Wednesday, September 22, 2010

“The Multicultural Society Doesn’t Work”

The latest reports from Sweden indicate that the establishment parties plan to use parliamentary maneuvers to limit Sverigedemokraterna’s access to the levers of power. The fact that the oligarchs who run Sweden are willing to openly discuss blocking the Sweden Democrats from influential committee posts is a sign of how afraid they are of these “Islamophobic” upstarts.

And with good reason. Take a look at this interview with Kent Ekeroth, the international secretary of SD, and you’ll see why he gives the Powers That Be such a bad case of indigestion. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this video from British TV:

11 comments:

Erick said...

Among other things, I really wished he would correct the interviewer, who said "a little white lady, being besieged by some women in burqas". The white lady just happened to be a pensioner, which was the point of the banned advertisement to begin with.
I guess taking care of the elderly is also racist now.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mr. Ekeroth truly cares nothing for the Swedish bloodline, or if he just can't admit it without facing jail time back home.

If the next generation of Swedes does intermarry with the 15-20% of the population that is non-European, then the Swedish nation is done for.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Mr. Ekeroth's presentation was ineffective. There is no reason whatsoever that Sweden should encourage mass non-white immigration. African, Arab and Muslim Asian immigration brings with it cultural, religious, and political values and languages that are utterly foreign to Sweden. Sweden is under no obligation to become a non-European nation.

Japanese insist on only Japanese as citizens. China does not for a moment contemplate mass non-Chinese immigration. Only in the West does a white European have to dance around the concept of maintaining his or her own country as place only for whites.

Clearly the mad Swedish experiment with mass non-white immigration was a terrible mistake. That reality will have to be faced more forcefully than we saw here. Mr. Sarrazin has been successful with being clearer about this.

Baron Bodissey said...

Colonel --

Mr. Sarrazin has been successful with being clearer about this.

With all due respect, Thilo Sarrazin was not as successful as Kent Ekeroth -- he did not (and probably could not) get elected to Parliament.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

It's important to remember the amazing significance of what just happened in Sweden: Kent Ekeroth was elected to Parliament, and he is one of us.

sulber nick said...

I didn't see this as 'ineffective', rather the exact opposite, Mr Ekeroth came over as highly effective. The interviewer employed the usual argument against opposition to multiculturalism and Mr Ekeroth ripped the rug out from under his feet in the nicest possible way. This is the way forward.

Anonymous said...

Baron wrote,

"With all due respect, Thilo Sarrazin was not as successful as Kent Ekeroth -- he did not (and probably could not) get elected to Parliament."

Eh, which opinion polls are you reading?

http://www.bild.de/BILD/politik/2010/09/05/sarrazin-partei/achtzehn-prozent-wuerden-sarrazin-partei-waehlen.html

According to that one, 18% of the population would vote for a Thilo Sarrazin party. And some 89% agree with him on most issues. That beats 5.7%.

If you act half-apologetic about what you believe, then people will get the idea you have something to apologize for. Most likely, your "racism".

Ekeroth and Sarrazin have absolutely nothing to apologize for. I have no idea why they should give any other impression.

Anonymous said...

That said, I don't think he was ineffective. Like I said, he has to deal with tyrannical, anti-Swedes at home.

Baron Bodissey said...

bartholomewscross --

When Sarrazin gets elected to the Bundestag along with a number of other members of a new Counterjihad political party, and they hold 6% of the seats or more, then I will eat my words.

But not before that.

Michael Servetus said...

He hit upon a fundamental truth when he said that in order to have a really effective welfare state with people who are altruistic and care for one another and tolerate one another you must maintain a common core of ethics and values, some sort of similar moral view, You cannot import enemies and expect solidarity and a working welfare state in the best sense of that word.
I am not an advocate of the welfare state but only using the terms employed in the interview.
I heard it said elsewhere, that a people must have a body of law and a government that is compatible with their beliefs not its opposite since it is meant to be a representative government and this truism of democratic republicanism cuts both ways. It is first of all obvious that it is tyranical and unjust to have a governemnt that is hostile to its peoples beliefs and militates against them, so the same goes for Muslims, they need a governemnt that is different from or own Western type for obvious reasons and we need our own, it cannot be all things to all men for then it is nothing.
The problem is that our Western governemnts now consider themselves nuetral and not beholden or identified with any particular people, they refuse to recognize their own but disown us.

EscapeVelocity said...

I think you are unclear on that position Servatus.

Are you rejecting Universal Truth? Universal Right and Wrong? Universal Human Rights? And embracing Moral and Cultural Relativism, Multiculturalism?

Clearly you are not.

One thing you do seem to understand is that a Huge Welfare State only functions well, when their is social, cultural and ideological cohesion amongst a people, mostly found within tribes, or religio-ethnicities. Homogenous societies can operate an Expansive Welfare State, because social norms against cheating or abusing the system can be enforced without problems, officially but perhaps more importantly they are enforced informally via the cultural expression and through social contact.

When you bring in another tribe, then you lose all that and you have competition, and certainly not informal enforcement of social and behavioral norms.

This is why the US system is different. The Welfare State (used to be) much less expansive and thus people from many different backrounds self assimilated so that they could feed their families (also the Euro Christian Cultural Norm was still culturally confident in giving them something to assimilate to...we still have the Constitutions and its ideas that can be assimilated to).


This is compounded by the extreme differences in culture (its much easier to assimilate a Pole to Sweden as they arent that much different to begin with) and also a Religious Ideology that is heavily at odds with Christian and Enlightenment values, principles, and metaphysics, and thirdly from places where the Swedish Welfare bennies seem like living like Royalty compared to where they came from.

Youve got Big Trouble.

Col. B. Bunny said...

I don't detract from Mr. Ekeroth's electoral achievement and he did navigate the obstacles put in his path by a hostile interviewer. I know he's one of our front line soldiers.

H/e, I consider his answer to the inevitable question about racism to have been ineffective in that it did no more than avoid making a serious error. He seemed not to have thought through how he would answer this point. Maybe he could do no more given the incredible conditions with which the SD have to contend or that he was only just beginning to appreciate the amazing fact of his and their election.

Nonetheless, Mr. Sarrazin has been very effective in getting eyeballs on his message and I think that is because he has been clearer and more forceful. Bartholowmewcross has the stats.

Of course, I rejoice at Mr. Ekeroth's success but merely would prefer he deal with the "Immigration to Europe is the birthright of all" idea (which cannot be resisted without being labeled a racist, as we know) in terms other than those that discuss what is necessary for there to be a functioning welfare state.