More comments that no one is going to like, but that need to be said:

1. Asylum: It was never meant to be an "open door" policy to allow tribesmen, barbarians, and the detritus from failed states to flood into Europe, America, and Japan and sponge off the social services of those countries. It was originally intended to be a way for a select few elites who were genuinely suffering from persecution or oppression to find refuge abroad. But it has come to be abused.

I don't care if person X is hurting in country Y. There have always been, and will always be, civil wars, famines, corruption, chaos, etc. in different parts of the world.

Life is hard, and has always been so. This may sound cruel, but such is the way of all flesh. In this world, there are those who point the guns, and those who dig. Make sure you have the gun. Illegal immigrants need to be deported immediately and consistently.

2. Yes, I do believe that this is a struggle for Europe's identity and survival. Whatever is needed to ensure that survival must be done, and done ruthlessly. Don't whine to me about freedoms. Your excessive fixation on "freedoms" are what caused this situation. History shows that freedom varies inversely with the level of the external threat. And European culture is under attack from viruses that are both internal and external. The internal virus is far-left ideologies, which allow the nation to become powerless and defenseless. So, these groups need to be hounded out of existence. They need to be suppressed. Period. Sound harsh? Too bad.

Quote: (11-11-2014 10:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Mikado:

You're not making any sense. You believe people should be taken in for asylum just because the world is a dangerous place? That doesn't solve any problems. If people were interested in helping out the unfortunate around the world, they'd build armies for these people and have them overthrow tyrants. Instead, by taking in asylum immigrants they keep these dictators propped up forever, since there will be fewer unhappy people in these countries to actually oppose the tyrants.

Asylum creates problems in the host country where different immigrants clash with the host culture they cannot understand, and asylum sustains the problems in the parasite country with the corrupt political systems.

Of course not.
I answered to some contributions here about that. Of course a strict control must be ensured to avoid abuses of welfare.
Clash of cultures is irrelevant as long it does not lead to crimes and dump of ressources from the country.

Quintus lay out your "Ban and Jail Leftists to Save Sweden" plan.

How would it go down? Who goes to jail? Death penalty for the leaders? Are mainstream leftist parties banned or only the fringe leftist ones? Who decides which future political parties are allowed to form, or what positions existing political parties may take? What about charities and non-profits? Will leftist voters face any punishment?

Quote: (11-11-2014 11:29 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Quintus lay out your "Ban and Jail Leftists to Save Sweden" plan.

How would it go down? Who goes to jail? Death penalty for the leaders? Are mainstream leftist parties banned or only the fringe leftist ones? Who decides which future political parties are allowed to form, or what positions existing political parties may take? What about charities and non-profits? Will leftist voters face any punishment?

Very simple.

All of the national media must be galvanized by the state and its elites for a campaign to mobilize the national will. The public needs to understand that it is engaged in a battle for survival. It is under attack by internal and external threats. Extreme leftism, extreme feminism, and cultural Marxism must be shown as the insidious enemy it is.

There must be created a climate of unacceptability for ideologies that promote defeatism, atheism, excessive personal license. Each individual is part of a group and has responsibilities towards the group. You can't do whatever you want. Standards must be brought back that relate to personal appearance, hygiene, child rearing, and child bearing.

The Oppressing Leftists is not a solution.
Force is met by force, debate ceases to have effect, and the winner who emerges is a tyrant.

Leftism succeeds largely because it is simplistic and divisive. It is easy to preach and easy to use to pit people against each other. It is wrong, but not obviously so to a simple mind, and sufficiently difficult to disprove. In a democratic society, this is a source of power for those who seek it.
A Rightist on the other hand, has to explain how the world actually works, which takes effort and an open mind for the listener to understand.

The Right has only one recourse, to appeal to reason, and to do so as vigorously, unrelentingly, and offensively as possible.

Quote: (11-10-2014 01:57 AM)Akula Wrote:  

Vicious in 3...2...1...

You seem to be WAY more involved in the half dozen threads of this type that's running on the board now while I'm not even participating.

You're projecting.

Mikado, brother, you've got a chip on your shoulder.

Do you even try to understand where the people who are worried about the face of their country and culture changing are coming from?

