How I stopped worrying and learned to love my nation

"Vit melankoli: En analys av en nation i kris" (White Melancholy: An analysis of a nation in crisis) is a book by Catrin Lundström and Tobias Hübinette. Both authors are scholars based in the nation previously known as Sweden and could perhaps be described as SJWs if you´re negative of their work. Hübinette has aquired a certain amount of herostratic fame in Sweden due to his connections to Antifa (and several other colorful episodes, none mentioned here). In all fairness, it should be mentioned that Hübinette himself claims *he* has been harassed and set up by right-wing extremists and other elements. Who Lundström is, I don´t know. Judging by the book, probably a confused professor of literature with a penchant for weird discussions about fashie aesthetics!

I bought "Vit melankoli" after reading another book, exclusively authored by Hübinette, "Adopterad". The book struck me as strange in many ways, so I procured "Vit melankoli" hoping that it would explicate Hübinette´s political line more clearly. I´m still not convinced that it did. Still, one thing is clear from the Lundström-Hübinette interface: you can never be "woke" enough in the eyes of a SJW. The book attacks not just explicitly racialist White supremacism, but also the anti-racism and multi-culturalism that has been official policy in Sweden since at least the 1960´s. Apparently, it´s still too White, too "hegemonic", too "nationalist". Really? We are hard to please!

Hübinette and Lundström believe that "White hegemony" has gone through three phases since 1905 (when Sweden definitely became a single nation-state due to the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian union). They refer to the three periods as "White purity" (1905-1968), "White solidarity" (1968-2001) and "White melancholy" (the present period). Several things about this analysis stand out. First, the creation of the Swedish welfare state by a strong Social Democratic government falls within the "White purity" period. This was the result of a class alliance between the White working class and the White middle class, in which the former convinced the latter to support the welfare state and the general hegemony of Big Labor and Social Democracy. Was the welfare state at bottom a nationalist or even "racist" project? The authors point out that the term "folkhem" (people´s home), used by Social Democratic leader Per-Albin Hansson to describe the emerging welfare state, was originally a conservative term. They also mention the eugenicist streak within Swedish establishment discourse, a discourse never really questioned by the Social Democrats. The eugenics included forced sterilizations of people from an underclass background (sometimes Travelers) deemed unfit for reproduction by the proper authorities. 

But what about the "White solidarity" period? This is the period when Sweden turned 180 degrees and became one of the most anti-racist nations in the world, with mass immigration, a high number of foreign-born children being adopted by Swedish families, a large anti-apartheid movement in support of the ANC, substantial Third World aid programs, and multi-culturalism being the official policy at all levels. Sweden was one of the few Western nations without a right-wing extremist party in Parliament. This "White solidarity" period was also associated with Social Democracy, and supported by the left and the far left, to boot. Alas, the authors believe that this period, too, was a form of White hegemony. I admit that I don´t entirely understand why. Perhaps Sweden was still too White, too homogenously ethno-Swedish (here, the authors prefer the present situation). Sometimes, the explanation seems to be entirely psychological in character: by claiming to be "good Whites", the Swedes somehow sidestepped the fact that they, too, were once "bad Whites". Somehow, this gave Swedes absolution from their previous racialist sins. (What Hübinette and Lundström really mean is presumably that all Whites *are* bad by definition.) The authors believe that official Swedish anti-racism was really a form of nationalism - the Swedes were the best people in the world, precisely because they lacked race hatred, promoted tolerance and diversity, and so on. Gender equality played a similar role. Another problem is that Swedish anti-racism was color blind, pretending that "race" didn´t even exist as a relevant social construct. The authors support a more race-conscious "identity politics" approach, in the belief that this will benefit non-White groups more than the present color blindness. What they fail to understand, is of course that this will also benefit the White racialists they are keen on opposing...

The period of "White melancholy" (which symbolically began in 2001 and is still ongoing) is characterized by neo-liberal economic policies, neo-conservative culture, super-diversity, and a new class alliance, this time between the White middle class and the White upper class. The White working class has been left behind, as the White middle class becomes increasingly more privileged, but instead of uniting with the non-White immigrant workers, the male White workers turn sharply right and vote for the Sweden Democrats, an openly nationalist and covertly racialist party with roots in Neo-Nazism. The authors have no real explanation for this peculiar phenomenon, except another appeal to psychology. While White male workers won´t get any economic benefits from voting SD, they will at least by higher up in some symbolical sense than immigrants (and White women). Nor do they offer any solutions. White melancholy, it seems, is a predicament rather than a problem. Perhaps Whiteness itself is a predicament? Hübinette and Lundström are sharply critical of the mainstream left, which dream of a return to the period of "good Whites", color blindness or "working class politics". They don´t say so, but the implication of their analysis is that the White working class - not to mention the ditto middle class - is a reactionary mass of deplorables and unredeemables, and that the only solution is therefore a radical demographic shift in the direction of even more super-diversity (their term). And perhaps more struggle sessions? Like most anti-racist activists, the authors regard the decision of the Swedish Social Democratic government to "close the borders" during the 2015 migrant crisis as a decisive turning point, and as proof positive that Sweden has now abandoned "White solidarity". But this is absurd, since 163,000 asylum seekers arrived in Sweden before the border was "closed" (something the authors point out themselves), it´s not really "closed" at all, and no attempts have been made to force rejected asylum seekers or criminals to leave the country. What their position actually entails is that Sweden shouldn´t have borders *at all*, in other words, cease to exist. 

