Between Empire and Ruin
Can Europe escape American tutelage and Russian illusion? Thoughts on civilizational renewal and the need for a new elite.
Recently, I was interviewed by the organizers of the upcoming Awakening Conference, which takes place in Finland on May 24th. We discussed nationalism, European sovereignty, and the future of the Nordic countries. The full interview—now available below in English—covers everything from identity and remigration to AI, parallel societies, and the rise of a new elite. A Finnish translation can be read on the organizers’ website here.
Greetings, Dan! How are you and your family doing?
Thank you for asking! My family and I are doing very well. Spring is slowly arriving here in Sweden, and we’re all in good health—which is something to be truly grateful for.
You have become known to the wider public through the organization Det Fria Sverige. What kind of complex is the Svenskarnas hus and what future plans do you have for this project? Can your activities be compared to white separatism, and is the idea of a regional autonomy completely ruled out as a future goal?
Svenskarnas hus is both a meeting place and a hub for Swedish nationalism. It serves as the physical space where we host conferences, meetings, celebrations, and other events—but it’s also a place where the curious can meet Swedish nationalists, browse our bookstore, and gain a more accurate understanding of our movement than what’s typically portrayed in mainstream media. In an age where everything is moving online, Svenskarnas hus also stands as a statement: we believe real-world connections are essential. People need to step away from their screens and meet in person—and I’m looking forward to meeting many Finnish comrades again at this year’s Awakening Conference.
As for regional autonomy, I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. But we believe it’s important to start in the right place. By committing to long-term, sincere efforts to be a positive force in our local communities, we see immediate benefits for ourselves and our families—and, over time, we build trust with the broader, often apolitical, population. That trust can lay the groundwork for future political success. However, it’s crucial not to approach this work as a mere 'strategy,' but rather as a genuine expression of conviction and responsibility.
With multiculturalism, Sweden has become a class society, where educated and affluent native populations form their own safe havens outside the restless multicultural suburbs. Which social classes are more important for the national awakening—the upper class, which fears losing its abundance, or the Swedish lower class, which is forced to share its environment with racial foreigners?
Multiculturalism has indeed deepened class divisions in Sweden, but the solution to our crisis will not come from a mass uprising. True and lasting change requires the formation of a new elite—rooted in the people, but elevated through character, discipline, and vision. The working class suffers the most from the failures of multiculturalism, but the masses, left without leadership, rarely create direction on their own. What they need is guidance.
The old elites have abandoned their role as guardians of culture and sovereignty. Instead, they serve globalist interests or act as preachers of a progressive, anti-European ideology. In their place, we must cultivate a new aristocracy—not of inherited titles, but of earned responsibility. A leading class that does not despise the people, but also does not become enslaved by their appetites.
This is where we begin. Not with populist rage or revolutionary chaos, but with building structures, communities, and moral authority that others can gather around. The real battle is not between upper and lower classes, but between decaying old elites and the emerging generation of leaders who are ready to carry Europe forward—not for comfort or profit, but for duty, destiny, and civilization.
The potential withdrawal of the United States from Europe has sparked discussions about Europe’s own defense capabilities, which are currently quite inadequate. Can the EU become a credible military force, or should the military vacuum be filled with a better alternative?
The European Union, in its current form, is not capable of becoming a credible military force. It lacks not only the strategic coherence and military culture required, but also the political will to defend Europe as a civilization rather than as a bureaucratic project.
However, a military vacuum is not an option. Europeans must take responsibility for their own defense—but this should happen through new regional and civilizational alliances rooted in shared history, cultural proximity, and mutual trust. The Nordic countries, for example, could form a strong defensive bloc based on common interests and values, rather than relying on Washington or Brussels.
It is also essential that nationalists across Europe begin thinking in a genuinely European context—without abandoning their national identity or sovereignty. In an increasingly multipolar world, Europe must become a strong and independent power bloc if it is to survive and thrive. That means rejecting both American tutelage and eastern propaganda, and instead articulating a European path that serves our peoples, our traditions, and our long-term security.
