Thursday, 14 May 2009

The oppression of the word

We will all have noticed that, in the run up to the European elections in June, the BNP has been mentioned in the press more often than usual. Very little of it is flattering, although they do say that no publicity is bad publicity, especially as I think the public are at last beginning to realise that the party has been the victim of a relentless campaign of vilification and lies.

Of course, whenever there is a mention of the BNP there is one word which its enemies repeat like a mantra, and that multi-purpose, multi-application, multiple meaning, and exhaustively over-used of words is “racist”. “The BNP is a racist party!” they cry, whilst those around them nod their heads in agreement. however, does anyone actually know what they mean, for what does “racist” mean this evening, given that it was probably meant something totally different yesterday.

This invidious little word pops up in so many situations and means so many things that it is all but impossible to live one's life without committing an act (or thought crime) which falls within its all pervading grasp.

As the excellent Tess Culnane from South London described in her recent speech, being the victim of noise pollution, after one has been forced to endure, months and often years of living next to pounding music twenty four a day can be a racist act, if you finally can take no more and complain about it. The noise polluter, of course, is not a racist, they are under no obligation to consider you or your culture, whilst you are required to consider them and at least pretend to enjoy their culture, whatever the decibels or time of night when they choose to express it, to fail to do so is .... racist.

Indeed any failure to appreciate or wholeheartedly welcome and enjoy any culture other than your own can result in accusations of racism, whereas expressing an affection and appreciation of your own culture too enthusiastically can render you, at the very least, liable for suspicion of racism.

As we all know it is an act of heinous racism for victims of violence to make reference to the ethnicity of their attacker, and it appears that this sanction is also applied to other protected groups, as members of the gay community discovered when they complained about gangs of black gay bashers attacking clubers leaving venues in the Vauxhall area.

As you would soon find out were you to attempt to set up an organisation or group exclusively for white people, that would be racist, and probably illegal, whereas there are a phone book full of organisations, pressure groups and clubs exclusively for blacks, Asians or other minorities ,which are not only not racist or illegal but are often generously subsidised by the tax-payer.

In this connection, there are many who claim that racism is something which non-whites can not be capable of, however, confusingly, sometimes they can be, but only if they express a prejudice by word or act against another ethnic group, except. of course, whites. A neutral observer might conclude that actively excluding acts against whites was in itself an act of racism, but, apparently it is not, or so we are assured.

Whites it appears can only ever be the perpetrators of racism, but never the victims. Bizarrely enough that apparently isn't racist either, or so we are told by those who make the rules.

Being “subconsciously” racist is always a hard one to avoid and leads to all sorts of dire results, such as the fabled “institutional racism”, most frequently demonstrated by irrational acts, such as the police arresting disproportionate numbers of black boys for no better reason that that they commit disproportionate numbers of crimes.

However, subconscious racism can extend into any number of areas of one's life, including, it seems one's sexual preferences. Within the last year, on an internet forum I was accused of sexual racism when I stated that I have never felt sexually or romantically attracted to a non white male. To some, such as him, it would appear any number of sexual eccentricities are acceptable, provided that they are multicultural.

The man who accused me of sexual racism, went on to express the view that a mother's preference for her own child, over that of another's child had racism at its very roots. The gentleman in question appeared to view a mother's love as reprehensibly lacking in inclusiveness which may seem bizarre to most of us. However, in making that claim, weird as it may seem, he perhaps became closer to telling a truth about racism, or at least what is often condemned as racism, than he, or many of his ilk would ever admit.

There is a natural instinct within most people to protect, cherish and prefer the company of one's own kind, it is an innate instinct which has existed throughout history, but does not necessarily translate into “hatred” of “the other”. The mother may prefer her own child, but she does not hate another woman's child, provided it eventually goes home, she is merely more attached to her own. This is the truth which those who hate us refuse to accept, namely that one of the myriad things they call racism, the instinctive preference for one's own, is a fact within the nature of humanity.

For a while, brain washing and intimidation may have have suppressed human nature in much of the West, but the Left have not learnt from there previous attempts to suppress human nature, in the Soviet Union because it will not last for ever.