They don't want radical Sunnis, Wahhabists, Salafis, Mawdudists, etc. in their countries because of their often virulent anti-democratic beliefs that clash with the existing culture. When they raise their concerns they're shouted down by the left as being racists, anti-Islamic, etc. This is the same tactic the SJWs use on men who dare raise their voice to speak against them and you should be mindful of that when you start accusing people of blanket anti-Islamic hatred.

Quote: (11-11-2014 11:41 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Very simple.

All of the national media must be galvanized by the state and its elites for a campaign to mobilize the national will. The public needs to understand that it is engaged in a battle for survival. It is under attack by internal and external threats. Extreme leftism, extreme feminism, and cultural Marxism must be shown as the insidious enemy it is.

There must be created a climate of unacceptability for ideologies that promote defeatism, atheism, excessive personal license. Each individual is part of a group and has responsibilities towards the group. You can't do whatever you want. Standards must be brought back that relate to personal appearance, hygiene, child rearing, and child bearing.

OK so no more free press, state-directed press.

Atheism outlawed, or promotion of atheism outlawed?

What about jail for leftists, banning leftist organizations/political parties, and the death sentence (for leftists?)? You mentioned that before, do you really think those are good ideas or were you getting carried away.

Leftist national parties should go back to pretending to care about the plight of the common working man in their respective countries instead of trying to gain new voters by importing a ton of foreigners and giving them the farm (vote buying). They should also not promote destructive anti-social movements like feminism. Those should be the rules.

No vote buying via immigration and welfare, no feminism.

@Sonsowey:

You keep trying to pin me down with precise specifics, and this is something I refuse to do. Tactical latitude is essential in dealing with the current threats against western European civilization. The general principles are what matters here.

You understand the gist of what I'm saying.

1. Religion needs to looked upon not as a source of bigotry and intolerance, but as as essential preservative of 2000 years of European civilization. It needs to be seen as a critical and necessary tool for the instruction and education of the young. It needs to be seen as a bulwark against the rise of barbarism.

2. Degenerate ideologies and their bearers need to be hounded to the margins of society, and left to rot there. You already know what those are. People who refuse to accept this need to be marginalized also.

3. We need to create a culture of beauty, health, and respect for Western European civilization. Excessive tattoos, piercings, slovenly dress, drugs, drug addiction, obesity, and behavior that promotes perversity and freakishness must be shunned. These things must become culturally unacceptable. People that promote them should be seen as warped.

4. Political parties or ideologies that subvert social cohesion should be marginalized, isolated, and pushed to the margins and kept there.

5. The focus should be on appealing to the young. The older generations are too corrupted and guilt-ridden to have the conviction to defend themselves. We must mold the young with a vision of humanity that promotes health, beauty, and gender roles that are based on biology, rather than on some diseased leftist feminist professor's wishful thinking.

.

Quote: (11-11-2014 11:54 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Mikado, brother, you've got a chip on your shoulder.

Do you even try to understand where the people who are worried about the face of their country and culture changing are coming from?

They don't want radical Sunnis, Wahhabists, Salafis, Mawdudists, etc. in their countries because of their often virulent anti-democratic beliefs that clash with the existing culture. When they raise their concerns they're shouted down by the left as being racists, anti-Islamic, etc. This is the same tactic the SJWs use on men who dare raise their voice to speak against them and you should be mindful of that when you start accusing people of blanket anti-Islamic hatred.

I am Ok for this
I don't want all the guys you listed either. Neither do all the muslims immigrants who just carry on their life and recognize themselves in the host country.

The problem starts when I am associated by default to them, just because I happen to share some basic core principles with them.

This is what Blick Mang especially did.

I am not being SJW since if you read carefully I support most of the measures listed on the thread, especially on welfare and crimes. Contrary to the SJW.

Where I disagree, is when the rant against immigrants turn to a rant against a religion whose each praticant have today a separate way to live it.

