Discussion:
Multi-Culturalism and Colonisation
(too old to reply)
Antimulticulture
2005-08-12 11:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Multi-Culturalism and Colonisation
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=57
Lee Barnes
11th August 2005

Multi-Culturalism is an ideological artefact of
late 20th Century Liberal Humanist political
thought and it is not, AND NOR EVER WILL BE, a
permanent imbedded national, political and social
reality in Britain. Just as we today in modern
Britain are no longer forced by law or custom to
bend our knee to Queen, Country and the Christian
God if we so wish, it is also a fact we in the BNP
choose not to bow our knee before
multi-culturalism, immigrants, liberals or the media.

The ideology of multi-culturalism is not a divine
commandment, and therefore if it is acceptable and
legal to question the very existence of God in a
secular democracy then it is absurd to suggest
that a political party and its members cannot
question the existence of a political ideology
such as multi-culturalism.

Deceit

The fact is that multi-culturalism is in fact an
Orwellian ‘word deceit’ in that it is a phrase
used in order to obscure the fact that
multi-culturalism is in reality colonisation and
immigrants are colonists. The idea that ‘Multiple
Cultures’ can exist in a nation that was once
exclusively host to its own indigenous culture is
in fact a description of New Left Imperialism, as
its presupposes that the indigenous peoples must,
at some point in the name of democratic
methodology, have acquiesced to that process. The
fact that the British people were never given the
chance to vote on whether they wanted
multi-culturalism foisted upon them means that the
whole creation of the multi-cultural state has no
democratic, legal or moral force. The fact that
multi-culturalism in practice has led to the
breakdown of the indigenous British society
leading to a state of de-culturalisation similar
to that of the indigenous Aboriginal people of
Australia with similar resultant social ills
reveals the damage multi-culturalism has caused us.

The rise in breakdowns of white indigenous family
structures, the rise in white indigenous drug
abuse, the rise in white indigenous criminality,
violence, teenage pregnancy, suicide rates and
other examples of communal breakdown and social
and individual ennui and anomie can all be traced
back to the imposition of mass immigration and
multi-culturalism on the indigenous British people.

Once our traditional family, moral and social
structures were undermined by the influx of
immigrants and the teaching of moral, cultural and
social relativism then the bonds that bound the
nation as an organic collective began to sunder.
This led to the atomisation of the white
indigenous community both physically through white
flight from expanding immigrant ghettoes and
subconsciously as the notion of a white indigenous
British nation, people and community were
repudiated and reviled by the Establishment Elite
in schools and in the media, especially on
television.

Our culture and communities were dismantled and
destroyed so that others could make their home
amongst us. Just as the Native American Indians in
America were forced by incoming non-indigenous
Americans of all races and creeds to surrender
their land and traditions to the incomers, so were
we. Just as the Native American Indian tribes
succumbed to a sense of helplessness, despair and
loss leading to the destruction of the traditional
Native American Community and a rise in
inter-communal violence, alcoholism and suicide –
so did we. Multi-Culturalism is racist in that it
destroys the indigenous people upon whose bones
and culture it is built.

Gulag mentality

We reject multi-culturalism as it is the most
pernicious, murderous and intolerant variant of
Marxism yet invented by the ideological heirs of
Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Though the physical
structures of the Communist death camps and Gulags
may have rusted away, the psychological
internalisation of the Gulags has become a feature
of our very lives themselves. We now live our
lives ensnared in a snarl of lies and self
censorship that is mockingly called freedom.

We reject multi-culturalism as it rejects us and
all that we stand for and all that which has come
before us. Multi-culturalism is the murder of the
past, the genocide of the present and the death of
the future. There is no moral, political or legal
duty on us to maintain or enforce either
multi-culturalism as a permanent political or
social reality in Britain. We had no hand in its
creation and we were given no choice as regards
its perpetuation. It was imposed upon us by the
political actions of a corrupt Imperialist
aristocratic elite who ran the Conservative Party
in order to profit from cheap labour and by the
criminal accomplices of Socialist Genocide in the
Labour Party in order to obtain cheap votes by
importing in an immigrant voting bloc. Both were
criminal regimes whose political decisions have as
much moral and legal validity today in Britain as
those taken by Hitler in Germany or Stalin in Russia.

Reversing the process

We intend to reverse engineer the damage of
multi-culturalism via ‘Democratic Demographic
Disengagement’ through the Rule of Law and the
democratic electoral process.

