COLUMN • When questions about demography, continuity, and the future of Europe’s majority populations are automatically dismissed as racism, extremism, or “white supremacy,” public debate is effectively paralyzed. Topics that could earlier be discussed rationally have become moral minefields, where any attempt at analysis is distrusted from the outset. In Europe, the line between racism and the right to survive as a society has thus been erased—with consequences that few institutions, politicians, or opinion leaders now dare discuss openly.

There are questions that have, in practice, become impossible to even ask without being viewed with suspicion. This is one of them. Not because it is extreme in itself, but because the concepts around it have become so charged that every attempt at analysis is shut down before it even begins.

“White supremacy,” as it is called in English—or “vitmakt” in Swedish—is, at its core, a violent and racist ideology based on the notion of white superiority and the right to dominate others. That’s not difficult to denounce. The challenge in today’s debate is to distinguish that ideology from something entirely different, namely the issue of demographic, cultural, and historical continuity for Europe’s majority populations.

The two are now treated as if they were the same thing.

When people express concern that their societies are fundamentally changing, are losing cohesion, or are replacing shared norms with parallel loyalties and non-European clan systems, they are not met with rational argument but with labels. Questions about the future of the majority population are reduced to suspect motives. Analysis is replaced by psychologizing.

Jonas Andersson

Universities as Ideological Engines

For several decades, Europe has undergone a profound ideological and demographic transformation. This has been driven through the education system, the media, and politics, with universities as the main engines.

There, Western history has increasingly been reduced to a project of guilt, while concepts like nation, majority, and continuity have been laden with negative associations. Critical theory, identity politics, and radical feminism have become normative, not simply as perspectives among others, but as moral frameworks.

SEE ALSO: Zara Larsson and the Moral Collapse of Feminism

Students are not primarily taught to analyze societies by their consequences, but to adopt the correct stance—always against their own Western society and always against what is called the white patriarchy.

Divergent reasoning is viewed as a moral flaw rather than an intellectual objection. This, in turn, has affected all of society—how problems are described, which questions are seen as legitimate, and which are immediately labeled as extreme.

SEE ALSO: Vivalla and the Particularly Vulnerable Elephant in the Room

At the same time, Europe’s politicians have pursued a migration policy that in practice amounts to a population replacement. Demography in itself may not be a moral argument, although I unequivocally believe that white people also have a right to the regions and countries where they have their history and their ancestors.

Swedes, for example, have no other country on Earth but Sweden—and we have an indisputable right to our country.

The question, therefore, is not whether “white supremacy” is legitimate. It is not. The question is why the debate has become so crude that everything between racism and self-annihilation disappears. And we need to ask ourselves—what does it say about a society that can no longer distinguish between superiority and the right not to be eradicated.

Jonas Andersson

Combined with weak assimilation requirements, parallel norm systems, and European institutions lacking in self-confidence, tensions arise that cannot be solved by rhetoric or value documents. And here, conceptual confusion becomes central.

SEE ALSO: Among the High-rises and Concrete Where Sweden Fell Apart

When people express concern that their societies are fundamentally changing, are losing cohesion, or are replacing shared norms with parallel loyalties and non-European clan systems, they are not met with rational argument but with labels. Questions about the future of the majority population are reduced to suspect motives. Analysis is replaced by psychologizing.

This creates a strange state of affairs where all groups are encouraged to think in terms of identity and collective interests—except the majority population. The so-called minorities’ right to protect their culture, history, and security is taken as self-evident. When the same line of reasoning is applied to European majority societies, however, moral panic ensues.

SEE ALSO: The Demographic Powder Keg: Researchers Warn of Future Civil War in Sweden

At the same time, white European populations are a minority in the world. A very small minority. And the Nordic and Swedish populations are the smallest of them all.

Between Superiority and Self-Erasure

The situation of Jews in Europe clearly demonstrates how this works in practice. Jewish communities today are exposed to open hostility from both Islamist circles and segments of the radical left.

SEE ALSO: Feminism Finally Found Its Ally in Islamism

Antisemitism is often disguised as political critique and excused as “context.” Jews’ right to security, self-defense, and continuity is questioned in environments that simultaneously claim to be anti-racist.

If even the existential security of Jews can be relativized in today’s Europe, it says something about how far the shift in concepts has gone.

Against this background, the question becomes inevitable—when survival, continuity, and majority identity are automatically linked to extremism, what remains for a society to defend? And who is allowed to formulate a future without being viewed with suspicion?

SEE ALSO: Strolling Through a Future We Never Chose – The Sweden That Has Become a Foreign Land to Its Own People

Wanting society to continue existing over time is not the same as wanting to dominate others. It is a fundamental distinction that is now being actively erased. The result is not tolerance, but asymmetry. Not equality, but different standards. Not peaceful coexistence, but growing distrust.

Europe does not collapse in a dramatic instant. It happens through institutional decay, intellectual cowardice, and an inability to speak clearly about fundamental issues.

SEE ALSO: The Professor’s Dark Forecast: Swedes a Minority Within a Few Decades

When universities cease to be places of free inquiry, when feminism is used selectively as an ideological tool, and when the majority population—in its own Northern European countries—and their existence are made into a moral problem, then the foundations of society are eroded from within.

The question, therefore, is not whether “white supremacy” is legitimate. It is not. The question is why the debate has become so crude that everything between racism and self-annihilation disappears. And we need to ask ourselves—what does it say about a society that can no longer distinguish between superiority and the right not to be eradicated.