Returning to the multiple meanings of “racism”, who can forget the recent attacks on conservationists by historian Professor Christopher Smout, who claimed that seeking to preserve an indigenous animal or plant species from being overwhelmed by an alien species, was a form of “ecological racism”. Following the example of many other modern historians, who interpret their occupation as requiring them to re-write the past, Professor Smout suggests that the destruction of an indigenous species by an alien one, is a “natural process”. In making this claim the “good” professor ignores the devastation which has been wrought upon so many species buy the unnatural importation of alien species, usually by the act of man.

Britain's once thriving water vole population did not reach its current endangered status through “nature”, that tragedy was brought about by the deliberate release of alien and veracious American mink into the British countryside. Likewise the dodo did not become extinct because of Mother Nature, again the fault lay with mankind and the deliberate act of importing pigs and dogs into the unfortunate bird's previously safe Island home.

The theme of ecological racism popped up again in a recent Channel Four documentary, to which I can't find a link, but I am sure that many of you saw it, in which those seeking to protect the indigenous red squirrel from being driven to extinction by the larger and more aggressive foreign grey variety were mocked and subjected the the implicit implication that their motives were racist.

A more common use of the “r” word is in respect of those who object to the fact that the most significant changes ever to have occurred in this country were imposed upon us over the last forty years without even a pretence of democracy, a choice or the opportunity to vote on it. It is used also against those who do not unquestioningly welcome uncontrolled levels of immigration, or accept as gospel that the newcomers bring nothing but benefits to our ancient homelands.

Likewise, anyone who draws attention to the multiple disadvantages of the un-managable levels of immigration, or shines the light of truth onto the lies we have been told is immediately condemned as the most vile of racists.

And this is where we get close to what this invidious little six letter word is really all about. It is a political tool, a word with an army of meanings but a single purpose. It is a word which has been used relentlessly in order to achieve a political aim, without the necessity to trouble with obtaining a mandate. It has been used to bully, to harass and intimidate, and most importantly it has been used to suppress any opposition to the greatest demographic change our country has ever experienced, a change imposed upon us, against our will and, on which, we were never allowed to vote.

Of course the BNP are accused of “racism” they are the only party standing up against all those things which the enemies of our country have used that evil little word to force upon us. That is why the BNP must succeed, because, if they don't will continue to suffer the tyranny of that most dishonest of words.



alanorei said...

A bit late to comment in depth, Sarah but thanks.

I agree, the accusers of 'racism' never define the term or its derivative 'racist.'

I think it's a catch-all for anything about 'whitey' that non-whites don't like (like they think they're still not getting enough of his tax money) or for the fear that white Brit landlords have about the BNP deporting asylum invaders, for whom the gov't (taxpayer) pays them a tidy rent.

If you go to Lee Barnes's blog about the BNP and the C of E article (from me), you'll see a string of comments from a black lady in the US (Lormarie by username).

If occasion arises I may suggest she reads your latest article. I think it will help her get a balanced view on 'race' as it's experienced over here, which might be useful.

Unrepentant British Nationalist said...

Thanks, Sarah! Another great article.

Dr.D said...

A great post, as usual, Sarah. In my mind's eye, I cannot visualize you with a black man; it just does not compute!

I have to quibble with you on one point, however. You said, "The gentleman in question appeared to view a mother's love as reprehensibly lacking in inclusiveness which may seem bizarre to most of us." That man was no gentleman, but in fact was a true jerk. I think you have vastly over rated him and in the process offended all true gentlemen.

Dr.D said...

It would be such a boon if all these whining blacks would show some initiative and take it upon themselves to solve their own problem by moving back to their paradise in Africa. That way they could probably improve the situation in Africa and definitely improve things in Europe and America -- a win-win! Then they would not have to put up with white oppression any longer. What a deal that would be!

alanorei said...

Agree entirely, Dr D

It makes you wonder why Africa isn't Afro-topia, especially with the assumption of all-black rule in southern Africa, and why it isn't flooded with truckloads of Europeans claiming 'asylum.'