If it is an ideological truism that immigrants can
easily ‘assimilate’ into a new country, as the
Government and the Liberal Elite say they do in
Britain, then those immigrants allowed to enter
the country during the ‘Era of Criminality’ that
defined the late 20th Century and the process of
mass immigration into Britain will be able to
assimilate very easily back into their own
ancestral countries with cultures similar to their
own. The fact that immigrants have been said to
‘enrich’ us is irrelevant to the moral, legal and
political right for them to be here. The fact is
that British chefs are more than capable of
cooking a chicken tikka masalla without the
British government having to import three million
immigrants from the Indian sub continent into the
country to cook it for us. If we want to listen to
reggae or rap we can download it via the internet
or buy it on CD, it doesn’t mean we have to empty
the slums of Los Angeles or downtown Jamaica of
its residents and ship them to Britain to ensure
we get it to hear it in Britain. If you want to
marry a mail order bride you are free to move to
that country and reside with your purchase over
there if you wish, just don’t expect to live in
this country with your ‘capitalist slave’ trophy
wife. If you want to marry your cousin who lives
in a town in the mountains of Kashmir that’s fine,
but you will have to live over there if you do.

Some people suggest that because the British
people have not voted for political parties that
would have ended mass immigration, then we should
be stuck with it. That’s fallacious logic.

The foundations of a ‘ Just and True Democratic
Decision ‘ are based on four fundamental
principles each of which have been undermined in
relation to the creation of the multi-cultural
state and the influx of mass immigration into the
country. These are detailed below ;

A) INFORMED CONSENT

Informed Consent can only occur when we are told
what we are voting for and what its short term and
long term implications are. The British people
were not told about what was being planned by the
British State and its lackeys when the process of
mass immigration and multi-culturalism began to
happen in Britain. They were not told the scale of
it, the costs of it in financial terms and nor the
costs of it in social terms. The media did not
report it impartially and nor did the media allow
alternative voices to question what was happening.
A false ‘Social Consensus of Silence’ was created
that stifled free debate on the issue and that
only allowed one side to promote its views in
public when the topic was discussed. Therefore the
British people were incapable of giving informed
consent to what was happening to them and the
country both then and now. The same fake ‘Social
Consensus of Silence’ still operates today, and
all those that question the media bias towards the
pro-immigration and pro-multi-culturalism forces
in our society are called racists or extremists by
the media. Therefore the first fundamental of a
‘democratic decision’ has failed.

B) TRUE AGREEMENT

As the British people were never asked to vote via
a national referendum if they wished mass
immigration or multi-culturalism to be imposed
upon this country then both mass immigration and
multi-culturalism have no democratic mandate for
their presence in our country. They are both
fascistic impositions of the British State upon
the people. At no time in the modern British State
(as defined after World War One and the rise in
Communist thought in Britain post 1917) have the
British people been taught a nationalistic
consciousness either at school or in society.
Orwell himself noted how patriotism was looked
down upon by the most well educated intellectual
elite, but embraced with instinctive passion by
those most poorly educated.

The education systems have been used to denude and
extirpate all residual traces of nationalistic or
patriotic feeling from youth and our people. The
lack of a living consciousness of history,
tradition, pride in ones country and culture
transmitted to generation after generation of our
people resulted in the creation of a
psychologically damaged generation of Britons
incapable of appreciating those things that are
essential to the formation of both individual and
national character. The British State stole from
generations of our children their ancestral
identity and pride in themselves, their country
and culture. The schools then spat out the
Nineteen Sixties generation of perpetual
adolescents who now run the country.

This lack of identity and understanding of their
national community meant that generations of our
people were incapable of firstly appreciating the
importance of their nation and culture and
secondly to recognise that it was being destroyed.
Therefore their lack of awareness of what
constituted ‘Britishness’ meant that even if they
were given a choice, which they were not, to vote
against mass immigration then they would have been
intellectually unable to realise the full
consequences of failing to do so. Just as we see
the over Nationalisation of the German youth in
the Hitler Youth as an abuse of children, the
failure to educate British youth about their
national culture, history and traditions was also
an example of the abuse of our children by the
British state. We stole from them their pride in
their history, who they are and where they came
from and therefore denied them an identity that
they could be proud of and call theirs.