We do not need a European superstate army, but we do need a European defense renaissance—built on realism, identity, and mutual respect among sovereign nations.
What is your opinion on the ongoing war in Ukraine—do you see it as a pointless civil war between white nations that destroys the already dwindling European population, or as a conflict that promotes the militant nationalism even outside of Ukraine?
The war in Ukraine is a tragedy—for Ukrainians, for Russians, and for all of Europe. It is yet another fratricidal conflict that drains our strength and serves the interests of outside powers.
But let us be clear: this is also a war of Russian imperialism. As Finns, you understand this better than most. You have a history of heroic resistance against Russian aggression—and you have paid the price, losing parts of your homeland to a brutal and expansionist neighbor. You know what it means when Russia speaks of 'spheres of influence.'
Nationalists across Europe must not be naïve. Romanticizing the Russian Federation—an authoritarian, multiracial empire that openly rejects European identity—is a grave mistake. Just as we reject submission to American globalism, we must also reject illusions about Moscow.
The notion that one must choose between NATO and Russia is a false dichotomy. Our task is to break free from both imperial systems and pursue a third path: a sovereign, independent Europe, built by and for Europeans. Supporting either empire only prolongs our subjugation. It is time to think in civilizational terms, and to defend Europe—not just as geography, but as a destiny.
The Nordic countries are rapidly transforming into states where not a single ethnic group forms an absolute majority. Do you believe this trend can be reversed through parliamentary means, and if not, what strategies should nationalists follow in your opinion? What kind of future do you predict for the multiracial Nordic countries?
The demographic transformation of the Nordic countries is not only real—it’s accelerating. In some areas, ethnic Europeans are already a minority, and the political establishment shows no intention of reversing this trend. The question is no longer whether our societies are changing, but how we respond to that change.
I do not believe that parliamentary politics alone can solve this. Electoral systems are designed to maintain the status quo, and most parties are committed to managing the decline, not reversing it. That doesn’t mean we should abandon political engagement—but we must understand its limits.
The real work must begin outside the system. We need to build parallel structures—cultural, economic, educational, and social—that reconnect our people with their identity and prepare them for a post-liberal era. We must create communities of resilience, meaning, and belonging, where our children can grow up with a sense of who they are and what they must defend.
As for the future of the multiracial Nordic states, I believe we will see increasing fragmentation—both socially and territorially. Trust will erode, violence will rise, and the state will eventually be forced to retreat from certain areas. What rises in the ruins will depend on what we build now.
History is not written by majorities—it is written by determined minorities. If we accept reality, organize wisely, and act with courage, we can ensure that our people are not simply passengers in history, but its authors.
The worldviews of young men and young women have significantly diverged over the past 20 years in all industrialized countries—young women show more interest towards leftist ideals, while young men, unlike previous generations, express tribalistic and value-conservative attitudes. In your opinion, what has caused this divergence, and can it be attributed solely to social media?
The divergence is real and growing—and while social media plays a role, it is not the root cause. The deeper issue lies in how modern society disrupts the natural order between men and women. Mass immigration, atomization, consumerism, and the collapse of traditional community structures have all contributed to a spiritual and social imbalance.
Young women are rewarded for embracing the progressive worldview—academia, media, and corporate culture all incentivize conformity to leftist ideals. Meanwhile, young men, who often feel alienated, fatherless, and robbed of purpose, are instinctively seeking identity, brotherhood, and structure. They are looking for something solid in a world of chaos.
The tragedy is that this split weakens both sexes—and ultimately our civilization. A healthy society aligns the energies of men and women toward shared goals: family, continuity, and meaning. Restoring that balance requires more than algorithms and politics—it demands cultural renewal, new role models, and above all, the rebuilding of trust between the sexes.
If we fail to address this divergence, we risk producing a generation of lonely, resentful individuals on both sides. If we succeed, we may witness the rebirth of something much greater than politics: the return of a rooted, purpose-driven life.
