Cuckservatives: The Nordic Model

By Hunter Wallace

At National Review, Kevin Williamson is worried that rightwing populist parties are uncucking the Right in Europe. He’s worried it could happen here and wants Marco Rubio to give some lip service to immigration restriction and make some token gestures to the conservative base before the Republican establishment loses containment:

“In a pattern that will not be unfamiliar to those following the politics of “welfare chauvinism” — which is traditional welfare-statism fortified with nativism — the DPP’s win came largely at the expense of the free-market Venstre party, which seeks to reduce welfare spending while the DPP promises to increase it. …

It is (relatively) easy to have a discussion about immigration as an economic issue or as a law-enforcement issue. But one despairs when wondering whether it is possible even to speak about immigration as a cultural issue. Trump cannot do it, but, given that he can rarely assemble a complete English sentence, this is no surprise. His epigones and his salesmen are even worse, a loose coalition of star-struck know-nothings, white nationalists on Twitter with Charles Martel avatars proudly proclaiming themselves the last true Christian knights in Mom’s basement, and media entrepreneurs whose main interest is in peddling gold coins and freeze-dried apocalypse lasagnas — a movement off its meds …”

His brave conclusion: it is legitimate to worry about losing your country, but all you rubes better vote for Rubio.

Rich Lowry steps on to even more dangerous ground by suggesting that Scandinavia is the way it is because of Scandinavians:

“The first thing to know is that Scandinavia is inhabited by Scandinavians, a hardworking, responsible people who have had high levels of social trust and cohesion for a very long time. These are splendid qualities for any place to have. As Sanandaji points out, Scandinavia already had high life expectancy and other health indicators before it expanded its welfare state, and already had more equal societies.

You can take the Scandinavians out of Scandinavia, but not the Scandinavia out of the Scandinavians. Sure enough, they have thrived here in the United States outside of their social-democracy hothouse. The descendants of Scandinavian immigrants have median incomes 20 percent higher than the U.S. average, and their poverty rate is half the average, according to Sanandaji.”

The upshot of all these debates is that Scandinavia has moved to the right and trimmed its welfare states as of late. Nordics are a hardworking, high trust people who pay for their welfare states with high middle class taxes. Danes have superior social services (free college tuition, healthcare, childcare, etc), but due to things like that 25 percent VAT tax Americans have more disposable income and more options.

The cucks want to invoke culture and ethnicity to point out why the Nordic model would never work in the US without sounding “racist.”

About Hunter Wallace 11771 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

18 Comments

  1. The guys over at TRS (most are former libertarians and ancaps) has come up with a great counterpoint when Leftist cite Sweden as a model social democracy. Instead of decrying that they are a socialist country, point out that these countries are White and whatever success they have is due to their Whiteness. Gavin McInnes brought this up in the following video. His anti White feminist guest was left speechless.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq68v

    Therefore, if Bernie Sanders wants social democracy to work like Sweden, he should make America as White as Sweden.

  2. Cucks and their string-pullers are already setting the table to stop Trump if he wins by installing Paul Ryan in the Speaker’s job. Reportedly, Ryan is demanding rule changes that give him sole control over which bills come to the House floor and changes that will make it impossible to replace him. The benefit for the GOP string-pullers is that if a Congressional coalition emerges in 2017 that is willing support some of Trump’s legislative priorites, say, for example, on immigration or trade, Ryan will be able to singlehandedly prevent a vote even if there is majority support.

    These mendacious bastards are evil. Yes, that is preaching to the choir, I know.

  3. @Lew

    Trump doesn’t need any new immigration laws. The laws he need are already in the books. All he needs is to enforce them.

    What Congress can do is to defund immigration enforcement and not fund the border wall. That will have to survive a presidential veto.

  4. Whitaker calls it magic borders theory, Vox Day calls it magic dirt, both mock the clown cucks and their Jewish thought leaders

  5. Jeff, it’s not that simple. Don’t overlook the federal courts. The federal courts will block anything related to immigration Trump might do under existing law or executive orders.

    The solution is for Trump to play hardball and pack the courts, or credibly threaten to do so. The Constitution does not specify a particular number of justices. It worked for FDR.

  6. Ryan has already said he doesn’t want the SOtH position, Lew. That’s old news. What about the idiocy of VP Biden not running, and then saying he’s standing behind O’Bummer, and that he wants the Democrats to stand behind the WORST PRESIDENT (because Nig) in HISTORY? What the??????

    The Cucks, liberals and defence attorneys for Hitler-y Clinton, are scared sh*tless of ‘The Donald’ and are circling the wagons… but they’re gonna LOSE!

    Buchanan already said as much in his latest column.

    Deo Volente.

  7. Jay
    ‘Jeff if Congress won’t fund the wall he can always use his own money.’

    He can cleverly propose a massive building project supplying much needed jobs. It’s not a wall! ‘It’s a series of -horizontal- Trump Towers.’

  8. Are we sure about that? According to this the President does not have the power to change the number of judges:

    http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

    “There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.

    The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.”

  9. “As Kevin Williamson points out, rightwing populist parties have gained ground in Sweden and Denmark. What about Norway, Iceland, and Finland?”

    Norway yes, (lost seats but in the govt.) – the media have been quiet about it.

    The political shift against immigration in the Scandinavian countries is what made the EU decide to open the floodgates imo.

  10. “The political shift against immigration in the Scandinavian countries is what made the EU decide to open the floodgates imo.”

    I was thinking the same thing. The PTB know the end is near and the tsunami immigration is a last ditch effort to save their hides.

  11. @RichardBird

    ” The PTB know the end is near and the tsunami immigration is a last ditch effort to save their hides.”

    Yup, they had to go all in – destroy us now or never – cos if we come back from the brink there’s gonna be one hell of a buffer zone.

Comments are closed.