Into the Melting Pot

The (temporary) triumph of the anti-European forces in 1945 has led directly to this day.

by Frederick Dixon

I SUPPOSE IT’S quite normal and predictable for people to gush over a baby, (even if the more reserved among us might find it a little embarrassing). At least such gushing is usually confined to a family and its friends, but not when the baby is a royal baby because royal babies belong to all of us. There was huge excitement when Prince George was born in 2013 because one day he is going to be king (if the monarchy survives long enough), but even that excitement pales in comparison with the media melt-down which has accompanied the arrival of “Baby Sussex”, or Archie Windsor as I suppose we must now get used to calling him.

This media melt down is of course because of his race. Examples, if you can bear to read them, include this from the Telegraph, “the infant is believed to be the first mixed-race child born to a senior member of the royal family for centuries, and is a REFLECTION OF MODERN BRITAIN with its culturally diverse population”. Also this: “poster boy for A BRAVE NEW BRITAIN”. From the opposite end of the media spectrum (The Sun) we have this by someone called Tessy Ojo, described as Chief Executive of the Diana Award, “there are millions of families across the UK who have mixed heritage. This is representing WHAT MODERN BRITAIN LOOKS LIKE.” Midway between the Telegraph and the Sun is the Mail where we find this from that old race warrior, Trevor Phillips: “When I was born a mixed race child like you was a rare and often shameful secret, all too frequently put up for adoption by horrified grandparents. But by the time you are ready to attend senior school, half of us with a Caribbean slave ancestor are more likely than not to also have a white parent or grandparent.”

There was plenty more such pap in all the newspapers, and it is very reminiscent of the rubbish with which the media larded itself at the time of Prince Harry’s marriage to Ms. Markle. But why the intense and highly approving emphasis on the child’s race? When Prince George was born six years ago I can remember only one reference to his race — that he was one of the sixty-five per cent. of babies born in England and Wales that year to be White British, but there was certainly no gushing approval of his Whiteness.

The universal welcome for young Archie’s mixed race heritage is in fact a welcome for the fact that he is not White; it is — as a Black American might say — “sticking it to Whitey”. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but there is certainly an anti-White consensus at work. This consensus is apparent in every sphere of public life; in “hate speech” laws designed to prevent those who believe as we believe from expressing our views; in school curricula which emphasise Britain’s role in the slave trade but not our pioneering work in abolishing it (designed to make White British children feel bad about their Whiteness); in the universities’ resolve to “decolonise the curriculum” by reducing White cultural and historical content; in films and television dramas in which “Whitey” is always the villain and “people of colour” always innocent ( an extreme distortion of the truth ); in dramas which portray people of colour in places and periods where they would not have been present (stealing our past); in the wildly excessive presence of mixed race persons and families in television advertisements. And then, on the horizon, a malignant import from the United States — “Whiteness Studies”– to delegitimise not only the cultural roots of White power and civilization, but the White race itself.

The extracts from newspapers which I have quoted above are quite correct. The new baby does indeed reflect an aspect of modern Britain and does reflect the royal family doing what it always does, trying to make itself relevant. That the baby reflects an aspect of modern Britain is the result of that anti-racist consensus. It has deprived our people of all ability to resist racially mixed relationships even in their own families. To do so, most of us have been persuaded, is to be a “racist and a bigot” and therefore the worst of sinners. That the great majority of White British people are still in relationships with other White people is not due to any racial preference (that would be quite immoral!) but to the simple fact that we are still the majority and therefore more likely than not to meet others of the same kind. As the non-White population swells so will the number of mixed relationships. It is already the case that two thirds of children of Afro-Caribbean ancestry in this country have a White parent. So we are defenceless before the onslaught of state approved and state sponsored race mixing, and now this endorsement from the highest in the land sweeps away the last vestiges of resistance.

Or does it? Are we entirely defenceless? No we are not; our cause is wholly moral and the assault on our racial identity is motivated by wickedness. We need to be aware, and to make others aware, that race mixing — the interbreeding of two distinct human sub-species (e.g. White/Black) or two markedly different races of the same sub-species (e.g. White/South Asian) — is a wholly destructive process which terminates a biological line which may be hundreds of generations long, and substitutes for the ancestral population an impure line which would be unrecognisable and unwelcome to earlier generations of our folk. Of course, change happens all the time and our forebears of a hundred years ago (those heroes of the First World War who fought to save our country from foreign invasion) would find much in the modern world to unsettle them, but at least they would find that most modern Brits look like those they knew long ago — of course they do, they are their own descendants! But race mixing will destroy all that; it is genocide, nothing more, nothing less, wholly wrong.

So there we have our moral case; race mixing is the destruction of a natural variety as much to be deplored and avoided as the destruction of all natural varieties. But in making our moral case we must not cut the ground from under our feet by descending to race hatred, or indulging in theories of White supremacy or superiority. All we want is to remain ourselves in our own homeland. [We at National Vanguard know there is only so much that can be said on the Great Prison Island, and your case is even stronger than you say. The fate of civilization and of all life in the Universe depends upon the survival of our race. — Ed.]

In fact, our case has been made for us by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that great hero of the resistance against the lies and oppressions of the Left. Speaking at the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, in words of great clarity and wisdom which we would all do well to take to heart, he said: “In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of the Divine intention”.

* * *

Source: Western Spring