Being expelled because of what Wahabbites or radical Sunnis or terrorists do, whereas my practice of the religion is way far from their, whereas they even kill people from my country/side of Africa who are muslims too, seems fucking unfair to me.
Add in the cultural mixes, and you have a really twisted problem, far more complex than "they come to take our jobs, instaure terror and bury our identity!"
And for that, you need to strictly define some points of disagreement: the different Islams practiced by migrants, the amount of true/false refugees, the arranged marriage/barbaric practices, etc etc.
My opinion is that most of the forum here just does not want to go further than that, and just groups most Muslims and/or immigrants (especially from Africa and South Asia) under the same roof.
And I think the problem is way more complex than that.
This is my point.

Quintus,

You mentioned jailing people and seemed to imply executing them for their political beliefs. It sounds very Soviet and authoritarian.

I understand completely your desire for a strong united nation in the proper sense of the word. I think what you are talking about to achieve that though seems really off the deep end and wonder if you really believe feminists etc. should be in jail. Instincts like that seem indistinguishable from Marxists-Leninists who want to send dissidents to the gulags or, in a lighter sense, feminists who want to censor non-feminist speech.

I don't know, maybe you really are an authoritarian and would be happy if people who thought differently than you were jailed and possibly executed. I would like to hope not but I am unsure now. Now you seem to be backing off the extreme claims and just want those people "marginalized".

I am just trying to see if you are trying to achieve conservative/reactionary goals by Soviet means or not.

All of this is the direct result of the wrong side winning WW2.

It is an unmitigated disaster.

@Sonsowey:

I do believe that it is a mistake for the Europeans to abolish the death penalty and throw away 2000 years of legal precedent that permitted it. Properly applied, it has its place.

Of course I don't believe people should be "executed" for their political beliefs. If you read my earlier posts, all I said was that terrorists and criminals needed to be hit hard, and the death penalty "implemented where needed." I never said anything about political parties, so don't try to play these SJW games with me.

But I do think that Europe is sinking into a morass of sickness and that certain ideologies, people, and parties are pushing Europe into the abyss. Europeans have a right to defend themselves. And vigorous action should be taken to counteract this threat.

Do you believe Europe has a right to defend itself? Do you? Do you believe this can be done with delicacies and appeals to humanity? Do you think it's OK if the cradle of Western culture is overrun with putrid barbarians?

I'd like to hear your answer, Sonsowey. I don't mind waiting.

Quote: (11-11-2014 12:31 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

All of this is the direct result of the wrong side winning WW2.

It is an unmitigated disaster.

Not sure if serious...

I am completely serious.

100% serious. Hitler was doing no more than what Quintus is advocating.

The ethos that won WW2 is that homogenous nations of people attached to their land means gas chambers and lampshades. A mix of humanity incapable of forming an ethnic identity so they can be properly used as instruments of international usury means no gas chambers or lampshades.

People having a nation equals bars of soap.

It's outrageous.

This isn't rocket science. Look at Korea, Japan, any other nation that follows a nation=ethnicity=citizenship philosophy. The benefits are obvious as are the means to achieve them.

Quintus,

I don't want to paint you in any light that is inaccurate, which is why I asked. I'm not trying to smear you.

I think the poster above who points to Japan and Korea as nations which are true nations is instructive. They didn't have to purge leftists or anything, they just have tight immigration policies.

I am against shutting down the free press, against jailing people for their beliefs.

I would vote for proposals to end legal immigration to the United States, or restrict it in an extreme way, for the time being. If Sweden is having problems with their immigrants they may be well advised to try something similar.

I oppose the extreme means you were proposing. I don't care about religion. I think Sweden full of Swedish people would be fine were they all Atheists. Swedish people are perhaps too nice for their own good, but surrounded by other Swedes, it isn't a problem.

I am for the freedom of religion, or the freedom to not have a religion. Likely you think such permissiveness goes hand in hand with societal decay. Perhaps humans need the guiding hand of a false diety to behave morally, I am unsure. Especially seeing the low crime rates in some of the most Atheistic countries in the world in Europe, I am unconvinced of this.

Basically my solution is: Sweden full of Swedes will be just fine, whether they be feminists or atheists or religious or conservative. They are a peaceful society, well educated, prosperous, and have generally eliminated most of the social ills that plague the world. I don't think they need religion to guide them towards anything they weren't going to do already. I don't think they need to lock up leftists and turn the press over to the Church or some National Pride Committee or whatever you were imagining.

