Roots of Radicalism

Multi-Racialist Lies – Our Reply

IMAGINE you're in your works canteen, or in your local pub, or social club. You're discussing politics with your colleagues or acquaintances. Suddenly someone starts to advance multi-racialist arguments: 'Britain always a multi-racial country', 'no difference between black and white' etc. How would YOU answer that person? What is the best way to demolish anti-racialist arguments?

In this special feature Vanguard looks at some of the arguments most frequently invoked to 'destroy racialism'. How would YOU answer anyone who came out with such arguments? Experience shows that the overwhelming majority of multi-racialists simply parrot the same small number of 'anti-racist' cliches. With a little advance thought the weak points in such arguments can easily be ascertained, and any self-respecting Nationalist should be able to wipe the floor with the opposition.

We give some suggested Nationalist answers below to multi-racialist arguments. They are only suggestions however, and readers can doubtless come up with other solutions of their own. Do let us know if you think there are weaknesses in the anti-racialist case we have failed to cover.

The Multi-Racialist Line...

1) "Britain has always been a multi-racial country. Saxons, Danes, Celts, Picts, Normans and so on. We've had lots of different people here. The so-called 'British' are the product of centuries of multi-racialism, so how can they object to a little bit more?"

2) "Multi-racialism is all about working for good race relations to the mutual benefit of all different races. How can anyone be against good race relations, how can anyone be against doing good?"

3) "Look at the suffering caused by racists. Black people attacked in the streets, Asian families homes vandalised and attacked. How can anyone support racialist politics when this is what racists do?"

4) "All people are exactly the same under the skin, there is no difference between Black and White, all races are exactly the same apart from the colour of their skin..."

5) "Mass coloured Immigration has greatly enriched our culture. Look at all the different languages that are now spoken in Britain for example. Look at all the new choices open to people in a multi-racial society - I can now eat in an Indian or a Turkish or a Chinese restaurant if I wish, for example."

6) "Anyway coloured immigrants serve our community. If I want to buy a packet of cigarettes late at night I can find an Asian shop open to me. And if it wasn't for the West Indians who would man the London Underground, or do all the dirty jobs that White workers don't like to do? Would the NHS survive without Asian doctors?"

7) "Most of the coloured people living in Britain today aren't immigrants anyway. They were born here - that means they are as British as you or I"

8) "Let's face it - multi-racialism is inevitable, because of the consequences of modern technology. You can now easily move millions of people around the world, you can fly from London to India, for example, in a matter of hours, vastly improved communications inevitably make the world a much smaller place. It's inevitable that national differences become blurred - why fight it?"

9) "Repatriation - it'll never work. There are Just too many Afro-Asians - it's just not possible to repatriate a huge number of people - you couldn't possibly move such a huge number of people, it can't be done.

A Nationalist Response –


This is a favourite argument of multi-racialists, yet all it does is expose their basic ignorance on the subject of race. Prior to the post-war Afro-Asian invasion of Britain all the inhabitants of this land were exclusively of the same race: all were White Europeans. Moreover the overwhelming majority were of the Nordic sub-race, the indigenous peoples of north-western Europe. All the Saxon, Normans etc were, were different groupings of the same race, with different languages, customs and folk identities.

If any multi-racialist comes out with this drivel don't let him off the hook. Ask him how the fact that Britain has always been occupied by people of the same race 'proves' that Britain has always been a multi-racial society.

2) THE '1984' ARGUMENT

This is essentially the '1984' argument and should be exposed as such. As readers of Orwell's masterpiece will recall the all-powerful Party there defined its own ideology as 'goodthinking' - by definition all dissidents were opposed to doing 'good'.

By definition everyone - including the National Front - is in favour of 'good race relations': the only argument is how to get them. Multi-racialists claim this can only be done by mixing the races together; Nationalists argue that separation, with each ethnic group 'doing its own thing' in its own land, is the best way to peaceful and harmonious relationships between the races.

The political institutions and the mass medias of the western world have been dominated for half a century by multi-racialists of various varieties. They have been able to determine the terms of reference for debates on race - 'multi-racialists are for good race relations, racialists are against' - to their own advantage. Yet what have they achieved: animosity, mistrust and dislike between the races is at an all time high because racial disharmony is caused by enforced multi-racialism.

The reality is that 'good race relations' - in the real, not the propaganda sense of the term - are best achieved by the racial nationalist policies of repatriation.


Another favourite multi-racialist complaint - and wrong in fact, and wrong in principle. Firstly let's look at the facts of racial attacks. Although the media constantly portray Negroes and Asians as always being the victims of racial attacks and the Whites always the culprits the fact about racial attacks - on the rare occasions the police dare release statistics on inter-racial crime - point the other way.

The fact that so few hard facts on inter-racial crime, especially violent street crime, is ever made public is proof in itself that the British are, in general, more often the victims than the perpetrators of such crime: if not you can be sure the facts would have been made public long ago.

Moreover if Britain truly were to be an egalitarian multi-racial society then Blacks and Asians must expect their 'fair share' of criminal attacks, and in a city that was, say 90% White, nine times out of ten they should expect their attacker to be White.

But even supposing the facts of inter-racial crime were as the multi-racialists pretend their arguments would still be invalid. If Blacks and Asians truly do suffer in a multi-racial society like Britain today then that surely is an argument against multi-racialism, not for it. As we said above racial antagonism is the product of enforced racial mixing, as such it would be cured by an enlightened policy of repatriation. Apart from anything else the most fanatical of anti-racists must surely concede that 'White racist thugs' would have problems harassing, for example, an Indian family if they were living where they belonged - in India.

Anti-racialists in conference...


