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.