One absurd thing I noticed with "Vit melankoli" is the constant projection. The Sweden Democrats and Christian Democrats are attacked for their anti-feminism, while Muslims and other immigrants from Africa and Asia are only "supposedly" patriarchal. (Lundström is a White woman who doesn´t veil herself.) The White upper and middle classes are accused of being "clans". There are no other clans in Sweden? Immigrant youth gangs, say? Or Turkish and Somali vote-buyers in certain election districts? Meritocracy is increasingly replaced with "konsekrati" (not sure what the English neologism is - consecracy?), which means that your social capital is more important than your actual skill. The authors claim that this is typical of the White privileged neo-conservative layers, but it´s of course even more obvious in SJW circles. Those who lack the right woke values are purged, while grifters and incompetents are promoted (and consecrated) if they can sing all the right tunes, use the latest weird neologisms, and so on. "Diversity" often plays this function. 

I also noted that the authors seem to oppose mixed marriage between a high-status White person and a non-White person of lower status, since this is seen as a way for the non-White person to integrate into "Whiteness" by marrying up. They are also annoyed at the fact that certain non-White groups are succesfully "negotiating the borders of Whiteness" by "passing", for instance secular Iranians or non-White adoptees who are culturally Swedish. I always suspected that Hübinette is a reverse racist (he is a Korean adoptee), and I think this is additional evidence for that position. I´m not sure what Lundström is. A race traitor? The authors argue that gender and race are more important than class, but it´s obvious that they mean *race* is more important than either gender or class, since they attack the feminist movement for being "White-dominated". Also, the non-Whites who marry up into Whiteness are presumably women. Perhaps the authors prefer non-White women to remain conservative Muslims?

As a side point, I was amused by the weird paranoia of Lundström, which seems perennial in Swedish left-liberal circles, about certain symbols. Thus, a shaved head and a big beard is a "fascist aesthetic". (By that definition, left-Social Democrat Daniel Suhonen is fash.) When Christian Democratic leader Ebba Busch showed up in a recent televised debate in an attractive "feminine" dress, the SJWs almost panicked. Yes, Lundström has the same obsession with women dressing up as alluringly conservative "house wives". (She never mentions the Muslim veil, but whatever.) I also remember the strange debate among the lib literati about fascist aesthetics when the neo-Nazi NRM were allowed to march on the streets of some Swedish city a couple of years ago. Yes, there is a similar take on certain hairstyles in this book... 

I´m really happy that somebody takes the time sorting out these topics while the world is burning!

Needless to say, I have a very different political perspective than Catrin Lundström and Tobias Hübinette. The present situation (which may indeed have begun around 2001) is marked by an alliance between the neo-liberals and the left-liberals, the former being strong in the corporate and financial world, the latter being strong in the bureaucracy and the ideological apparatus. Their alliance explains the strange hybrid character of the present-day system, with a (fairly bizarre) left-liberal culture and a kind of quasi-welfare state (really a control apparatus over the unemployed) superimposed on a increasingly neo-liberal economy (and yet, one that is ultimately subsidized by the state). Both sides support mass immigration, neo-liberals to get cheap labor, left-liberals to get voting cattle and/or state wards. Both sides also promote immigrants and other "minorities" willing to play by the rulebook. And both sides attack the White working class! It´s certainly possible that the neo-liberals will break the alliance with the left-liberals at some point, turning towards the quasi-nationalist right (which is really neo-liberal). Lundström and Hübinette presumably represent the far left faction of the left-liberal apparatus, which fears this perspective more intensely than many others, and therefore call for a more radical SJW-ish, BLM-ish and anti-White policy in order to quash the (White) neo-libs before it´s too late. And "super-diversity" seems to be the way to do it. (Since Whites and non-Whites can´t unite, what makes the authors think various non-White group can unite better? On his blog, Hübinette even complains about being harassed by MENA youth due to his East Asian look!) 

Had I been a revolutionary leftist of the classical type, I would have attacked the authors for being "reformist" and "liberal", accused them of denying the possibility and necessity of "working class unity" and "class struggle", and then called for mass immigration myself. However, I´m beginning to think that there is, paradoxically, *something* to their analysis. Yes, the Swedish welfare state was a nationalist (or "White") project, but why on earth is that a *bad* thing? Maybe global "class unity" really is impossible - as suggested by the authors themselves. But if so, the most logical way to win back the Swedish working class to Social Democratic politics is for the Social Democrats to become more nationalist, while also promoting a stronger welfare state (and negotiating the borders of Whiteness by including, say, Iranians or Assyrians into the Swedish folkhem). If Hübinette and Lundström call for BLM-ish reverse racialism, they can hardly fault others for proposing their own brands of nationalism! 

In a way, I suppose you could say "Vit melankoli" made me more race-conscious. Or at least nation-conscious. The irony.