C) BEST PRACTICE

The question here to be asked is ‘was mass
immigration and multi-culturalism imposed in such
a way that society as a whole benefited’ and the
answer to this is plainly "NO". The only people to
benefit from multi-culturalism are the political
and business elite of the country whilst the rest
of the indigenous British people have been forced
to bear it as a burden for generation after
generation. The British people have been forced to
bear the burden of unrestricted mass immigration,
the farce of the asylum process, the endless
influx of illegal immigrants into the country, the
criminality and terrorism caused by immigrants,
the undercutting or our wages, the abuse of our
electoral system through voter fraud, the
destruction of our rights and freedoms such as the
right to free speech and the endless costs of
supporting the colonists within our country. It
has cost us billions upon billions of pounds and
led to thousands of deaths.

The only people that have benefited are the New
Left Imperialists and the Imperialist capitalists.
The British people have been forced to abandon
their communities and homes as the process of
colonisation and multi-cultural ghettoisation has
accelerated and the main burden of this has always
fallen upon the White Working Class not the Upper
Class parasites who scuttle away to a new palatial
rat hole whenever the immigrant hordes descend
upon their areas. The whole process has been
disorganised, chaotic, criminally incompetent and
been imposed upon a majority whilst only a
minority have benefited from it. The whole notion
of best practice being undertaken is absurd. The
Establishment Elite have let in war criminals,
gangsters, terrorists, thieves, paedophiles,
health tourists and religious extremists and given
them nationality even though it was in direct
conflict with the interests of the British people.

D) THE SOCIAL QUESTION

The final question to be asked is the social
question – have multi-culturalism and mass
immigration damaged Britain and the British
people? I say that yes they have. So would most
people if first educated and then asked. From
crime, terrorism and disease the impact has been
vast and detrimental. It has been unfair on the
imported and exploited immigrants and the
exploited indigenous British people. It was
grossly unfair to give any immigrants the right to
enter our country and all the benefits of British
citizenship when there were and are millions of
indigenous people still living in poverty in this
country. The money spent on taking care of
immigrants should have been used to raise our
people up from the gutters instead of sponsoring a
new generation of poor immigrants in the country
or being diverted by the Government and the State
and used to ‘positively discriminate’ in favour of
immigrants in housing, jobs or educational needs.
The burden of mass immigration and
multi-culturalism fell on the British white
working class and all the benefits went elsewhere.

The right of the State to allow limited
immigration into the country was abused when the
State became a political tool for a political
minority and used to initiate the political
process of allowing mass immigration into the
country. Just as we as individuals have rights and
duties we have to abide by as part of the Social
Contract, so does the State have rights over and
also a duty towards us as part of the Social
Contract. It is no use lecturing the primary
victims of multi-culturalism, the poor white
working class people of Britain, about their lack
of responsibility in their individual and social
lives when the British State has been utterly
irresponsible as regards its duties and
responsibilities to those same white working class
people as regards allowing the breakdown of the
indigenous white working class community through
unrestricted mass immigration into the country and
multi-culturalism for decades. Only when we see
the British State embrace its own duties and
responsibilities to us, will we accept being told
that we have a duty to the British State. Until
then the State is a monster that is merely
victimising us, and therefore we regard it as the
enemy within not an asset. Not until the State
stops forcing us to pay the blood price of mass
immigration through crime, terrorism and illegal
foreign wars will we accept that the State can
tell us to do anything. The State gains it
legitimacy only when it represents the interests
of the people, and when it is used to promote a
minority political agenda that is detrimental to
the interests of the people then the State is no
longer legitimate.

State is the enemy

Only when the British State represents the
interests of the indigenous British people as its
primary political purpose will we accept its
political legitimacy over us. Until then we regard
it as the mechanism of our oppression and a weapon
in the hands of the enemies of the British people.

Therefore we can see from this analysis of both
the State and the principles of democracy that
multi-culturalism and mass immigration have no
moral, legal or political mandate that could ever
guarantee their perpetual existence in our
country. Just as Germany tore down the buildings
of the Third Reich and Russia tore down the
statues of Lenin and Marx it is a fact that
politics evolves. The ideological artefact that is
multi-culturalism is a product of political will
and therefore can be reversed if the political
will exists to do so. Nothing political is permanent.

