The third-worldification of Europe will force ethnic Europeans to adapt both practically - to an existence without the support of a state and instead relying on parallel institutions - and ideologically - through the gradual shift in personal identity away from the artificial "nationalities" tied to -states, in favour of actual ethnic identities that have (in many cases) been repressed during the XIX and XX centuries.
Thank you for this insightful response. You raise crucial points about the adaptation of European peoples to new realities and the re-emergence of historical identities.
The Swedish case offers an interesting contrast to the Italian experience. While Italy emerged from distinct historical regions and city-states, the Swedish identity developed through the early medieval unification of two main tribal groups - the Svear and Götar (Swedes and Geats). These tribes, though distinct, shared linguistic and cultural traits that facilitated their gradual merger into a single Swedish identity during the 12th-13th centuries.
This process was different from many other European regions. While we do have strong regional identities (particularly in Scania/Skåne, which was Danish until 1658), the overarching Swedish identity wasn't imposed on distinct peoples but rather emerged organically through centuries of shared institutions, language, and culture.
However, it's important to note that during the 20th century, particularly under Social Democratic governance, Sweden did experience a period of forced cultural homogenization. Local dialects, regional customs, and distinct identities were actively suppressed in favor of a standardized "modern" Swedish identity. This top-down reformation, part of the broader "folkhemmet" (people's home) project, aimed to create a uniform national culture - ironically making Sweden's nation-building process in the modern era more similar to the centralized state-building seen elsewhere in Europe.
Your point about parallel institutions resonates strongly with our current situation. The challenge for Sweden might be maintaining this historically unified identity while building new institutions outside state control - a different task from reviving suppressed regional identities, but perhaps equally challenging.
I'd add, of course there are genetic battles and tribal preferences within racial groups as well as outside of them. At this juncture and hour, however, it would behoove all Whites everywhere to recognize individuals do not exist - anywhere - in Nature, and to factionalize is not within our best interest at this time. White unity - always.
You neglected to mention the single-most important unifier which underlies the "common origin, language, culture" - race. Sweden was created by Swedish people for Swedish people - who are White. They are Native European. While other Native Europeans may join and even assimilate to an extent to Swedish people and culture as, for example, Danes and Germans and Dutch are all brothers - Sub-Saharans and Afghanis and Semites and Koreans and Pakistanis, Colombians and Amazonians cannot and will not "assimilate." They have their own peoples, their own histories, their own in-group preferences, cultures, and ideologies - which have largely heritable components - and do not need to squat in Sweden among Swedes. Neglecting to name the elephant in the room - race - does a disservice to the gravity of the situation all Native Europeans find themselves within Europe and within the European diaspora.
Swim or die. *Swimming entails naming a thing first and foremost. I'd add, of course there are genetic battles and tribal preferences within racial groups as well as outside of them. At this juncture and hour, however, it would behoove all Whites everywhere to recognize individuals do not exist - anywhere - in Nature, and to factionalize is not within our best interest at this time. White unity - always.
The third-worldification of Europe will force ethnic Europeans to adapt both practically - to an existence without the support of a state and instead relying on parallel institutions - and ideologically - through the gradual shift in personal identity away from the artificial "nationalities" tied to -states, in favour of actual ethnic identities that have (in many cases) been repressed during the XIX and XX centuries.
Thank you for this insightful response. You raise crucial points about the adaptation of European peoples to new realities and the re-emergence of historical identities.
The Swedish case offers an interesting contrast to the Italian experience. While Italy emerged from distinct historical regions and city-states, the Swedish identity developed through the early medieval unification of two main tribal groups - the Svear and Götar (Swedes and Geats). These tribes, though distinct, shared linguistic and cultural traits that facilitated their gradual merger into a single Swedish identity during the 12th-13th centuries.
This process was different from many other European regions. While we do have strong regional identities (particularly in Scania/Skåne, which was Danish until 1658), the overarching Swedish identity wasn't imposed on distinct peoples but rather emerged organically through centuries of shared institutions, language, and culture.
However, it's important to note that during the 20th century, particularly under Social Democratic governance, Sweden did experience a period of forced cultural homogenization. Local dialects, regional customs, and distinct identities were actively suppressed in favor of a standardized "modern" Swedish identity. This top-down reformation, part of the broader "folkhemmet" (people's home) project, aimed to create a uniform national culture - ironically making Sweden's nation-building process in the modern era more similar to the centralized state-building seen elsewhere in Europe.
Your point about parallel institutions resonates strongly with our current situation. The challenge for Sweden might be maintaining this historically unified identity while building new institutions outside state control - a different task from reviving suppressed regional identities, but perhaps equally challenging.
I'd add, of course there are genetic battles and tribal preferences within racial groups as well as outside of them. At this juncture and hour, however, it would behoove all Whites everywhere to recognize individuals do not exist - anywhere - in Nature, and to factionalize is not within our best interest at this time. White unity - always.
You neglected to mention the single-most important unifier which underlies the "common origin, language, culture" - race. Sweden was created by Swedish people for Swedish people - who are White. They are Native European. While other Native Europeans may join and even assimilate to an extent to Swedish people and culture as, for example, Danes and Germans and Dutch are all brothers - Sub-Saharans and Afghanis and Semites and Koreans and Pakistanis, Colombians and Amazonians cannot and will not "assimilate." They have their own peoples, their own histories, their own in-group preferences, cultures, and ideologies - which have largely heritable components - and do not need to squat in Sweden among Swedes. Neglecting to name the elephant in the room - race - does a disservice to the gravity of the situation all Native Europeans find themselves within Europe and within the European diaspora.
Swim or die. *Swimming entails naming a thing first and foremost. I'd add, of course there are genetic battles and tribal preferences within racial groups as well as outside of them. At this juncture and hour, however, it would behoove all Whites everywhere to recognize individuals do not exist - anywhere - in Nature, and to factionalize is not within our best interest at this time. White unity - always.