Multi Culturalism attacks a High School

Do not be fooled, this is not a 2 amendment Right wing attack, the belief systems where no more right wing than the rhetoric coming out of any black studies department. This attack was the legacy of the LEFT'S fixation on race. While most nes media focus on white identity groups, many other hate groups of color inder the guise of multi cultualism have also adapted the lefts victimology views, while using Nazi ideology of the lefts consistent talk of multi culturalism many groups of color, have used the tactist to only learn about there race as a means to become hateful. The Native American Guy was an Indian of color who found comfort in multi Culuralism and instead used this ideology alongside victimolgy for hate! This guy was not a Christian the group he belong to advocated for Pagan beliefs. Here are there views, and they sound more like leftist rhetoric than right leaning views. The media calls multiculralism fascist or right wing, when leftist muticularalist attack or do violence. When this happens then its "Right Wing".

http://www.nazi.org/

Comments from the hate Socialist Group he belong to about his killings

"We knew [Weise] briefly through 34 posts he made on the forum. He expressed himself well and was clearly highly intelligent and contemplative, especially for one so young," the site's administrator said in statement posted today on Nazi.

"Weise participated in the forum in part because, unlike 'white nationalist' or 'white power' movements, the LNSG embraces all races as part of its vision of world nationalism. His statements on the site reflected a frustration with the populist politics and materialistic arrogance of modern society," the statement continued.

In a July 13 post, NativeNazi expressed his concern that Native Americans had turned their backs on racial purity and were being weakened by "interracial mixing". He was particularly annoyed that young Native Americans were copying the culture of African Americans.





About the LNSG

The LNSG began when our founding members became dissatisfied with their political options in modern, liberal democratic industrial society. No single party addresses the necessary issues, nor recognizes that modernity itself is the cause of its enduring and pervasive problems.

We believe in a resurrection of traditional methods of the pre-Christian past, including naturalism and nationalism, and while these are demonized in our current time, we realize they are necessary to end the decay of our society. We went to your highest learning institutions, studied your greatest thinkers, and are comfortable navigating and succeeding in your society. However, we disagree with its fundamental values: money and the "empowerment" of the individual.

The mission of the LNSG is to make healthy changes to a sick system, using the values of the ancients in modern form. While globalism and populism are against nature and Tradition, we turn instead to time-proven methods of leadership, and strip away unnecessary emotion, both "love" and "hate," to create a rational future for our people.




Racism

Racism
We believe that emotional responses to real-world problems are superfluous and eventually become destructive. For this reason, we are opposed to "hate" as a motivational force. Our policy on race is not hatred, but love of our own people, and for each and every nation, such that we allow them to remain ethnic- and culturally-consistent populations.
We do not consider any races, tribes or people "inferior," and in political terms, consider every individual equal. Our goal is not to disparage or insult other races, but to work on our own. We consider bigotry an intellectual error and a reflection of poor moral character. However, we do acknowledge that there are insurmountable differences between the races, and because of this, that race-mixing adulterates both populations and creates a less capable one; history has shown us this.

Our goal will benefit all nations by allowing them to keep their traditions and cultures and bloodlines intact, and we view as comrades those of any race or tribe who believe in the same thing. Further, we believe it is spiritually degrading to engage in hateful practices, and we believe in transcendent recognition of the truth of the situation and acting upon it as a replacement belief system for those unfortunately caught in bigotry.

Deriving from two clear mandates, that of preserving evolutionary diversity and of allowing each tribe autonomy in shaping its own population and goals, our racial policy is not to be construed as some division of peoples into "superior" and "inferior." A hammer is a superior implement for banging things, but inferior as a spoon, and similarly, the races and tribes of earth are radically different. The only way to respect that diversity is to separate it, and avoid creating a class of miscegenated, cultureless people.

The destruction of all cultures lies in this mixing of people who, lacking the cultural inclinations cultivated by thousands of generations among an ethnic population which rewarded some behaviors and discouraged others, have no innate character and thus uphold only the lowest common denominator: money, possessions, and novelty. In some cases, such as Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom and Southern Europe, small degrees of ethnic admixture have colored the populations in distinct ways. These now constitute new populations and if eugenic principles are applied, should rise to a higher level of functionality.

Among the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes, our history is blighted in part by the destructive acts of invading religions and desires to not offend the immigrant populations of the south. In short, it is this: during the last ice age, one population bucked the trend and headed north to live in the harshest climate possible, by which they produced the Arctic tribes who are the original stock of the Caucasian race. This genetic history is most clearly represented in the light-colored people of Germany and Scandinavian countries. In ancient India, these constituted the ruling caste, and were known as Aryans.

While ethnic mixing can be beneficial, as in the case of Southern Italy, it is important that the original Arctic tribes remain undiluted, and thus among these we have a strict prohibition on breeding outside of the tribe, as to incorporate the genetic histories of those who did not make the Arctic migration is to adulterate all that it signified, then and now, as a philosophy of believing in life enough to endure great hardship for the purpose of growing stronger. Indeed, the tribes of the south and east have clearly different standards than those of the Nordic-Germanic people, and this is why we demand separation and the right to self-determination.

