Excerpt, emphasis added:
A few months ago when Trump was beginning his incredible campaign, a minor politician in Vancouver, city councillor Kerry Jang, demanded that the planned Trump Tower in Vancouver have its name changed to signal disapproval of Trump’s “racism”. Jang, acting as if the Chinese were the new owners of Vancouver, said that Trump was a “bigot” who stood against the Canadian values of “diversity”.
People like Jang dislike any sense of White identity no matter how implicit it may be. What matters most to the Yin and Jangs is the utilization of White leftist ideas to promote the ethnic interests of Chinese in Canada, a people who come from a most racist culture, yet rarely waste a word about it. Moreover, despite all the myriad differences and disputes between non-White activists, at the end of the day they have a common enemy that unites them: European identity.
More, it is unlikely Le Pen would want to be seen supporting any Greek party after the National Front’s repeated attacks on billions in eurozone bailout money, much of it at the expense of French taxpayers, being poured into Greece following its economic collapse.
I believe that if we are interested in preserving and advancing the ethnic interests of European Canadians, it is better to work within the existing framework of multiculturalism than to promote assimilation…
…In the words of Will Kymlicka, humans (= immigrants) have a “very strong bond” to their culture and ethnicity; therefore, Canada should tolerate their ethnocentric tendencies and European Canadians should embrace multiculturalism.
We need to reply to multiculturalists that European Canadians also have a “very strong bond” to their ethnicity and historical ancestry, and in this way demand (within the framework of multiculturalism) the right of European Canadians to enjoy a group identity within Canada rather than being reduced to abstract units with individual rights only.
…The best strategy is to unify all our economic, environmental, and cultural concerns about immigration under a pro-European ethnic group strategy that is operational within, but recognizes the limitations of, multiculturalism in Canada…
…It is odd that the very same people who created multiculturalism have precluded themselves from enhancing their own group interests, preferring to speak only of their individual rights while granting both group rights and individual rights to other ethnic minorities. In fact, we have practically criminalized any form of European ethnic attachment, treating it, and only this ethnocentrism, as “a pathological condition”. We need to break out of this mental prison house…
…We will NOT be arguing in favor of multiculturalism as a minority to advance our group rights, but will be arguing within multiculturalism in order to make Europeans aware that they are the founding peoples and that Canada is their homeland and that we intend to keep the country majority European. By working within multiculturalism, locating its weak points, “preserving and enhancing” our culture, demanding our rightful place as the majority Canadian culture…
There are two basic things we need to do: we need to build a new society based upon a new movement (the theme of my Western Destiny blog), while, at the same time, undermining the System, which includes undermining the “movement” – which is actually part of that System (an inept bogeyman, playing a role similar to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984). Today, I have a few words about undermining the System as a whole, built as it is on the ideology of multiculturalism. I would like to talk about “democratic multiculturalism,” a concept endorsed by Salter and Duchesne, and one that I have previously discussed here.
We need to get over the idea that such complaining is “weak, beta, non-White, feminine” blah blah blah. Not only is this complaining being done for a specific political purpose, but note that in a multicultural milieu, power is in part derived from the role of “victim.” Yes, it is a “Last Man” attitude, but it is a means to an end, it is the case of Higher Men being able to stomach their sense of disgust (self-mastery, no?) to use the ressentiment of the Last Men against them. Remember, this is a means to an end, not an end to itself. It is not mainstreaming, it is not compromise, it is not incremental progress, and it is not reforming the System. It is instead using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself; it is an approach which forces the System to take its own ideology at face value, or be forced to declare its illegitimacy to the majority of the population.
After all – and this is crucially important – our complaints of discrimination, as opposed to those of the Others, have the added power of actually being true(note my caveat above: make sure your complaints are based on some sort of legitimate issue). This is an “the emperor has no clothes” situation – some Whites do know what the score is, but each alone is afraid of saying anything. In a multicultural regime, complaining about discrimination is a socially acceptable means of protest. In theory, socially acceptable for everyone; in practice, not acceptable for White men. But, following the implicit/explicit argument I made above – it is “not acceptable” only in an implicit sense. Implicit attitudes are the downfall of a White race unable to articulate or defend its racial interests. Implicit Whiteness. The acceptance of an implicit lower-caste status for Whites. An implicit understanding that White men are “not allowed” to complain about race/sex/ethnic animus directed toward them. This implicit bluff needs to be called. If multiculturalism makes whining victimology socially acceptable, then the real victims of multiculturalism have to force the issue. If a few Whites so complain, that might embolden others to follow suit. With sufficient White complaints that seat on the multicultural table just might open up, as the System strives to placate Whites by assimilating them into multiculturalism. At first, they may try and get System agents to pose as White representatives, to defuse the pressure: this must be opposed and such individuals replaced by real advocates.
This of course, once again, depends upon other Whites doing their part – Rightist elites applying pressure from above, and a fraction of the White masses applying pressure from below. Obviously, if they fail to do so, there will be no incentive to the System to compromise (note: they compromise, not us) in the manner described here. The “top” and “bottom” pressure must exist, it must be consistent, and it must weaken the legitimacy of the multiculturalist regime. The System may realize that including Whites in that regime may have the same long-term result that “glasnost” had for the USSR – but, like Gorbachev, they must feel like that have no choice but to take the chance on reform.