Total Visits

Monday, 1 June 2015

THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

Back in the Day!
THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
It is an ironic fact that multi-culturalism as a device for managing disparate and disjointed populations is not entirely a post-war, Left-Liberal concept. 


My own family have some roots in British Malaya when what is now Malaysia and Singapore were part of the British Empire and I was born there in the British Military Hospital Kinrara, Kuala Lumpur.

Before the war British Malaya was politically run by British colonial officials on an imperialist multi-culturalist basis just like many other “colonies” throughout the Empire.

In colonial Malaya there were various ethnicities. There were the native Indians who lived quite primitive lives in the jungle and who either animist or Christian. There was also a dominant population of Malays who were originally Indonesian colonists and pirates, who are predominantly Muslim and whose leaders were the various “Sultans”. Then there were the Chinese who, during the 19th and 20th centuries, given all the various misfortunes of China, came as settlers. They were very hard-working, upwardly mobile, vying to be professionals or business people (legitimate or triad) and settlers to clear and farm the jungle lands.

Then there were also the British ourselves who brought over, from India, the Tamils to work, in particular, in the tea plantations and we also brought over Sikhs to act especially as police and security guards.

All these communities were kept in a degree of antagonism and separately, allowing British officials to deal with “community leaders”. The Communities were encouraged in multi-culturalist ideas of “community cohesion” and of maintaining their own separate ways as part of an imperialist agenda to divide and rule; which is of course an imperialist doctrine which goes at least as far back as ancient Rome (“divide et impera”).

British officials found this multiculturalist arrangement very convenient, as all the various groups were concerned about the encroachments of the others. This enabled British administrators to seem interested in maintaining the other concerns of each of the groups, whilst ensuring that the general population couldn’t combine to demand independence.

I think it likely that this situation would have continued quite possibly up until today if it hadn’t been for the Japanese invasion and the subsequent attempts by Chinese communists under Mao Tse Tung to destabilise the post-war arrangements.

I think it may well prove to be the case once all the files are opened that we will see that the more recent doctrines of multi-culturalism originated partly through Whitehall officials dusting off these old Colonial Office policies and re-badging them! Wouldn’t that be an irony? 


We make this Point in our manifesto:-

3.16 England and Multi-Culturalism

3.16.1 It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society. However, multi-Culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.

13 comments:

  1. The Empire strikes back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Multiculturalism means white genocide as we are outbred and bred out. Eventually the English will be reduced to the status of the native Hawaiians. Just look at London if you want to see the future of the whole country. Our former colonials wanted independence, they get our aid and are after reparations. They should never have been invited to settle here. They were free to run their own affairs. But the imperial elite just wanted to go on playing empires with the English, too, as has been said.

      Delete
  2. Perhaps the British Empire was always the enemy of the English. Certainly, England is the last British colony.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The British establishment who ran the empire are playing the same games at home now that the empire has gone. I think that is what you are trying to say. And that same class, as then, will make sure that they are distant from the various other races and cultures that they have to deal with. And yes, they have now turned England into their last imperial possession and brought the empire home. In fact, England was the first colony of the Norman/ Angevin establishment and is now its last. Things have gone full circle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet full circle. For the English to be a nation again, the English language will have to be recovered as David Cowley has described in his book "How We'd Talk - if the English had won in 1066".

      Delete
  4. Robin,

    This must be one of your best articles and you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

    We can therefore call Multiculturalism British Imperialism by another name. Yes it the so called Left who claim to oppose imperialism are the very ones forcing diversity and multiculturalism onto us.

    Sadly there are many etnnics living here who want to take their anger out on the normal white English populations. The fact that they can't see this is proof that they do do indeed have less intelligence than us not that I believe in racial supremacy.

    Francis

    PS Robin

    I think you have read the UN Declarations Of Rights For Indigenous Peoples dcocument I sent you.

    The Imperialists/multiculturalists have a lot to answer for. We must now take the entire issue to the Council of Europe and ask them to monitor the UK again as they did in 1996 after the Scotland UN involvement with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Francis, a racist is someone who believes in the existence of races. A racialist is someone who believes that one race (usually his own) is superior. The term racist is regularly used, when racialist is meant.

      Delete
    2. I refer once again to the UN Declarations and the fate of the Native Hawaiians, outnumbered by hundreds of thousands of races from all over the world and outvoted when they refused to become part of the USA in 1959. They are still seeking their independence and the UN has done nothing for them as Wall Street controls the UN. I have just been sent a speech by Putin to the Duma in 2013 about Islam. He said that minorities must recognise that Russia is the home of the Russians and that they and their culture will predominate. No sharia law will be permitted and if the Muslims don't like this they can go to a Muslim country. He did not want Russia to be forced into suicide like Western Europe and the US. We have but a few decades left because our leaders encouraged this nonsense rather than rejecting it.

      Delete
  5. The manifesto clause 3.16 (England and Multi-Culturalism), reproduced above, is a start. There needs to be something in the manifesto about "English Cultural Rights". The government says that it is going to develop a written constitution for the UK. That is sure to be a liberal British establishment acceptance of Multi-culturalism.
    An introduction to the English Constitution might read:

    The name of the State is England.

    England is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

    1 All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

    2 These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

    3 The national flag is the cross of red on a white field, commonly known as the St. George Cross.

    4 The English language as the national language is the official language.

    5 The established church is the Church of England

    .



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about "English Cultural Rights" and the constitution.
      Statement Number 4 is fine as far as it goes, but it has to be the kind of English that Oswald is speaking about., not the multicultural mish-mash of a language which passes for English today.

      Delete
    2. It's a nice thought, but the change to everyone speaking New-English will not happen overnight. The form of language we currently use will probably have to continue as the 'working' language for generations.
      I suggest for item 4,

      4 The English language (New-English) as the national language is the official language.
      Common (international) English as the mother tongue of the majority is the second official language.

      Delete
    3. This manifesto is very similar to that of the Danish People's Party with C of E for the Lutheran Church. The Oxford Union has just declared itself institutionally racist perhaps for the flyer with the manacled black hands. Soon the English will be made to sign a declaration to that effect I am sure. If this happens then all other races must be made to do the same.
      The Left thinks that racism can be eradicated through education. It cannot. It is part of the human condition and human nature. People want to live with their own in their own homeland and protect themselves from other races. The UN should recognise this straight away and so much bloodshed and strife will cease. Instead they are bent on destroying homogeneous nations, almost exclusively white ones because of the woolly thinking of the Left.

      Delete
    4. I doubt if the terms 'right' and 'left' have any meaning in the context of English nationalism. The hard-headed Tories and Ukip are just as united in their determination to destroy the English nation as are woolly thinking Labour and Liberal Democrats.

      Delete