Because Sweden’s leaders are emotional, virtue signaling women.
It would be funny if it weren’t existentially tragic. Team Cunt invites the swarthworld into Sweden on a menstrual wave of righteousness, and bows to the swarthworld like the submissive harem playthings to which they secretly aspire.
Handing the reins to White women will be the Final Stupidity that ends Western Civilization, unless the native fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands of these women reassert their masculine privilege and demote them to the roles for which they are most suited: inspirational physical beauty and motherhood.
Feminism is the shit test that MUST be passed, or Western White men are doomed to be cucked forever by Morlocks with a stronger pimp hand.
Days of Broken Arrows writes that the problem of women in leadership positions is their pathological conformism.
Anyone who went to an American school knows that females, as a group, will go along with any trend that’s being pushed by mass media, from clothes to music to makeup. The girls didn’t question why they were doing what they were doing (except for the odd math team girl). They just went along with everyone else.
So it is today with politics. The same girls who had to have the same shoes as everyone else now have to go along with everyone else too. This was the danger of allowing women a political voice and I’m guessing that on an unconscious level, the Founding Fathers knew this.
Schools are really about socializing people, so principals and teachers make such girls the center of attention. The media is all about “manufacturing consent,” so women are placed front-and-center as much as possible.
Conversely, men are a more dangerous proposition. Even the most conformist men have an individualist streak. Schools and the media do as much as they can to curb this, but you can’t change human nature.
The guys you knew in high school are still around and still probably have the same individualist quirks you remember. But you don’t hear about them. Their opinions are now being drowned out, the same way they were drowned out as high school sophomores by girls shrieking over the new pairs of Lucky jeans they bought.
When you get down to it, politics is a pair of jeans for women. It’s not that they particularly even care about jeans or want to wear them. It’s that everyone else is doing it.
Female (and relatedly, gay male) infiltration of so many institutions has created unstoppable momentum toward US decline and eventual collapse. Those drowned out voices of the individualist (White) men will have to get a lot louder and more insistent if the female-led decline is to be reversed.
This is a great blog post tying together feminism and the third worldization of the West.
Thus feminised groups will open their borders (and their legs) to everyone and everybody, including to more masculine groups who have more kids, leading to the feminised group becoming a minority in its own country. This could be also observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups, such as western Europeans and white north Americans, have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.
Women, in general, have similar behavior to that of minority non-white groups, so they reinforce each other. This could be also called the “women – minority alliance”. You will see lots of similarities between female behavior and minority/third worlder behavior. […]
As you can see, the one group empowers the other, there is collusion between them, and they jointly create an environment that is particularly well suited towards parasitism upon white men.
What is interesting to me is that feminisation and third-worldization work together. You often hear the phrase “women and minorities”, “racism and sexism”, “white privilege and male privilege” etc. Those words often come together. There is collusion going on. Why is that? Because women pay only 30 percent of taxes, (10) but receive the vast majority of welfare, pensions and medical care, and benefit from diversity quotas/affirmative action, so they often support other parasitic groups and often work together with them to expand the welfare state and affirmative action/diversity policies.
The more influence women have directly leads to more minority influence, and vice versa, creating a positive “more diversity” feedback loop. There is correlation between the level of female influence in first world societies and the third-worldization of those societies.
Feminism could cause a white woman to support a minority woman against a white man, and put the non-white woman above the white man. When white women, due to feminism and “sisterhood”, feel closer to non-white women, than to white men, and turn against their own men, then their group may not survive such treason.
This is why feminism is incompatible with nationalism and the survival of the ethnic group.
Basically, many women and minorities have similar (parasitic) behavior and similar (more government, more affirmative action, more quotas, more taxes, more redistribution, more welfare, more “give me, give me”) goals. They also both fear potential white male violence, both complain about “too many white men” dominating this area or that area, or how a certain sector is “too male and pale”, and both shout “down with the 1950s!”.
If you look at political parties who support feminism, you will notice that they also support more minority influence, and vice versa. For example the Canadian election where female supported liberal Justin Trudeau won resulted in both more women and more minorities in Parliament and in the Government.
The Women’s march against Trump also demanded immigration and open borders, claiming that “no human being is illegal”. (42) Meanwhile, non-white feminists are turning against white feminists using the same methods they used on men.
So basically white men in the West are getting attacked by a coalition of many of their own women working together with minorities.
Do you think it is a coincidence that western societies became more liberal and opened their borders in the 60s, exactly the decade when contraception became widely available, women were freed from the burden of having multiple kids and entered the work force and politics en masse, and female influence exploded?
If you want to get rid of white people, then it makes sense to promote feminism among them. First, it will lead to negative birth rates. Second, it will lead to more tolerance for immigration and open borders. Third, it will divide and destabilise the targeted ethnic group, and will turn the women and the men of that group against each other. And fourth, women will hardly care about the presence of Jews in the midst of their society, since women are less xenophobic than men. So I don’t think that it is a coincidence that the people who are on record saying they want to get rid of white people of European descent are also supporting feminism in western countries (but not in their own country).
Tradcons will have to wake up to the fact that White women and nonWhites have formed, intentionally or organically, a de facto coalition to destroy the nations that White men have created. The war for the survival of the West really is White men versus everyone else.
I like those odds.