The death penalty isn't such a big issue for me. I would vote for life imprisonment instead of execution but I can understand execution as well for the most heinous crimes.

Of course a culture, society, nation has the right to defend itself, to propagate itself. The Japanese are doing nothing wrong by keeping their country Japanese. Swedes would be dong nothing wrong keeping their country Swedish.

Color me a "citizenist"

Quote: (11-11-2014 10:34 AM)mikado Wrote:  

Quote: (11-11-2014 08:42 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

On what planet are no solutions being proposed? Here, I can think of a few in just 1 minute that I'm sure were repeated a million times before:

1) Put an immediate 100% end to any sort of asylum, poverty or other form of immigration that is based on someone's bad life circumstances or persecution.

Some people really need it. The western world also has a necessity to assist for the extreme cases. Any country actually has that necessity. Because we are humans.
There are abusers, sure. However there are genuine people whose life is endangered ( from war crimes, for example). Think about Saido Berahino, who's gonna make his debuts for England football team, and escaped from Burundi's hell.


2) Require enforceable letters of guarantee from the immigrant's family or friends already in the country, or provide significantly reduced social benefits if no such letter can be presented

Sure, reduce the welfare. However what about those who are loners?


3) Require every immigrant who is not there for short-term work or visit to take a basic/intermediate language course and exam after they've spent a full year in the country.
Require another round of slightly tougher tests in language and law areas after some more time, and tough tests for giving citizenship.
First, would you waste time and money doing it to people who came to western countries for their studies and get a degree?
Secondly, tests are already carried for naturalization. And as I said to Blick Mang, most of the problems against the law are commited by natives anyway, so would you require from them law and citizenship tests too?


4) Committing a serious crime (violent crime like rape, kidnapping, murder or attempted murder) results in you being automatically expelled from the country; if you can't be expelled you get a harsher prison sentence than usual, to keep the locals safe.
Okay

5) Zero tolerance for illegal immigration; if you're caught and discovered to have entered unofficially, you automatically get deported.
Case by case basis for me. If proven his life is truly in jeopardy, let him stay a bit. If he just illegally emigrated to get money, yeah deport him.



Is this enough of a solution?

Add those and it's fine.

1. Not my responsibility. Which part of this is so hard to understand? If a country is feeling generous and wants to take in someone on the basis of them suffering in their own country, sure. I as an individual would also take pity on some starved person from Zimbabwe asking me to stay. But it should never be viewed as some sort of inalienable human right. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

Furthermore, the burden on those taken in that way should be extra strict, as they are guests merely taken in out of mercy, and any ingratitude towards their hosts should result in being sent back.

2. That's exactly what I said. A loner, having no family or friends to vouch for him and provide support while he is starting out, will certainly need social benefits for a while. That's why they need to be minimal, to ensure his ability to live humbly but motivate him to actually make something of himself.

3. Of course there could be exceptions, but if someone is staying in a country for 2-5 years, wouldn't you expect them to learn at least the basics of your language?

I am not aware of most of the crimes committed by 2nd-generation immigrants but, if that's true, that problem would be automatically solved by having followed all the other points, i.e. admitting only decent people who actually want to work and become a part of society, which probably includes raising a good family.

5. I don't have any objection to this but, again, this should be a matter of extraordinary generosity, not some sort of human right or obligation.

Needless to say, I would emigrate to any Western country in a heartbeat under these conditions. Give me a chance, and if I don't behave well feel free to get rid of me. That's all I ask for.

That said, while I disagree with Blick Mang, I do have to point out that his extreme views here are an unsurprising reaction to the decades of observing and experiencing the complete breakdown of the immigration system. If western countries had followed these 5 points (some still do, more or less - Australia and New Zealand come to mind) during the last 20 years, I'm sure that the natives' opinion of immigration would be much milder today, with almost no vehement opposition like you're seeing with Blick Mang.