If we had a pound for everytime we heard this 'argument' we would be printing this article on gold foil rather than paper. It is forever being smugly trotted out by multi-racialists as if thought constituted an unanswerable argument against racialism.

In reality it is not an argument at all - merely a statement of opinion. If you hear someone come out with this nonsense ask them to justify their claim. Ask them what real evidence there is that all races are all the same.

What do anti-racists actually mean by saying 'all races are the same except for skin colour'? Even on a purely physical level ethnic differences are fundamental - there is no organ of the body, including the brain, in which distinct racial differences do not exist.

On an intellectual level differences are even more apparent - as are amply proven by the massively differing levels of civilisation found among the different ethnic groups on this planet, and are confirmed by the results of innumerable scientific studies into ethnic differences in intelligence.

The reality is that racial differences are fundamental: physically, intellectually, in terms of behaviour, character and potential for achievement, each ethnic group has its own distinct characteristics.


As with so many anti-racist arguments this is a mixture of ignorance and illogic. It starts with the premise that ethnic and cultural variability is a good thing in itself - a perfectly valid argument, indeed an argument that is fundamental to Nationalism. What it conveniently forgets however is that the cultural differences of which it is so proud were all the products of racially homogenous peoples living within their own national boundaries. The Chinese culture, its language, customs and cuisine, which so 'enriches' many of our inner city areas evolved amongst Chinese people living in China; it did not arise in a multi-racial society.

In short the multi-racial society does not create a rich variety of cultures, it only exploits that diversity which was initially created by mono-racial societies. Anti-racists are also guilty of sheer hypocrisy in their claimed support for cultural diversity. There is after all a wide range of distinct languages and cultures indigenous to the British Isles. This century has seen Scots Gaelic come perilously close to extermination as a spoken language; Welsh, the oldest living language in the British Isles, is clearly in danger of going the same way. Yet what have the 'multi-culturalists' done to preserve these Celtic languages for example - NOTHING! The professed love of anti-racists for 'cultural diversity' is merely a smokescreen for their obsessive desire for racial mixing and the obliteration of the European races.


A curious line of argument for any 'anti-racist' to follow, yet many of them do. Embarass the 'anti-racist' who argues thus by asking him if he wished he lived in India in the days of the Raj, when he could have had even more subservient Asians around to cater for his every need. The attitude that 'we need coloureds to do our dirty jobs' shows a remarkably condescending attitude to Afro-Asians considering it is usually held by people who call themselves anti-racists.

The argument that we needed to import coloured labour in the Sixties because there were no White workers to do the jobs is also factually incorrect: it would be more accurate to say that there were not enough Whites available to do the jobs at the wage rates that the capitalist system was prepared to pay. So rather than pay British Workers a decent wage the bosses of bodies like London Transport preferred to import cheap coloured labour, to keep wage levels down.

It is even more bizarre for anti-racists to support the large Afro-Asian presence in the Health Service. There is a desperate shortage of doctors and nurses in the Third World, where the doctor/patient ratio is abysmal compared with that in Britain. That Britain should deprive the coloured world of a significant proportion of its limited number of medical staff is one of the few genuine examples of White 'exploitation' there is. Nationalists say: Britain is more than capable of training sufficient capable doctors and nurses from its own people; return Afro-Asian staff to their own lands where they are so desperately needed.


Another favourite anti-racist response, and again one that simply shows the shallowness of their thinking. Essentially a person's national identity - whether they are British, or Indian or Nigerian or whatever - is determined more by factors of heredity than environment.

Think of the factors that make a person what they are - physical, intellectual, behavioural etc. A moment's glance shows that physical factors are largely unaffected by where one is born and brought up: a child born in Britain of negro parents and brought up here is still clearly physically a negro. The same applies to the other factors: for instance virtually all scientists working in the relevant fields would agree that intelligence is primarily determined by hereditarian, and not environmental factors.

The character of the British people is something that has been moulded over millennia - what we are, what makes us British, is partly determined by the fact we were brought up here, but more importantly it is determined by what we have inherited from our forebears. It is absurd and unreasonable to suppose that Afro-Asians could 'become British' after just one generation here.

If the above argument is too complex for the simple mind of the anti-racist to follow then ask them something easier: "If blacks in Britain are as British as you or I then when the West Indians visit England for a Test series in cricket why is it 'our' blacks always support the visitors?" Now watch your anti-racist squirm.


This is an extremely dishonest argument, but at least it does serve to highlight a valid area of concern. It is certainly true that modern technology, the product almost exclusively of White ingenuity, could be used to obliterate the people who created it - but that doesn't mean it ought to. Yes - we do now have the facility to obliterate nations by moving millions of people around the globe, into the homelands of other ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean we must or should.

By the same logic it could be argued that as we now have the technological capacity to annihilate the world in a nuclear holocaust we therefore ought to do so.

Previously in human history physical barriers hindered population movements and helped preserve national homelands ethnically intact. Since modern technological advances in communications and transportation have eroded these safeguards to our national identity we must build alternative political safeguards - starting with a policy of repatriation for those non-Europeans already here.


The claim of 'It can't be done' is usually the last cry of the defeated anti-racist. In view of the unreliability of government statistics on the subject it is difficult to be surely exactly how many non-Europeans there are in Britain, but the figure is probably around five million, very approximately.

This is remarkably similar to the number of Hong Kong Chinese that multi-racialists are so keen should be brought to Britain before Hong Kong reverts to Chinese rule in 1997. If it is possible to move five million people into Britain in the space of a few years how can it be 'impossible' to move a similar number out? The same technology that facilitated the arrival of millions of immigrants to our land can also be used to facilitate their departure. Repatriation is easy - provided the political will is there!