It used to be said that California was at the cutting edge of all social and political trends. It was always where we wanted to go or the place whose lifestyle we wanted to have or emulate. But for many, it was Sweden that was a beacon for progressive, civilized living. Free, compassionate, egalitarian and prosperous at the same time. An oasis of sanity in an insane world. And for such people, it still is. It has maintained that image, largely because those living outside of it never probe or investigate its true contemporary nature. It is not a utopia, but a dystopia. It is not so much a role model for the masses but a bell weather for where we are heading. It is the vanguard of the new totalitarianism.
Tell me that its political parties are at the vanguard of thinking of parties and organizations elsewhere, in other countries. Try this:
According to “Fjordman”, the Green Party favor ideological Globalism in its purest form. They want a “world citizenship” to replace the national citizenship, totally free migration on a global basis, global taxes and a strengthened United Nations to ensure a just world order. Example from their program,
“We do not believe in artificial borders. We have a vision of unrestricted immigration and emigration, where people have the right to live and work wherever they please….We want Sweden to become an international role model by producing a plan to implement unrestricted immigration.”
This is the Green Party that Social Democratic Party leader, the Olivia Chow of Sweden, Mona Sahlin, wants to form a coalition government with in 2010. This stands to reason. For as Fjordman stated about the Socialists of Europe:
“As usual in Western countries, Socialists who undermine their own countries are de facto allies with Big Business interests, the same business interests that have championed the borderless EU common market, who desire bigger markets and an abundant supply of cheap labor, and tend to view defended national borders as an obstacle to both”.
Alistair McConnachie, editor of Glasgow-based “Sovereignty”, would agree. In his words,
We're expected to show "solidarity" with the massive influx of immigrants, especially the illegal ones -- which the Left like to call "irregular" -- and bogus asylum seekers, and to put from our minds the political, social, economic and ecological consequences of this immigration invasion -- for the greater notion of "solidarity".
In that sense, "solidarity" is simply a slogan being used to undermine my rights and to prevent me articulating them and to stop me standing up for myself, and my group's interests. It is in this politically perverted sense that the Left today almost always use the term.
Why do the Left insist on doing this?
Why do they seek to geld opposition to neo-liberalism from the working class by misusing the idea of "international solidarity" when it is not appropriate to the circumstances, nor the interests, of the people to whom they are speaking?
The reason is because the Left's over-arching ideology of "equality" demands that they put "equality for all" before the interests of any specific element of the working class.
Therefore, if working class people in England are being displaced from apprenticeships, or jobs, by already qualified Eastern Europeans, or Somali refugees, then the Leftist will not stand up for the English indigenous working class because his doctrine of "equality" mandates that he cannot and must not "discriminate" between people in any way.
Therefore, he will argue that the Somali has a right to this job too and that the Englishman needs to see himself, not as part of a national citizenry, but rather as part of an amorphous "international working class" in which he is "equal" with this Somali and shares "solidarity" with this Somali "working class person". Viewed this way, the Englishman can only lose.
To promote "equality", the Englishman is expected to deny his interests, forfeit his rights and cede his space in the name of "solidarity" with someone he's never met, who is likely not a citizen, and is probably a law-breaker!
As a consequence of its ideological obsession with "equality", the Left cannot and will not oppose free movement of labour and so it must try deliberately to pervert and misuse the idea of solidarity in order to neuter any working class opposition to the open-borders of neo-liberalism. (Sept. 06 edition of “Sovereignty”)
So in this context the coalition partnership of NDP and Greens with the Liberals that was proposed in Canada’s House of Commons makes complete sense. An NDP—Green alliance would be a marriage made in heaven. As I wrote a while ago,
“Greens say they stand for "social and economic justice".
The NDP says it has a "Green Agenda".
They look very much like the Bobsy Twins to me. Yet they are always fighting, always claiming they are so different from one another. Freud had the answer. "The Narcissism of Small Differences". When two tribes have so very much in common ----hypocrisy, self-delusion, self-righteousness, schizophrenia, myopia----they highlight their tiny differences and inflate them.
That God for that. The Green-Left Bobsy Twins, the NDP and the Greens---if united to form a growthist tag time of contempt for our national culture and national identity, as flows from an unspoiled landscape that is the bedrock of our soul, would be a formidable force. Sweden might show them way.