Official website of the BPP

The aim of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism was devised with the intention of dividing the cohesive spirit of nations, and in particular the more advanced nations such as the White western world. It was developed by criminals within the New World Order in order to break down coordinated national resistance to their criminal intentions.

Had this been a disadvantage to politicians we may have stood a chance but these devious schemers saw an opportunity to suck up to various minority groups with taxpayer funded schemes and so came into being a class of people who received grants to keep their racial group intact. This of course is real racism. Added to these payments were many other incentives to obtain the ethnic vote such as Ethnic radio and then Ethnic T.V. Such was the motivation and persuasion of the ethnic vote that political interference in police work had to be tolerated and standards lowered to accommodate ethnics. Where police were once to be respected simply for their size there now existed derisory miniature replicas of Australia police. This was repeated in many areas of public life.

Multiculturalism must be destroyed and Aryan culture restored. This article from an Australian comrade sums it all up:

"YOU CANNOT UNITE THROUGH DIVISION, NOR CAN YOU
STRENGTHEN THE WEAK, BY WEAKENING THE STRONG..."
- President Abraham Lincoln

As the name suggests, multiculturalism is the belief that there should be many cultures with one nation and that no dominant host culture should be allowed to exist. As we've discussed previously, this is based on the false premise that "all cultures are equal".

Unfortunately, the first stick multiculturalists reach for to bludgeon people opposed to this ridiculous Marxist notion of cultural equality is to call them a "monoculturalist" - as if having cultural homogeony(?) and cohesion is a bad thing.

To begin with let me make it clear that I speak of these policies in an official governmental sense. There are people in Japan for example, which is considered the bastion of monoculturalism that are not Japanese, however the Japanese Government has never adopted an official governmental policy of bringing in millions of people from all points on the globe and giving them equal status with the Japanese people. In fact, they retain strict control as to who can even live in Japan. A person cannot become a member of parliament unless they are Japanese.

The Japanese however are not completely immune to the onslaught of multiculturalism. At the time of this writing there is a ripple of consternation among their citizenry at the enclaves established by the growing Chinese population.

Speaking of China, this is another example of "monoculturalism" although a trick used by supporters of multiculturalism is to continually redefine what multiculturalism is for their own purposes. You will find it moves between official government policy (macro-multiculturalism) and having a few Russians on the streets of Beijing who speak French (micro-multiculturalism), found anywhere in the world and a natural progression of trade and commerce.

The truth of the matter however is vastly different, China has not in any official capacity signed up to be "multicultural", it is a one party state promoting the Chinese-for-the-Chinese principle, there are no Nigerian-Chinese making a go of it in Shanghai (if there are they are not recognised as such) and there are no Falun Gongers in the government ranks directing policy, they are in jail having their kidneys removed for dissent!

Let me say it another way, no country will ever be 100% monocultural, there will always be differences between the people that will result in tribalism of some form. For example if all the third worlders left England tomorrow, regional differences and dialects that go back centuries would come to the fore. What would prevent a complete collapse of the state known as England is the sense of joint national identity shared between people from all points of the realm - that idea of being "ENGLISH" as being part of the three inherent values we spoke about in the very first page - reinforced by a government which maintains that pride.

What might suprise many was that in the Western world, before any notion of "multiculturalism" was dreamed up, we used to be as cautious as the Japanese too. Naturally there were migrants from all points on the globe, but their way of life was never ever elevated above that of the host culture - they knew they were coming to a white, christian country.

Often you hear politicians use the phrase "we are multicultural nation now", but people are always stunned when they learn that multiculturalism has never been enacted into official policy in Australia either, and the United States has never passed legislation making them officially "multicultural" either, neither has Britain or many other places where this insidious cancer has reached - it is a stealth social policy. To add further insult to leftist injury, the Immigration Restriction Act, degradingly called the "White Australia Policy" by Labour Party officials has never been repealled! In other words we are NOT multicultural.

Now, if you were cheeky, you could say that Australia's arguably greatest achievement the Snowy Mountains Scheme which provided work and power for a generation of arrivals from recently war-torn Europe was built under the "White Australia Policy".

So what is the alternative?

The alternative is that multiculturalism and any idea of it should be abolished forthwith. We desire a more judicious immigration policy, based on the needs of the nation, not of the idea of "globalisation".

That our culture, heritage, history, past-achievements and values be protected from needless and costly "re-working", through immediate government legislation. We do not buy the argument that everything should change because someone from overseas who comes from a background far worse than our own feels "uncomfortable" or feels it is their place to ridicule and wag the finger at what we have to offer.

That it is incumbant on the new arrivals, should they be accepted, to make more of an effort to adapt to the host nations laws and way of life/customs FIRST AND FOREMOST. It means recognising, respecting and using the host language as the official language on shop fronts, flyers and other business activities without exception, it means mixing into the general population instead of forming government sanctioned enclaves. That is what they came here to do wasn't it?

After all, this would be expected of us in Japan, Iran and Pakistan to name but a few. It means immediate deportation, and renouncement of citizenship for those abusing our laws and hence the trust and goodwill the host nation has shown in allowing that person to live among us.

We insist on the dismantling of anti-discrimination boards, that thought-crime legislation be repealled and affirmitive action be destroyed and that any treaties to the United Nations be rescinded immediately.

In short we demand a return to the days of independence which saw our Race thrive.