You have strongly criticized the AfD’s pro-Russia stance, which at the local level has even turned into support for the historical Soviet occupation. What makes the multiethnic and multiracial Russia an attractive partner in the eyes of some nationalists, and what role would the Russian Federation play in your own ideal world?
Many nationalists in Europe are understandably disillusioned. They've been ostracized by mainstream institutions, had their bank accounts closed, been deplatformed, and in some cases even seen their parties banned from elections. In that climate, it's no surprise that some look to Russia as a potential ally—especially when the Russian state and its media have been effective in courting them.
But we must be clear-eyed about this dynamic. Russia does not support European right wingers out of solidarity—it does so to weaken Europe. By fueling internal division—between left and right, between men and women—Russia seeks to destabilize its geopolitical rivals. Supporting nationalist parties or dissident voices is not an act of friendship; it is a calculated strategy.
We must also make a fundamental distinction: between the Russian people and the Russian Federation. The former may one day find a place in a European renaissance. The latter, however, is a multiracial, multiethnic empire that spans far beyond Europe and is built on imperial logic. It is not a model for national rebirth, but a relic of an imperial past that must be overcome.
If Russia is to be part of a future European community, it must be the European part of Russia—not the imperial federation as it exists today. The time of multiracial empires, whether American or Russian, must come to an end.
European nationalists must take the hard path: we must resist the temptation to embrace one empire just because we oppose the other. Our path is neither East nor West—it is European. Rooted in sovereignty, identity, and cooperation among free peoples. Clarity on this point is not optional; it is essential for our survival.
The only way to address the current demographic development in Western countries is to replace integration with remigration. Is proposing remigration a complete taboo in Sweden, or can its possibility already be discussed publicly? Is there any party in the country that promotes the repatriation of foreigners?
In Sweden, the idea of remigration has slowly begun to enter public discourse—but only in its most diluted form. The Sweden Democrats, currently the largest nationalist party in parliament, speak of 'voluntary remigration.' But let’s be honest: that’s a political fantasy. Without serious incentives and a clear shift in policy and narrative, very few will choose to leave a welfare-rich, permissive society like Sweden.
Outside of parliament, there is the party Alternative for Sweden, which has made remigration one of its core issues. They advocate for large-scale repatriation, including of those who have received citizenship. However, they currently hold no seats in parliament and struggle to compete with the Sweden Democrats' strong brand among nationalist and immigration-critical voters.
So while the word 'remigration' is no longer completely taboo, any serious discussion of it—especially when it involves non-voluntary elements—is still outside the bounds of acceptable mainstream debate. That said, this will change. As demographic realities worsen and social tensions increase, more people will begin to question the integration dogma. At that point, those who have already spoken clearly about remigration will be ahead of the curve.
The question is not if remigration will become necessary—but whether we will have the courage to prepare for it in time.
The theme of our upcoming conference is “The Rising Tide of Color.” In the previous Awakening conference, you spoke about the origins of Sweden’s multicultural ideology. What is the topic of your upcoming presentation?
This year, I want to challenge the theme—not by denying the reality of demographic change, but by asking a more uncomfortable question: What if we don’t reverse it? What if birth rates stay low, and large-scale remigration never materializes? What then?
My presentation will explore alternative paths forward—scenarios in which Europeans can still survive and build something meaningful, even under adverse conditions. I will speak about AI, robotics, and how emerging technologies might allow smaller populations to maintain sovereignty, security, and civilizational continuity.
This is not to suggest that we should abandon the demographic fight—but we must not become intellectually rigid or place all our hopes on a single outcome. The world is changing fast, and so must our thinking. In a time of civilizational crisis, realism and creativity are more valuable than nostalgia.
My goal is to provoke strategic thinking. If we are serious about survival, we must be willing to explore every tool, every frontier, and every possibility—even the ones we wish we didn’t have to consider.