Thursday, May 22, 2008

World United Citizens?



The Red Arrows

Being British
by Joe Priestly
The following article is from the BNP in England.
H/T: JTex
It’s the question that’s on everyone’s lips, especially establishment lips. And the LibLabCons are getting their knickers in a terrible twist as they struggle to answer it: What does it mean to be British?
But since when did they give a damn about what it means to be British? The political elite have been leading us away from Britishness since the end of the Second World War, and post war politicians have been consistent in favouring the international over the national. It was the LibLabCons that gave away our independence by signing us up to the UN and to the EU, and they paved the way for this betrayal by attacking and ridiculing the idea of Britishness. Their insane fantasy was and still is to turn us British into ‘citizens of the world’.
Yet now they have the audacity to fly the flag and call for patriotism. Can you imagine anything more absurd - or ironic - than the liberal establishment flying the patriotic flag? When Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel he was of course talking about the patriotism of convenience, the very sort practiced by LibLabCon traitors.
Mention of flag and nation now even has the likes of left wing warbler Billy Bragg wiping a tear from his eye. No, don’t laugh. It really was a tear, honest. Billy’s written a book about it,
"The Progressive Patriot - a search for belonging". And then there’s his eagerly awaited new album "Red, White, Black ‘n Blue" in which “…he movingly explores the dynamics of the new patriotism from the perspective of international socialism in the context of the multiracial multicultural society as viewed from an isolated mansion on the Devon coast.” Must get that one.
Although it wasn’t his intention, Bragg’s scribbling illustrates the establishment’s Alice in Wonderland thought processes with a remarkable precision; The Progressive Patriot is a sort of autobiographical musing during which Bragg searches for “…a sense of belonging that is accessible to all.”
Those are the words, aren’t they?
They could just as easily have come from a Labour Government Minister, or a member of the Opposition front bench, or a back bencher from either side of the House. They could be the words of a leading Civil Servant, a newspaper editor, or of a local councillor (though not BNP). It’s the sort of thing you find printed at the bottom of headed paper from the council, or from any government department - it could even be the title of an essay that one of your children is asked to write at school.
The phrase encapsulates perfectly the witlessness of the liberal establishment’s grand design - all together now, in new-speak of course, “Working towards creating a sense of belonging that is accessible to all”.
A country is defined by its exclusivity; it is a product of the peculiarities of its people. Britain isn’t France because its people aren’t French. And to anyone with an ounce of common sense a country that’s ‘accessible to all’ won’t be a country for very long; accessibility and social cohesion are mutually exclusive. But our establishment didn’t see it like that. Blinkered by equality dogma and seduced by dreams of utopia, it saw exclusivity as an obstacle to its long term goal, a stateless world governed according to the theory of universal equality. So naturally patriotism was a bit of a problem.
Love of country is love of its history, tradition, and way of life, and, dare I say it, love of its people. Patriotism is an expression of exclusivity, of belonging, of commitment, and its whole essence is ‘us’ and ‘them’. But Britain’s ruling elite are cosmopolitan and global; they rejected the reality of nation in favour of an ideal, universal equality, and in so doing they set themselves in opposition to exclusivity, patriotism, and even their own people. And with increasing fervour over the years the establishment has employed every arm of state to pervert and demean the expression of patriotic feeling so that it was seen as legitimate only in respect of sporting events.
The intellectuals and their friends in the entertainment industry have alternated between ridiculing patriotism and associating it with mass murder. The education system has taught its pupils to be ashamed of being British. And the British political system and bureaucracy act as though the rest of the world has a higher priority than the British people do. Two or three national newspapers have with varying degrees of effort attempted to resist this trend, but in the main patriotism has been presented as at best ‘…something that polite people don’t do,’ at worst ‘…something that Nazis do.’
And of course if the intention is to radically change the nature of a country, undermining the population’s support for it is a pretty good place to start. The cohesiveness of 1950’s Britain is what first hits whenever newsreels from the time appear on television. But that cohesiveness got in the way of the LibLabCon plan.
So British people were made to feel bad if they felt good about their country and about who and what they were. Only if they felt bad about those things could they feel good about themselves - that’s how it works in Orwellian Britain.
The intention was to make ethnic Britons psychologically incapable of resisting the changes the LibLabCons intended to force on them. It was the liberal elite’s precise intent to bring us to this sorry state where so many of us now no longer know who we are.
It was treason on a vast scale. The people whom we gave the responsibility to act in our best interests have reduced us to the status of rats at a research facility. Our own establishment has used us as the subjects in their experiment to create The New Britain according to their theory of equality. They wanted a Britain that was “…accessible to all” and that’s what we’ve got.



Yet now our leaders want us to fly the flag and love our country.

Suddenly it’s OK to be patriotic. What’s changed?

Two factors combine to fuel this LibLabCon change of direction.

The first is that we’ve arrived!

New Britain is accessible to all by virtue of the governing elite’s commitment to immigration, to the UN, to the EU, and ultimately to World Government.

They had us commit national suicide on the altar of equality and out of the cremated remains they constructed New Britain. So naturally they want us to support it.

The second factor is that the imposition of the multiracial multicultural society on ethnic Britons has raised the thorny issue of belonging. And in so doing it has highlighted the fault lines of ethnicity, culture, and religion that are running through new, accessible, New Britain. Even woolly-minded liberals are waking up to that one. Their solution though is the same sort of head-in-the-clouds wishful thinking that got us into this problem in the first place. They want to create a new sense of belonging for Britain’s patchwork of cultures; a special something that ‘unites us in diversity’. This is how these idiots’ brains work.

Read the rest here:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/04/being-british/

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home