Saturday, October 24, 2009

Save Our Native Culture

I wrote earlier today about the blatant move among Sweden’s political elites to establish a cordon sanitaire around Sverigedemokraterna and thus prevent the party from ever exercising any effective political power.

With the exception of the Danish People’s Party, the same process can be seen working against anti-immigration parties across the entire Western world. In Belgium and the Netherlands the major parties openly oppose any possibility of a coalition with Vlaams Belang and the PVV respectively. In the United States the same fate awaits Sarah Palin if she ever seriously attempts to usurp power from the castrated country-club weaklings who are in charge of the Republican Party.

And in Britain the cordon has closed tightly around Nick Griffin and the BNP. “Red Ken” Livingstone, the former mayor of London, spoke for the consensus of the ruling class in yesterday’s Guardian:

The BBC’s gift to the BNP

Nick Griffin on primetime TV is a political advance for the BNP and a great disservice to Britain’s anti-racist, democratic majority

The defence for inviting the BNP is to “defeat their arguments” and “expose their real politics”. But fascist political parties advance if they enter the mainstream of political life. The far right takes every inch.

This is a joke. The “far right” — meaning those who desire that ethnic autochthons should retain control of the politics and culture within their own countries — have scarcely gained a millimeter. The lockstep media wall guarantees that they will remain shut out of power until the entire liberal edifice collapses.

One the comments below the Red Ken’s op-ed drew the attention of a reader. He says:

The comments below the article show that the author’s views belong to the minority. One of the best: “The more I think about it, the more I find it morally acceptable, if not desirable, to maintain native cultures at the cost of a diverse life in Britain. Europe is on our doorstep and the world is getting smaller. It must surely be better to maintain individual cultures and go see them where one can, than melt them down into one non-cohesive mess.”

This point of view should be abbreviated into a slogan: ‘Save our Native Culture’ and exported throughout the USA and Europe.

The entire comment in question:
- - - - - - - - -
The constant retort that immigration has benefited our own British culture is nonsense. For a start, there is no such thing as British culture. There are English, Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish cultures. A culture is a reflection of the ethnic group through various manifestations of its achievements: language, the arts, religion or customs for example. Every ethnic group has a right to express and maintain its own culture. That is the basis of the doctrine of multi-culturalism. From the point that Britain began to change into a multi-cultural state the indigenous culture, although still dominant by numbers, began to change by the very fact that when such a multitude of cultures are forced to co-exist each must mitigate itself. Cultures cannot remain mutually exclusive when they are forced to co-exist, there are going to be overlaps and newly created common grounds in the hope that a decent quality of life is maintained for both. This is inevitable and it would be folly to try and deny that. Indeed we can’t or we wouldn’t have equalities ministers and social cohesion quangos and so on. This perhaps goes someway to explaining why the Labour government and Conservative opposition appear so out of touch — they simply label it as “diversity” and call it “good”. Maintaining the fact that a culture can only be defined by individual groups it’s clear that multi-culturalism cannot therefore add a thing to the native cultures of Britain, it can only change life in Britain by adding to the range of experiences available. Life in Britain is what Mr Livingstone is attempting to defend, this new and multi-cultural, diverse Britain. There are of course advantages to this. Different food, different experiences for example. But there are of course disadvantages, lack of social cohesion, loss of native identity and transformation of the country as a whole. Mr Griffin and the British National Party are trying to defend the native cultures as opposed to Mr Livingstone’s life in Britain. This begs the question, which is it right to defend? I’m left wondering that if the native cultures of these Isles are not protected within these very isles, then where else can they possibly hope to exist? What happens once they are mitigated out of recognition in this “melting pot” island and consigned to the history books? On the other hand, defending life in Britain means defending large numbers of different peoples right to their right to maintain their own culture in the place they were born. If Mr Griffin had been able to articulate this accurately (which he possibly might have been able to) then who knows, the night might have been more of a success. However, he didn’t and Ken Livingston is doing exactly as described above and whitewashing over the negative social effects of what this country is going through. People are going to recognise that and by the time Mr Griffin is on question time again, Red Ken and his ilk might have poured enough fuel on the fire to ignite a backlash. Despite his fumblings, Griffin did make a point and I’ve tried to describe it here. The more I think about it, the more I find it morally acceptable, if not desirable, to maintain native cultures at the cost of a diverse life in Britain. Europe is on our doorstep and the world is getting smaller. It must surely be better to maintain individual cultures and go see them where one can, than melt them down into one non-cohesive mess.


