional homes within them.
Cede these enclaves to the Muslims as their own countries.
Then let them sink or swim based on their own economy.
Soon they will live in another Islamic failed state.
The world is full of those.