Mikado, I single out Muslims deliberately and without remorse. Some things that need to be understood:

Not all religions are equal, in theory or in practice. Muslims believe the Quran is literally the word of God, handed to a single person. There's zero room for interpretation, and it's why so many throughout the world take it word-for-word. There's no free thought or debate in Islam, either you believe it and live it, or you don't. Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but not handed directly from God through a single prophet. Enormous difference. Any direct comparison of passages from those books ("Well, in Christianity it says eye for an eye!") is fundamentally flawed, given the role the Bible plays within the religion compared to Islam. Christians haven't beheaded anyone or stoned anyone to death in the name of the religion (key part) for centuries, while Muslims continue the practice in vastly disproportionate numbers compared to any other religion even today.

I mean for fucks sake, the fact that something like ISIS even exists in this century is proof the problem lies with the religion and it's followers. Slavery, rape, murder, complete rejection of science and technology, music, etc. It's stone age shit and no ideology that leads to those things is welcome in the West.

Not all cultures are equal, in theory or in practice. Western culture is a result of the Enlightenment, free thought, free debate, and the tolerance of multiple ideas and perspectives that don't infringe upon others (Islam does). Our values cured diseases, invented the automobile, airplane, computer, internet, lightbulb, nuclear power, satellites, cell phones, you name it. There's no loyalty or obedience to man-made laws or governments within Islam. Eastern Europeans integrate and adopt native values. So do Asians, South Americans, North Americans, Africans (non-Muslim), Indians, the list goes on and on. If you look at any country in Europe with societal friction, it's a result of a very specific group of people and no amount of hamsterization can hide it at this point. The cat's out of the bag.

Mikado, you are a perfect example of why many in Europe dislike Muslims (not you personally, I don't mean this in an insulting way, just look at the greater context). You're here as a Muslim to learn game and improve your chances with women, primarily Western white women. Please go to a club and tell me how many Muslim girls you see. Then compare to the number of Muslim men you see (in my experience, 30-40% of a club in Germany) Try acting like a white Westerner and then hitting on a Muslim girl, or sleeping with one. You'll have 16 brothers and uncles knocking on your door. Muslims are notorious for sleeping around and taking European women, while hiding their own sisters and daughters, keeping them strictly off limits. Taking all the benefits and offering nothing in return is the exact opposite of integration.

You expect us to watch our culture and values erode away to accommodate you, while you maintain your heritage and culture? I don't think so.

@Sonsowey:

I respect your opinion, brother. (I was just giving you a little bit of shit to jack with you...I like to do that sometimes...lol. ).

It's just that I have lately come to the idea that a more muscular, interventionist, and aggressive policy is needed on these matters. As you can probably tell from my posts, there is some repressed anger here.

It really dispirits me to see the US, Europe, and Japan just caving in on all of these cultural battles, over and over again. My own reading of history and my own travels have led me to a certain viewpoint, and one of those is that culture and civilization are perishable. Very perishable. If they are not defended by the leaders of society, things go to hell.

And I see Western "leaders" as little more than cowards and sellouts. Nearly all of them. They sit there and do nothing while our societies are buried under mounds of dung.

It's not like there haven't been people begging to close the borders of western nations like Sweden or England for literally decades. Decades.

Of course there are solutions. But there is no will. There is no will because the mechanisms of public opinion are arrayed against their implementation. Just as it was in Weimar Germany.

If you wish to save your nation, and your nation has been degraded to the extent that it does not have the will to save itself, you have to decide it's what you wish to do, and you have to imprison those who stand against you.

I don't understand where all the political correctness is coming from. This is the way the world works.

Quote: (11-11-2014 01:05 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

And I see Western "leaders" as little more than cowards and sellouts. Nearly all of them. They sit there and do nothing while our societies are buried under mounds of dung.

It's true our societies have built up something incredible and seem to be giving it away.

Falling into extremism doesn't seem like a good way to protect it to me. Within our own traditions I think we can easily find the tools to deal with this.

But then, in your readings and travels, I'm sure you've thought that perhaps we've just entered a decadent stage of decline and it's rather irreversible.

Do you read Peter Frost? He had a paper positing that Rome's downfall was partially genetic. You know more about Rome than I do no doubt. His theory was that as the empire expanded, Roman citizens themselves became less and less virile. I believe later Roman philosophers talked about this as well. The Romans no longer wanted to fight, they wanted entertainment. Their army became more and more recently conquered barbarians.