Fjordman said...

The main worry for the establishment should not be that more and more people vote for the BNP or like-minded parties. The main worry should be when a critical mass of people no longer see any point in voting at all, since the entire system is rigged and completely meaningless. I suspect that day is not too far off.

I remember I once heard about a mother who tried to figure out how she should deal with the concept of free will when dealing with her daughter of preschool age, who wanted to wear clothes her mother didn't like. She came up with the idea of presenting the daughter with two different sets of clothes, both preselected by the mother. This would maintain the illusion of free will while the mother had in reality made the decision beforehand. This is essentially how Western "democracy" works today. In the USA you could vote for an open-border Leftist candidate or an open-border "right-wing" candidate who just wanted to implement the Leftist agenda at a slightly slower pace, the way Western "conservatives" have been doing for generations now.

Once or twice every decade, Noam Chomsky says something worthwhile. One of his best quotes is that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." This is exactly what Western elites are doing today. All Western nations should have their white majorities culturally and demographically dismantled in a planned process to destroy their ability for self-rule and transfer real power into the hands of a new transnational authoritarian oligarchy. This process is being formalized in the European Union, where national elections are more or less meaningless already as real lawmaking power has been transferred to EU organs.

In short, white Westerners have been cornered and de facto disenfranchised while their freedom, their countries and their very physical existence is being systematically taken away from them. If you do this to an entire civilization, and deprive hundreds of millions of people a say in their future, you will sooner or later create a popular explosion.

Fjordman said...

I began a discussion in an earlier thread about how to prepare mentally and physically for the coming collapse of the ruling paradigm throughout the Western world. I hope to expand that later into an essay. First of all we need to switch from a "save the world" to a "save ourselves" mode, as I have advocated previously. I believe one of our underlying problems is that European and Western civilization not too long ago enjoyed a period of unprecedented global dominance, which is now rapidly coming to an end. Many Westerners are so mentally accustomed to this dominant position that they have a false sense of invulnerability.

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, people of European origins made up at least one third of the global population, some say as high as 40%. In the not-too-distant future this figure will be down to less than 10% and still falling. This sharp reduction has not been caused by a plague; it has been caused by a massive population increase in Third World countries, ironically facilitated by the global technological civilization created by European advances. We have given hostile peoples the technological ability to multiply, move to our countries and colonize us. This cannot continue. It is about time that whites start looking after our own interests, just like everybody else is doing. The first thing we need to do is to bury the entire notion of "racism," which is anti-scientific nonsense and only designed to silence and intimidate whites. It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that there is a large genetic component to culture, which would mean that the continuation and preservation of European civilization can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage.

Besides, people of European origins are generally among the least ethnocentric people on the planet and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It's about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology.

Fjordman said...

I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing now are planned and deliberate. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every single Western country. I've had some discussions about this with my good friend Omhyrus, who thinks this is mainly about a structural failure in our political system. I don't disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy.

We should start debating how to survive the coming crash. There will be a pan-Western and perhaps international economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future. I fear that this is too late to avoid by now. It's too late to fix the current ruling paradigm. The people who support it are too powerful, and the paradigm contains so many flaws that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. We should focus on surviving this crash and on developing a new paradigm to replace the failed one.

We need to learn from our enemies, both internal and external. The one thing I reluctantly admire about Marxists and Leftists of all stripes is above all their ability to organize and focus on long-term goals. Unfortunately, their goals are usually destructive, but we can and must learn from their organizational skills so that we can beat them at their own game. They must be squashed, otherwise we cannot deal rationally with our external enemies such as Muslims.

