In studying multirracialism and the way it has molded our society to a liberal viewpoint we must examine closely some terms used to make a people more submissive.
Two such clichÃ©â€™s we hear a lot are â€˜discriminationâ€™ and â€˜intoleranceâ€™.
Used as a weapon of derision by liberals, the meaning of the expression â€˜discriminationâ€™ is self-evident; it implies that everyone is equal in all things we do. Culturally, religiously, ethnically, morally, financially, athletically etc. As such, nobody is allowed to be pass judgement on others, and nobody is allowed to be “offended” or to be different. Unfortunately this liberal dream sequence has no root in reality because life, even theirs, is full of discrimination, for and against on a daily basis.
For example when we go for a job we will most likely have to discriminate on the basis of which position we would like, at the interview it is likely you will be scrutinised along with several other candidates – the boss MUST discriminate (unless he has positions for everyone who applies) if he is to get the right person for the job.
When we go shopping we have to discriminate against certain shops (and consequently their owners) in favour of others, it can be because of a whole range of reasons big or small; maybe you like the prices, the atmosphere, maybe the fellow behind the counter has good or bad hygiene, perhaps you just like the colours of the store or the maybe the product is particularly good.
In personal relationships, people discriminate all the time based on the people they associate with (see the Inherent Human Values on page one). Ultimately a person discriminates and chooses one person over others to marry and start a family with. At the said wedding, reception or even just a backyard barbeque, discrimination occurs yet again. The guest list has to be kept in order, with quantity and quality control the order of the day, this means some people miss out, again based on a whole range of reasons.
Homosexuality and other assorted perversity is celebrated by liberals, but it is ironic to think that it is another example of discrimination on the basis of sex and sexuality, as with our examples in the previous paragraph.
In other instances discrimination is necessary for keeping people alive. If you know for example that there is a rough part of town nearby then you must discriminate against the people that hang around there and do your best to avoid it at all costs – unless you are a masochist and like having your head kicked in! Conversely you might like going to the opera or the art gallery – in deciding to do so you discriminate on the basis of social status.
Let us suppose for a moment that you are a Muslim. This means you will need to discriminate on the basis of religion and avoid going to a church, synagogue or temple to worship. You might even find that you are living exclusively amongst people from your own country or region – turning a part of that town into “Little Enclave” in an example of discrimination on the basis of race.
We have seen how discrimination is important in the day to day, what about on the national scale and pertaining to the host culture? Surely it is wrong to discriminate against people who just want to settle into your country and to deny them the rights and privileges of living here? Well no, in fact, it is more important to discriminate, our very survival depends on who we let in, how compatible they are, how productive they are, what place we have for them and in what quantities – just like our backyard barbeque guest list.
As you can see, discrimination merely indicates choice. Though judging by the left-wing societies we have had the pleasure of witnessing thus far, it doesnâ€™t seem as though â€˜choiceâ€™ is a strong point in the â€˜collectiveâ€™ mentality.
The second part of this commentary deals with the notion of â€˜toleranceâ€™.
The very idea of â€˜toleranceâ€™ is used by the left to bludgeon our society over the head with our own values and principles, namely our own sense of fair play and reasonableness.
However the term itself is misguided because it means â€˜to put up with, to suffer, or endureâ€™. A good example of â€˜toleratingâ€™ something is if your neighbour began extensions on his house. People will tolerate this because it will finish shortly and all will be peaceful and quiet once more. Perhaps you are putting extensions up on your own house – the discomfort of not having full access to the living room or the driveway is â€˜tolerableâ€™ but again all will be well shortly.
However, people wonâ€™t â€˜tolerateâ€™, and nor should they, a continuing construction site next door which goes on for month upon month, at all hours. People wonâ€™t â€˜tolerateâ€™ loud music night upon night or a continually barking dog without finally wanting to do something about it. In other words, tolerance is not inexhaustable.
This is however what is expected of European society when it comes to multiracialism and third world immigration. An unending philosophy to dissolve our society and our instructions are to â€˜grin and bear itâ€™.
Around the world however we are beginning to see nations come to the realisation that unending â€˜toleranceâ€™ for a concept like multiracialism spells disaster for their way of life. Weâ€™ve seen Dutch “tolerance” stretched to the limits. Even in places like Thailand, the tolerance of the normally placid people has been broken by continual pushing and poking from hostile forces, forced belonging and contrived appreciation irrespective of actions.
Increasingly, we are finding more and more that the Cultural Marxism, or political correctness as it has become known, is no longer strong enough to hold popular sentiment against the never-ending-construction-site-next-door called multiracialism.
Another example of â€˜toleranceâ€™ and one not that far removed from those pushing the idea, is the fact that people in dictatorships â€˜tolerateâ€™ figures like â€˜The Dear Leaderâ€™ or El Generale Presidente, irrespective of action. But in supposedly democratic societies like ours, both discrimination and intolerance, on whatever topic, are necessary, desirable, healthy and valid expressions of popular opinion.
How then has this ideological boot been allowed to tread so firmly into our collective necks, thus keeping us meek, mild and compliant? Primarily because people have been trained, from an early age, to accept the false premise that discrimination and intolerance are automatically bad. Thus when it comes time to have an opinion on something, the first instinct is to ensure we arenâ€™t being “intolerant” or “discriminatory” of anyone. This includes checking your speech for â€˜politically incorrectâ€™ language instead of using plain speak, which is to the point and ensures we all know where we stand.
Of course, the only winner that comes out of implementing politically correct speech are the Cultural Marxists who can have fun playing word-games with the limp-wristed response you just gave on a subject which you are really very passionate about. Free from the burden of “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” themselves, your weakened argument is quickly destroyed by slander, innuendo, assumptions and lies.
The time has come when each one of us has to say what he means, and mean what he says, irrespective of whom it ‘could’ offend. Let the counter-revolution begin!