The BNP have as much right to restore this country
to its natural origins as the German people had to
wipe away the remnants of National Socialism and
the Russian people wipe away the bloody stain of
Communism. To say that a political decision is
itself irreversible or a historical inevitability
is to return once more to the Marxist belief
structure that created multi-culturalism. Marxism
fell and multi-culturalism will fall as we will
cause it to fall.

--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty

"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
tooly
2005-08-13 21:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Curious. You argue that multiculurism is not a divine commandmant from
God....

But what makes us even consider such a value to be a Virtue of any sort?
What I mean, if one entertains a divinity of any kind, then I think it is
far more arguable to consider such a value to be from the 'other' side of
things...the dark side or whatever. Like in Tolkien's fantasy, the "dark
clouds gather in the south"...and in the real world, they certainly do
gather...in a great mitosis of global grandeur whereby a great polarization
is taking place. The impetus is multiculturism.

So...perhaps it is a commandment of sorts...but not from God, but from the
other...in a grand scheme to ruin human existence once and for all. If you
believe in divinity and such things of course.
Post by Antimulticulture
Multi-Culturalism and Colonisation
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=57
Lee Barnes
11th August 2005
Multi-Culturalism is an ideological artefact of
late 20th Century Liberal Humanist political
thought and it is not, AND NOR EVER WILL BE, a
permanent imbedded national, political and social
reality in Britain. Just as we today in modern
Britain are no longer forced by law or custom to
bend our knee to Queen, Country and the Christian
God if we so wish, it is also a fact we in the BNP
choose not to bow our knee before
multi-culturalism, immigrants, liberals or the media.
The ideology of multi-culturalism is not a divine
commandment, and therefore if it is acceptable and
legal to question the very existence of God in a
secular democracy then it is absurd to suggest
that a political party and its members cannot
question the existence of a political ideology
such as multi-culturalism.
Deceit
The fact is that multi-culturalism is in fact an
Orwellian 'word deceit' in that it is a phrase
used in order to obscure the fact that
multi-culturalism is in reality colonisation and
immigrants are colonists. The idea that 'Multiple
Cultures' can exist in a nation that was once
exclusively host to its own indigenous culture is
in fact a description of New Left Imperialism, as
its presupposes that the indigenous peoples must,
at some point in the name of democratic
methodology, have acquiesced to that process. The
fact that the British people were never given the
chance to vote on whether they wanted
multi-culturalism foisted upon them means that the
whole creation of the multi-cultural state has no
democratic, legal or moral force. The fact that
multi-culturalism in practice has led to the
breakdown of the indigenous British society
leading to a state of de-culturalisation similar
to that of the indigenous Aboriginal people of
Australia with similar resultant social ills
reveals the damage multi-culturalism has caused us.
The rise in breakdowns of white indigenous family
structures, the rise in white indigenous drug
abuse, the rise in white indigenous criminality,
violence, teenage pregnancy, suicide rates and
other examples of communal breakdown and social
and individual ennui and anomie can all be traced
back to the imposition of mass immigration and
multi-culturalism on the indigenous British people.
Once our traditional family, moral and social
structures were undermined by the influx of
immigrants and the teaching of moral, cultural and
social relativism then the bonds that bound the
nation as an organic collective began to sunder.
This led to the atomisation of the white
indigenous community both physically through white
flight from expanding immigrant ghettoes and
subconsciously as the notion of a white indigenous
British nation, people and community were
repudiated and reviled by the Establishment Elite
in schools and in the media, especially on
television.
Our culture and communities were dismantled and
destroyed so that others could make their home
amongst us. Just as the Native American Indians in
America were forced by incoming non-indigenous
Americans of all races and creeds to surrender
their land and traditions to the incomers, so were
we. Just as the Native American Indian tribes
succumbed to a sense of helplessness, despair and
loss leading to the destruction of the traditional
Native American Community and a rise in
inter-communal violence, alcoholism and suicide -
so did we. Multi-Culturalism is racist in that it
destroys the indigenous people upon whose bones
and culture it is built.
Gulag mentality
We reject multi-culturalism as it is the most
pernicious, murderous and intolerant variant of
Marxism yet invented by the ideological heirs of
Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Though the physical
structures of the Communist death camps and Gulags
may have rusted away, the psychological
internalisation of the Gulags has become a feature
of our very lives themselves. We now live our
lives ensnared in a snarl of lies and self
censorship that is mockingly called freedom.
We reject multi-culturalism as it rejects us and
all that we stand for and all that which has come
before us. Multi-culturalism is the murder of the
past, the genocide of the present and the death of
the future. There is no moral, political or legal
duty on us to maintain or enforce either
multi-culturalism as a permanent political or
social reality in Britain. We had no hand in its
creation and we were given no choice as regards
its perpetuation. It was imposed upon us by the
political actions of a corrupt Imperialist