We must get rid of Feminism, which is destructive and merely an extension of Marxism, anyway. We must prepare as best as we can for a collapse of the US dollar and perhaps the Euro. We must document everything that is happening and is being done to us by treasonous elites for future reference, for instance by making a video dedicated to anti-white verbal and physical violence around the world. We must take steps to ensure our physical safety, and we must regain pride in our heritage.

Chechar said...

@ The first thing we need to do is to bury the entire notion of "racism," which is anti-scientific nonsense and only designed to silence and intimidate whites… --Fjordman

I cannot agree with you anymore. Sooner or later, after or before the crash, we well need to talk openly about the race issue (the most potent taboo after WWII). I’ve started to approach the subject in my blog. In today’s entry for example I noted the similarities between a 2007 article by Michael O’Meara and Con Swede's views.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

I think it must be noted that the main opposition to the political elite is coming form the much despised and maligned underclass. The autochthon disenfranchised estates are despite there social problems in someways acting like enclaves of resistance.

This section of society retained its core cultural values but not the economic means to enforce, express or practice them.

The higher up the social strata the more intense the adherence to neoliberalism and multiculturalism, this ideology is being enforced top-down it will be destroyed bottom-up. Lest we forget a large percentage of the U.K. armed forces is mustered from these very estates.

Rocha said...

I just saw the video of "Question Time". Well Griffin really needs to learn how to deal with his enemies. Looking down, laughting of jokes made against him, being over friendly with some of his enemies...

He also needs to do something about his eyes. It can maybe be seen as nonsense but since Kennedy vs Nixon radio to TV rate of aproval we know that looks does matter.

I do know that the what he done going agaisnt a opposing crowd and 4 opposing speakers plus an unsympathetic host was courageous. But it could really backfire. To it to work it had to be one to one or even 2 to one, agaisnt 4 he was lynched. Not that it hadn't it's good moments.

Good Luck Europe,

Sir Henry Morgan said...


There's nothing he can do about his eyes - the left eye is glass. Yes, that's right, he only has one eye.

He lost his left eye through an accident playing with shotgun cartridges when he was a teenager.

Do you still think he should do something about his eyes? What do you suggest? A black eye-patch?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

And a parrot on his shoulder?

Have half of one leg amputated and use a crutch?

His eyes are something he can do nothing about.

Rocha said...

Sir Henry Morgan,

No need to be so rude. I thought he was only cross eyed or something, like that. But that do not change a bit of what i wrote.
He still was too sunmissive in the program, and while I DO NOT believe he is that way in the elections he will have to learn how to deal with it.

Unknown said...

Chechar -

"I cannot agree with you anymore. Sooner or later, after or before the crash, we well need to talk openly about the race issue (the most potent taboo after WWII)."

Tomorrow on channel 4 they will openly deal with this issue.
Openly and impartially, of course.
They will discuss "race and intelligence" and dispel the myth that blacks are dumber on average than whites.

Yes, NG performed horribly. I didnt even recognize him. Like a different man whatsoever. Yep, and he himself knows it as clear from his next day's backlash. lets hope he learns this lesson.

Chechar said...


Do you mean BBC’s Channel 4? These guys are at the top of my black list when revolution arrives!

IQ differential studies among blacks and whites are almost irrelevant. The real issue is what I say in my blog: There are some similarities between the British National Party (BNP) and White Nationalism. But in the last years the BNP has sincerely tried to purge itself from its anti-Semitic past. From my present viewpoint, this alone makes BNP's ideology more mature than the American WN's ideology. Why then am I writing a series of entries under the title of White Nationalism instead of a series on the BNP?

For the simple reason that what we need is a sort of imperial Fourth Reich in the West, and the BNP only deals with British matters.

