To:    Comment at the Guardian
Re:    Is the BNP really the ONLY alternative to the politics of mass immigration and multiculturalism?
Date: Friday 22 December 06

In response to a Guardian leader, "Fear and loathing", on the British Nationalist Party (BNP) which one of its journalists recently investigated

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.
 

I think you will find that the German Nazi party, in its day, for all it's evilness, still made some very valid criticisms of contemporary, mainstream German politics, and that it's ruthless cultivation and exploitation of German folk culture and solidarity (in themselves not just positive, but the very soul of the nation) was facilitated by the intellectual elites' (across the political spectrum) separation from and contempt (conscious or not) for "ordinary people".
 
There is no doubt, in my mind, that mass immigration and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society have seriously undermined many (I would guess, most) native people's sense of national identity, i.e. of being a "people". What is individual or national identity without a large degree of SHARED ancestry, history and culture?
 
Business (with its desire for cheap immigrant labour) and hare-brained liberal-leftwing ideology (the socio-psychology of which I am still struggling to understand), that between them have complete control of the media and "public opinion", have combined forces to impose this MADNESS on the country, suppressing all opposition to it as "racism".
 
What frustrates me is that the only alternative to this MADNESS, at the moment, is the probably even greater MADNESS offered by the BNP.
 
More of my views on our mulitculti MADNESS at http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Index-non-pc.htm

2nd Post

[MrPikeBishop], A couple of years ago I heard Peter Hain speak about Proportional Representation (PR) at a meeting in the Houses of Parliament of MakeVotesCount: Expecting MPs to vote for PR, he said, would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

I admired and appreciated his honesty, but was outraged! MPs are supposed to represent their constituents' and the country's interests, not their OWN personal interests. But at least he admitted the LIE that "underlies" our so-called democracy (notwithstanding that it is better than no democracy at all).

You are right, this cannot go on. Nor should, or need it! Not now that it can be replaced with something a lot better (more humane, more just, more democratic, and above all, SUSTAINABLE). I'm talking REVOLUTION here, which we NOW have both the freedom AND the technology to initiate and carry through (democratically and peacefully) to a successful conclusion.

It is not to the barricades that we must hurry, but to the INTERNET, and its potential - once the open-source software becomes available - to facilitate our SELF-ORGANIZATION, not clandestinely in the service of a monolithic organization (PARTY), as in the past, but openly in a multitude (hundreds, perhaps thousands) of different groups and groups of groups, embracing all the different facets of our individual identities and desires for the kinds of communities and society we want to live in (there will be multicultural/multiethnic communities for those who want them, for example, and monocultural/monoethnic communities for those who don't).

Just when "capitalism" is assumed to have won the final victory, the REAL REVOLUTION is about to begin . . .

3rd Post

[Boltonlad], what you refer to as the "silent majority", I call the SILENCED majority, because that is the truth of the matter: silenced by the threat of being branded a "racist" if they express any dislike of or opposition to mass immigration and the multiculti (i.e. "ethnically diverse" or "non-white") communities and the "melting pots" it has created all over the country. It is the same nasty device that is used by a tiny minority of Jews who condemn any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic", or any Palestinian who opposes the occupation of his country with more than just words, a "terrorist". It is a very effective way of disqualifying and dismissing your opponents from a debate which might necessitate you understanding their perspective and having to concede some ground to them. The justification (i.e. rationalization) for using this device is that giving any ground at all would put us on a slippery slope that leads inexorably all the way to Auschwitz.

I'm sure that they all sincerely believe in the righteousness (and "progressiveness") of their cause and behaviour, which I see as a blind and gross overreaction to the criminal and insane importance that the Nazis placed on race and the horrendous consequence it had. It is like a child, who has ignorantly stuck its hand in a fire and badly burned itself, having an existential fear of ever going near a fire again.

Race, particularly its importance (which varies greatly with context) for personal and group identity, is a reality, which we urgently need to face up to it, instead of denying it (how often, when I've brought the matter of race up in conversation with a leftwing liberal, have I been told, with an air of moral superiority that has made me feel like a wicked sinner in the company of a saint) that they are completely "colour blind"?).

But it is not just genuinely misplaced fear of the slippery slope to the Auschwitz that results in the unfettered use of this nasty device; it is also the socio-psychological, political and economic need for group (national) identity and conformity (a shared sense of "Britishness"), which now demands, particularly and without reservation, from the majority host population, that an individual's particular origins (ethnicity), history and culture is totally irrelevant - if they have a British passport, and especially if they are born here, they are ONE OF US - even if they wear a niqab!

The same device was also used in medieval Europe to enforce religious conformity, dissenters being damned (sometimes burned) as "heretics". In Stalin's Russia, opponents were branded "reactionaries", "counter-revolutionaries", "Trotskyites" or the like (and often shot). In McCarthy's America, left of centre opponents were dismissed and damned as "communists" (at least they weren't burned or shot). Now, anyone who questions state and establishment dogma relating to immigration and multi-racial/multicultural society is a "racist".

I don't expect (or even want) everyone to agree with my views, but I would like - and demand the right! - to be able to express and discuss them without being dismissed and condemned as a "racist".

More of my "racist" views on the MADNESS of mass immigration and the creation of a multiculti "melting pot" (that a lot of people, native and immigrant alike, do not want their ethnic, historical and cultural identities to dissolve and disappear into) at http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Index-non-pc.htm
 

4th Post

My last post was getting a bit long, but to continue:

An important cause of misunderstanding and unintended offence is the way in which criticism of and objections to immigration and multicultural society are equated with personal criticism of and objection to (i.e rejection of) immigrants (or their descendents) as individuals.

I do not want to offend anyone, especially neighbours or people I know (even family members), but sometimes it is difficult to be honest about how one FEELS and not to. Often it is advisable just to keep quite, but that conflicts with a fundamental desire I have to be honest (a terrible vice, I know, which some may not understand, believing tact, appearances, and political correctness to be far more important).

I don't have any problem (quite the contrary) with a small number of ethnic minority individuals, certainly not those I know - it's the MILLIONS of others (that our government insanely invited into our already overpopulated country, whom I don't know, and cannot possibly ever know as individuals), that I feel so uncomfortable with.

It is not a question of whether my views are right or wrong, but of my need to give (sometimes, at least) honest expression to them, freely and without fear - provided, of course, that I do it in a civilized, i.e. non-aggressive, not deliberately offensive, fashion .

It is about the freedom to be honest and truthful about how one FEELS. That cannot possibly lead towards Auschwitz, but must necessarily lead away from it.

Mass immigration of so many people of such different origins, history, ethnicity and culture into this country has totally undermined, certainly my, once strongly felt, sense of British identity.

If just a tiny minority feel as I do, I'll just have to lump it; we'll be one minority amongst many others, struggling to maintain and cultivate our traditional, native European (British?) identity within the "melting pot" of mass, multiculti society with its NEW, superficial (spurious?), media and politically imposed sense of British identity.

If, on the other hand, as I suspect, I belong to a large minority (perhaps even a majority) of natives (and, I have reason to believe, many of immigrant origin too), who feel very much the same as I do, but have felt too intimidated to speak out, then it is time to courageously assert our right (in a respectful and civilized fashion) to talk openly and honestly about the situation, what we really think and how we really feel about it.
 

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org