aristocratic elite who ran the Conservative Party
in order to profit from cheap labour and by the
criminal accomplices of Socialist Genocide in the
Labour Party in order to obtain cheap votes by
importing in an immigrant voting bloc. Both were
criminal regimes whose political decisions have as
much moral and legal validity today in Britain as
those taken by Hitler in Germany or Stalin in Russia.
Reversing the process
We intend to reverse engineer the damage of
multi-culturalism via 'Democratic Demographic
Disengagement' through the Rule of Law and the
democratic electoral process.
If it is an ideological truism that immigrants can
easily 'assimilate' into a new country, as the
Government and the Liberal Elite say they do in
Britain, then those immigrants allowed to enter
the country during the 'Era of Criminality' that
defined the late 20th Century and the process of
mass immigration into Britain will be able to
assimilate very easily back into their own
ancestral countries with cultures similar to their
own. The fact that immigrants have been said to
'enrich' us is irrelevant to the moral, legal and
political right for them to be here. The fact is
that British chefs are more than capable of
cooking a chicken tikka masalla without the
British government having to import three million
immigrants from the Indian sub continent into the
country to cook it for us. If we want to listen to
reggae or rap we can download it via the internet
or buy it on CD, it doesn't mean we have to empty
the slums of Los Angeles or downtown Jamaica of
its residents and ship them to Britain to ensure
we get it to hear it in Britain. If you want to
marry a mail order bride you are free to move to
that country and reside with your purchase over
there if you wish, just don't expect to live in
this country with your 'capitalist slave' trophy
wife. If you want to marry your cousin who lives
in a town in the mountains of Kashmir that's fine,
but you will have to live over there if you do.
Some people suggest that because the British
people have not voted for political parties that
would have ended mass immigration, then we should
be stuck with it. That's fallacious logic.
The foundations of a ' Just and True Democratic
Decision ' are based on four fundamental
principles each of which have been undermined in
relation to the creation of the multi-cultural
state and the influx of mass immigration into the
country. These are detailed below ;
A) INFORMED CONSENT
Informed Consent can only occur when we are told
what we are voting for and what its short term and
long term implications are. The British people
were not told about what was being planned by the
British State and its lackeys when the process of
mass immigration and multi-culturalism began to
happen in Britain. They were not told the scale of
it, the costs of it in financial terms and nor the
costs of it in social terms. The media did not
report it impartially and nor did the media allow
alternative voices to question what was happening.
A false 'Social Consensus of Silence' was created
that stifled free debate on the issue and that
only allowed one side to promote its views in
public when the topic was discussed. Therefore the
British people were incapable of giving informed
consent to what was happening to them and the
country both then and now. The same fake 'Social
Consensus of Silence' still operates today, and
all those that question the media bias towards the
pro-immigration and pro-multi-culturalism forces
in our society are called racists or extremists by
the media. Therefore the first fundamental of a
'democratic decision' has failed.
B) TRUE AGREEMENT
As the British people were never asked to vote via
a national referendum if they wished mass
immigration or multi-culturalism to be imposed
upon this country then both mass immigration and
multi-culturalism have no democratic mandate for
their presence in our country. They are both
fascistic impositions of the British State upon
the people. At no time in the modern British State
(as defined after World War One and the rise in
Communist thought in Britain post 1917) have the
British people been taught a nationalistic
consciousness either at school or in society.
Orwell himself noted how patriotism was looked
down upon by the most well educated intellectual
elite, but embraced with instinctive passion by
those most poorly educated.
The education systems have been used to denude and
extirpate all residual traces of nationalistic or
patriotic feeling from youth and our people. The
lack of a living consciousness of history,
tradition, pride in ones country and culture
transmitted to generation after generation of our
people resulted in the creation of a
psychologically damaged generation of Britons
incapable of appreciating those things that are
essential to the formation of both individual and
national character. The British State stole from
generations of our children their ancestral
identity and pride in themselves, their country
and culture. The schools then spat out the
Nineteen Sixties generation of perpetual
adolescents who now run the country.
This lack of identity and understanding of their
national community meant that generations of our
people were incapable of firstly appreciating the
importance of their nation and culture and
secondly to recognise that it was being destroyed.
Therefore their lack of awareness of what
constituted 'Britishness' meant that even if they
were given a choice, which they were not, to vote
against mass immigration then they would have been
intellectually unable to realise the full
consequences of failing to do so. Just as we see
the over Nationalisation of the German youth in
the Hitler Youth as an abuse of children, the
failure to educate British youth about their
national culture, history and traditions was also
an example of the abuse of our children by the
British state. We stole from them their pride in
their history, who they are and where they came
from and therefore denied them an identity that
they could be proud of and call theirs.
C) BEST PRACTICE