Recently I discovered the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice. The young ladies who played the characters of Elizabeth Bennet and Jane Bennet in the context of the bucolic England of the century in which my grandmother was born, touched my fibers, so let me address these actresses:

My perfect Caucasians Elizabeth and Jane: What have today’s elites made with your race, with your culture? Nothing moves me more for longing, with all my heart, for a ruthless Fourth Reich throughout Europe than the hate I feel towards the European traitors whose social engineering now has the most beautiful English roses, like you, as an endangered species.

I’m not only talking of Islamization, but of the massive migration from the Third World, as the BNP knows all too well.

Michael O’Meara, perhaps the most celebrated contributor to The Occidental Quarterly, and others, say that only a numinous myth can galvanize the white people to rebel against the ongoing, silent Holocaust of Caucasians. And what a better myth could the full force of sublimated Eros be…! Because of its anti-Semitism I don’t usually post comments in The Occidental Quarterly. But as to date there’s an exception. In the comments section of the article “The Sword” I wrote last month: “O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired in Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution. To think that the very crown of evolution is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former U.S. president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said! I can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today…”

Sir Henry Morgan said...


Yes. I made an error that is a common human failing - that of assuming that other people know what is already known and common knowledge to the people around me. With my knowledge I had no right to do that.

I apologise.


On his apparent submissiveness: well, I think it would take an experienced and armed combat soldier to be defiant when alone in a room with 300+ hostile people who many of whom would like nothing more than to tear you apart limb from limb, and many of those - Moslems - who have a track record of such things.

However, we British tend to interpret it as him merely being polite and well-mannered to everyone. In that respect, according to opinion polls taken since the show, he did himself and his party some good. We British tend to side with the underdog who we see as being bullied.

Do you wish me to remove the second of my above comments? I will do so if you require it.


Anonymous said...

"The comments below the article show that [Ken Livingstone] belongs to the minority."

Exactly. I, too, was stunned by the unanimous rage with which British journalists across the political spectrum lambasted and insulted Nick Griffin, suspending the professional ethos they usually apply even to politicians outside their sympathies ; and this, contrasting with the many comments on media sites (maybe even the majority, at times), by readers who supported the BNP, or at least attacked the chattering classes for demonising it.

The same rift can be seen, day in, day out, in the French media. While a supposedly conservative newspaper (and Sarkozy's mouthpiece) such as Le Figaro sides up almost entirely with the politically correct and multiculturalist discourse, their readers seem massively fed up with such propaganda.

And that's only the comments one can see after a fierce censorship has banned a lot of them. (I know : I have stopped commenting at Le Figaro's website ; my posts almost never get through.)

Yes, folks, a "right-wing" French newspaper has a distinctly Leftist moderation policy. It seems they outsource their moderation to the same company doing the job for most of the French mainstream media -- an it's located in Morocco. No wonder my anti-Islam comments go down the drain.

More remarkable still : websites of Leftist media such as Libération (which is far-left, really) are swamped with comments against immigration, crime and the "anti-racist" dogma. The tide is such, that Libération is accustomed to disabling comments altogether under overtly sensitive news articles.

Rocha said...

Sir Henry Morgan,

No need to take down the comments. C'est la vie.

That's good that people liked it. Anything that makes our chances in any country is good. Now not that i wanted him to be a bully there and start screaming like an idiot or something like it, it just that i think he should be more firm and unapologetic (in manners, since he did no wrong in most of his lines).

Now that was staged by the BBC. Besides the crowd agaisnt him he truly had 5 adversaries since even the host was agaisnt him, wvwn his place was against him since he had oponents right and left, he sould (if he could) have picked some of the far chairs. Now that "historian" was a joke "black" and "asian" romans?!?

Apart of a few nubians there were no black roman slaves! Asians there were NO yellow asians, almost NOONE Indians, now middle easterns look, at the lebanese, the syrian or even the egyptian are they REALLY that different from us? Well that was the strangier peoples the roman imported and most of then just to Italy because the Western Empire was truly hollow in cities and you had better sources for slaves right next door.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Rocha - and others - may enjoy this, and have a good laugh at it. It's a spoof of that Quetion Time show:::