In the end, they became somewhat like Sweden, wealthy and an easy target.

Frost's idea was that this was actually gene-culture co-evolution. That back in the day, when you had a state-society which punished murder and violence with execution, you were effectively selecting against those with violent traits, the very people who would make good warriors. This helped establish an orderly and law-abiding society, but that goal can be self-defeating in itself this way.

*edit*
Here's the article:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/07/...ation.html

"Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission.

This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity—a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change."

Quintus is laying out some hard truths in here.

The fundamental fact that is becoming apparent to men who are paying attention is that Western civilization is incompatible both with Islam and with cultural Marxism, including all its various branches (i.e. feminism, atheism, moral relativism, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc...).

Islam is not simply a religion, it is an entirely different method for organizing society, one that is completely incompatible with Western traditions. There is no place for "real" Islam in the West, despite what apologists like mikado (many of whom are deluded, others whom are deliberately deceptive) claim. Watered down Islam, which is practiced very loosely by a small number of immigrants and which does not take its own teachings seriously, is not a threat. But that is not real Islam. That's like calling the guy who goes to church on Christmas and sits in the very back pew playing on his iPhone the whole time a Christian.

The problem with Islam is that moderate Muslims are absolutely unwilling to do anything about the fundamentalists in their ranks. The result is that even if the majority of Muslims are not actively supporting the expansion of Sharia law and Muslim dominance in the West, they certainly are not opposing it, and their tacit support acts to enable the boldness of their more radical fellow believers. Quintus is absolutely correct to identify this is an external threat that must be addressed.

Personally, I support expelling all Muslims from Europe back to Muslim-majority countries in Middle East or Africa. Is that harsh? Most certainly. However, it's not nearly as harsh as what will happen within the next few decades if Islam is allowed to continue growing in Europe. In that case, you will ultimately reach a breaking point that results in widespread massacres and possibly civil war.

Cultural Marxism is just as serious a threat, and is a rot that is destroying the West from within. Unfortunately, there is no quick or easy way to defeat it. You can't expel an ideology that has taken root in the minds of many people the way you can expel foreign invaders. The only way to fight it is with your own superior counter-ideology. This is something that is currently underway on the internet, and a strong anti-leftist, anti-SJW, anti-cultural Marxist message is beginning to take root among young men.

There is certainly no shortage of enablers of the West's ongoing destruction, many of whom I would not hesitate to label traitors and saboteurs outright, others who fall more on the spectrum of useful idiots, but all of whom deserve an appointment with the business end of a rope in my opinion for their personal contributions toward Western decline. But the time for that has not come. The battle now is still an ideological one. The message that Western civilization has to be actively defended by Western men against enemies both foreign and domestic (to borrow a phrase), must continue being spread. It is important to be bold and unapologetic in expressing this message, because boldness is the only thing that inspires men to action. The time for equivocation and relatvism has passed. You either stand for the survival of the West, or against it.

I realize these are harsh words, but remember we did not pick this fight. We are simply just waking up to the fact that we are actually in a fight, and must therefore defend ourselves. The Western man has been slumbering for decades while his societies have crumbled around him. We must rouse him now, before it is too late.

Religion isn't the guardian of morals.

It just so happens that religions like Christianity, for instance, are old, and old morals were conservative (or more accurately today: right-wing).
Christianity does not, however, explain why these morals are right. It just says 'obey or go to hell'. That isn't thorough enough to stand up to intellectuals and to be part of rational debate. Religious leaders, who are often at the forefront of debates around abortion, marriage, traditional values, moral behavior etc, simply do not have the grounding to defeat the supposedly 'new and fresh' Leftist ideas. The Leftists are using new stuff which they are making up themselves. The Priests only have their old book.

Just because many of the morals of Christians are right (e.g. 'no abortion, marriage between men and women only, gender roles etc'), doesn't mean they are the best group to defend them. They are very poor at explaining why those things are moral, without saying 'god said so'.

The Swedes already have the natural instincts of 'territorialism' and 'self-interest' in them. Its just damped out by the multiculturalist BS they've all been swallowing.
It should be sufficient to simply stoke those instincts and aggressively attack multiculturalism simultaneously.