The question here to be asked is 'was mass
immigration and multi-culturalism imposed in such
a way that society as a whole benefited' and the
answer to this is plainly "NO". The only people to
benefit from multi-culturalism are the political
and business elite of the country whilst the rest
of the indigenous British people have been forced
to bear it as a burden for generation after
generation. The British people have been forced to
bear the burden of unrestricted mass immigration,
the farce of the asylum process, the endless
influx of illegal immigrants into the country, the
criminality and terrorism caused by immigrants,
the undercutting or our wages, the abuse of our
electoral system through voter fraud, the
destruction of our rights and freedoms such as the
right to free speech and the endless costs of
supporting the colonists within our country. It
has cost us billions upon billions of pounds and
led to thousands of deaths.
The only people that have benefited are the New
Left Imperialists and the Imperialist capitalists.
The British people have been forced to abandon
their communities and homes as the process of
colonisation and multi-cultural ghettoisation has
accelerated and the main burden of this has always
fallen upon the White Working Class not the Upper
Class parasites who scuttle away to a new palatial
rat hole whenever the immigrant hordes descend
upon their areas. The whole process has been
disorganised, chaotic, criminally incompetent and
been imposed upon a majority whilst only a
minority have benefited from it. The whole notion
of best practice being undertaken is absurd. The
Establishment Elite have let in war criminals,
gangsters, terrorists, thieves, paedophiles,
health tourists and religious extremists and given
them nationality even though it was in direct
conflict with the interests of the British people.
D) THE SOCIAL QUESTION
The final question to be asked is the social
question - have multi-culturalism and mass
immigration damaged Britain and the British
people? I say that yes they have. So would most
people if first educated and then asked. From
crime, terrorism and disease the impact has been
vast and detrimental. It has been unfair on the
imported and exploited immigrants and the
exploited indigenous British people. It was
grossly unfair to give any immigrants the right to
enter our country and all the benefits of British
citizenship when there were and are millions of
indigenous people still living in poverty in this
country. The money spent on taking care of
immigrants should have been used to raise our
people up from the gutters instead of sponsoring a
new generation of poor immigrants in the country
or being diverted by the Government and the State
and used to 'positively discriminate' in favour of
immigrants in housing, jobs or educational needs.
The burden of mass immigration and
multi-culturalism fell on the British white
working class and all the benefits went elsewhere.
The right of the State to allow limited
immigration into the country was abused when the
State became a political tool for a political
minority and used to initiate the political
process of allowing mass immigration into the
country. Just as we as individuals have rights and
duties we have to abide by as part of the Social
Contract, so does the State have rights over and
also a duty towards us as part of the Social
Contract. It is no use lecturing the primary
victims of multi-culturalism, the poor white
working class people of Britain, about their lack
of responsibility in their individual and social
lives when the British State has been utterly
irresponsible as regards its duties and
responsibilities to those same white working class
people as regards allowing the breakdown of the
indigenous white working class community through
unrestricted mass immigration into the country and
multi-culturalism for decades. Only when we see
the British State embrace its own duties and
responsibilities to us, will we accept being told
that we have a duty to the British State. Until
then the State is a monster that is merely
victimising us, and therefore we regard it as the
enemy within not an asset. Not until the State
stops forcing us to pay the blood price of mass
immigration through crime, terrorism and illegal
foreign wars will we accept that the State can
tell us to do anything. The State gains it
legitimacy only when it represents the interests
of the people, and when it is used to promote a
minority political agenda that is detrimental to
the interests of the people then the State is no
longer legitimate.
State is the enemy
Only when the British State represents the
interests of the indigenous British people as its
primary political purpose will we accept its
political legitimacy over us. Until then we regard
it as the mechanism of our oppression and a weapon
in the hands of the enemies of the British people.
Therefore we can see from this analysis of both
the State and the principles of democracy that
multi-culturalism and mass immigration have no
moral, legal or political mandate that could ever
guarantee their perpetual existence in our
country. Just as Germany tore down the buildings
of the Third Reich and Russia tore down the
statues of Lenin and Marx it is a fact that
politics evolves. The ideological artefact that is
multi-culturalism is a product of political will
and therefore can be reversed if the political
will exists to do so. Nothing political is permanent.
The BNP have as much right to restore this country
to its natural origins as the German people had to
wipe away the remnants of National Socialism and
the Russian people wipe away the bloody stain of
Communism. To say that a political decision is
itself irreversible or a historical inevitability
is to return once more to the Marxist belief
structure that created multi-culturalism. Marxism
fell and multi-culturalism will fall as we will
cause it to fall.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
n***@yahoo.com
2005-08-14 01:06:39 UTC
Permalink
John said about racism at

http://www.aussieseek.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire reckons:

That's not racism. That's caution.

It is discriminatory and usually based on region or race. If money was
no object and you were buying a watch, would you prefer that it be
assembled by a Swiss watchmaker to their exacting standards, a
requirement that is no doubt a demand of their exacting culture, or
turned out by an third world sweat shop that is a product of their
culture and their less exacting demands? You have made a choice, you
have discriminated - you view one as quality - the other as crap.

That's bigotry.

Maybe so, but it is discrimination based on race - a fact as
evidenced recently by those who have vowed not to shop again at a
certain Sydney shopping mall because of the actions of ethnically-based
street gangs and petty crime. Others have openly stated that they
don't feel comfortable for other reasons that fall on race.


That's stupidity.

You might see it that way until you need life threatening surgery.
Imported doctors bring with them attitudes to health, hygiene and human
life, their experience and their qualifications that are a product of
the cultures they have trained and worked in. In many cases the
standards and values differ greatly from many Australians expect.

That's good common sense.

Sure is, but nevertheless the decision is reached by comparing the
product from one region against one from another, The quality of each
product will in most cases be the result of their standard of skill and
the more exacting standards one region has over the other. While a car
might be an inert object, it is still a man-made product and in many
ways a reflection of the cultural standards of the producer.

Again, nothing to do with race, but rather brand.

Not so. Take a BMW or a Merc - both highly reputable vehicles.
However, when you slap down your money would you prefer one
manufactured in Germany, or one assembled in Africa? Which one would
have impress the the Caffe'Latte set the most? Would you go to great
paisn to hide the fact that your's was asembled in Africa? Which one
would retain a higher trade-in value? Would you be discriminating
against the African model and praising the higher German standards with
your decision? Would it be fair to say your decision would be based on
regional practices and those practices reflect lower regional
standards?

I have no f**king idea what you're talking about but I wouldn't buy a
car from a car dealer that was involved in car theft.


Well I do have an idea. Have another read of the question - I am not
talking about a specific car-yard - just those owned and operated by
a certain ethnic group. Their involvement in car theft and the
re-birthing industry is well documented. Those who are aware of the
situation steer well clear of this particular ethnic group when
searching for a used car. A decision that is based on the reputation of
that particular ethnic group.

That's called a "value system".

And values are embedded in, and reflected by culture. Whether you like
it or not the admiration/criticism leveled is race/cultural/ethnically
biased.

FINALLY...you have found a case of prejudice! Good on ya.

Not at all, but a good try at a dodge using that good old standby of
last resort, the race card. Can't come up with a suitable response to
this one? If you were in a position to make a choice, would your
decision be based on race and the culture of your partner?

You know some really strange people, man.

No - just get around a lot and stay well-informed Try filling your
car at most any servos run by ******along Canterbury Road Sydney and
then try to explain what is causing all that destructive pinking from
under the bonnet. Or maybe question why, when fuel prices are the same
and you are using the same servo , one day 70 bucks might give you a
full tank while on another only ¾ of a tank when your computer tells
you have had the same level of fuel in your tank at fillup.

If that has become a pattern then perhaps they are simply erring on the
side of caution.

Maybe so, but it is undeniable discimination based on ethnicity and
race.

It's a long f**king way to fall, Dude!

Sure is but again a decision based on ethnicity and/or race which is
being applied to arrive at a decision.

Sometimes, but that doesn't mean that a person is prejudiced. I can
abhor circumcision without holding any negative assumptions about
members of cultures that practice it.

Really - then what does it mean? Circumcision is a poor example
Inspire and hardly a "habit" - how what about the more visible
examples of ethnic and cultural practices and habits that you might
abhor? Do you have any?

John
Daniel
2005-08-14 06:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Don't you speak French?


<***@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John said about racism at

http://www.aussieseek.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Inspire reckons:

That's not racism. That's caution.

It is discriminatory and usually based on region or race. If money was
no object and you were buying a watch, would you prefer that it be
assembled by a Swiss watchmaker to their exacting standards, a
requirement that is no doubt a demand of their exacting culture, or
turned out by an third world sweat shop that is a product of their
culture and their less exacting demands? You have made a choice, you
have discriminated - you view one as quality - the other as crap.

That's bigotry.

Maybe so, but it is discrimination based on race - a fact as
evidenced recently by those who have vowed not to shop again at a
certain Sydney shopping mall because of the actions of ethnically-based
street gangs and petty crime. Others have openly stated that they
don't feel comfortable for other reasons that fall on race.


That's stupidity.

You might see it that way until you need life threatening surgery.
Imported doctors bring with them attitudes to health, hygiene and human
life, their experience and their qualifications that are a product of
the cultures they have trained and worked in. In many cases the
standards and values differ greatly from many Australians expect.

That's good common sense.

Sure is, but nevertheless the decision is reached by comparing the
product from one region against one from another, The quality of each
product will in most cases be the result of their standard of skill and
the more exacting standards one region has over the other. While a car
might be an inert object, it is still a man-made product and in many
ways a reflection of the cultural standards of the producer.

Again, nothing to do with race, but rather brand.

Not so. Take a BMW or a Merc - both highly reputable vehicles.
However, when you slap down your money would you prefer one
manufactured in Germany, or one assembled in Africa? Which one would
have impress the the Caffe'Latte set the most? Would you go to great
paisn to hide the fact that your's was asembled in Africa? Which one
would retain a higher trade-in value? Would you be discriminating
against the African model and praising the higher German standards with
your decision? Would it be fair to say your decision would be based on
regional practices and those practices reflect lower regional
standards?

I have no f**king idea what you're talking about but I wouldn't buy a
car from a car dealer that was involved in car theft.


Well I do have an idea. Have another read of the question - I am not
talking about a specific car-yard - just those owned and operated by
a certain ethnic group. Their involvement in car theft and the
re-birthing industry is well documented. Those who are aware of the
situation steer well clear of this particular ethnic group when
searching for a used car. A decision that is based on the reputation of
that particular ethnic group.

That's called a "value system".

And values are embedded in, and reflected by culture. Whether you like
it or not the admiration/criticism leveled is race/cultural/ethnically
biased.

FINALLY...you have found a case of prejudice! Good on ya.

Not at all, but a good try at a dodge using that good old standby of
last resort, the race card. Can't come up with a suitable response to
this one? If you were in a position to make a choice, would your
decision be based on race and the culture of your partner?

You know some really strange people, man.

No - just get around a lot and stay well-informed Try filling your
car at most any servos run by ******along Canterbury Road Sydney and
then try to explain what is causing all that destructive pinking from
under the bonnet. Or maybe question why, when fuel prices are the same
and you are using the same servo , one day 70 bucks might give you a
full tank while on another only Ÿ of a tank when your computer tells
you have had the same level of fuel in your tank at fillup.

If that has become a pattern then perhaps they are simply erring on the
side of caution.

Maybe so, but it is undeniable discimination based on ethnicity and
race.

It's a long f**king way to fall, Dude!

Sure is but again a decision based on ethnicity and/or race which is
being applied to arrive at a decision.

Sometimes, but that doesn't mean that a person is prejudiced. I can
abhor circumcision without holding any negative assumptions about
members of cultures that practice it.

Really - then what does it mean? Circumcision is a poor example
Inspire and hardly a "habit" - how what about the more visible
examples of ethnic and cultural practices and habits that you might
abhor? Do you have any?

John

Loading...