Environment
The deep ecology movement restated what the NSDAP believed: that in order for humans to exist without destroying their environment, it had to be placed on equal footing with humans, recognizing in addition that its space requirements were greater as while humans are one species, nature is uncountable interlocked species, creating a codependent, eternal whole.
For this reason our goals regarding the environment are to decrease the human land-use footprint, decrease our use of resources and reprocess our waste so that we do not introduce it to the environment. These are simple goals with complex implications.

There must be a leadership factor other than profit-motive.

When our guiding principle is profit, nature and our own integrity take second place and are pushed aside by the need to use more, sell more, buy more. A National Socialist government returns leadership to the culture and people, and relegates money to its role as a mechanism for achieving those ends. Land use should be a question of a logical use of the land to benefit the society as a whole, not whose profit can be made from another fast-food restaurant or discount store. Further, without excessive profit motive, products will be designed to last longer and thus produce less eventual waste.

Population must regulate itself.

If we do not check our breeding, we will overrun the earth. There are two factors in managing population; the first is quantitative, the second, qualitative.

There are literally too many humans on planet earth. Every generation begets another, and thus population grows exponentially despite natural and social (poverty, warfare) factors. Our current population occupies too much space and even if placed on vegan diets, too many resources, and produces too much waste, to avoid irretrievably damaging our ecosystem. Although there is in theory space for more, earth is treated best by a population of under a half-billion people, which provides enough for every nation on earth to have a reasonable population.

Second, our population has bred dysgenically, in that there are many people capable of little but having jobs and buying things at discount stores, and few who have a creative impetus and intelligence and character to match. If we are to limit our population, it does not make sense to do so in some egalitarian fashion like a lottery, but to pick from among us those who have excelled and encourage them to breed while others do not. This ensures that every future generation will be stronger, smarter and of better character than the last. These people by their inclination will be respectful to nature, as intelligent people of good character tend to be.

To a modern mind, this policy seems inhuman and threatening, but considering that overpopulation and degeneration of our breeding stock will ensure us all an equal apocalyptic fate, or worse, an life of ongoing boredom and failure, these inhuman concepts provide for a better future for all people. Those who cannot contribute are spared the burden of breeding, and given more time and money to focus on their own wants; those who are born in the future will be of a higher quality. The reduced human population will coexist with nature and, by breeding more stable and capable individuals, begin again to approach the heights of culture and meaningful life experienced by those in ancient populations.

There must be government which can act quickly and decisively on environmental issues.

No democracy will act to offend its citizens, who for the most part are composed of people who see only their own lives and, being unable to balance the whole in their decision-making (most can barely handle themselves), will act for themselves first and by that decision, exclude the collective and our environment from the equation. Further, democracies move slowly because they are forced to state every decision in terms of the lowest common denominator, provided oversimplified, incremental changes which are as often as not reversed by the next elected official. No dictator could be so incompetent as to reach a par with democracies in terms of environmental and cultural damage.

This will reverse both the selfish individualism that has gotten us to this state in history, and the domination by money of government resulting from the tendency of people to vote for what they think gives them the highest degree of income. A saner political system will subsidize those who have need and are worthy, and will guarantee a living for the average person so they are not forced into economic competition with others, and can focus on being better at their livelihood, at being friends and parents, and members of the community.

Our livelihoods must not rely on exploiting existing resources.

We view natural resources as products in a store: something we purchase, use, and discard. We simply find it, pay for it, and then consider the transaction over. A more sensible view is to see natural resources as an ongoing process, for example the forest that grows and produces timber: we can selectively take trees, but we cannot cut too many down, or the forest dies. Similarly we must view our food sources such as fish and game as living systems in their own right. The correct way to use these is not to exploit existing resources, but to determine what we need and cultivate independent systems for producing it in an ongoing and humane manner.

This also applies to the animals that are currently kept in tiny spaces, fed chemicals and the remains of their own kind, and used to generate vast profits. The industries and people who currently make their living from these tasks will continue to do so, but in a more logical fashion that is less destructive to the environment and to their personal spirit. What pride and self-respect is there in slaughtering caged animals with bolt-guns and electrocution ponds?

Aesthetics of our society must reflect the natural ideal.

When we build boxy plastic and steel empires to replace the rolling and diverse natural landscape, we are stating as clearly as any philosophy or political propaganda that we are opposed to nature and want to assert our own deathless order in response. This is not only a fantasy, but also cultivates in us an alienation from nature, such that we fear dirt and defecation and death and cannot deal with them on a psychological level. Any future civilization must have architecture that emphasizes the diversity and structural beauty of nature, and must integrate its dwellings and offices and shops with truly natural space, instead of a few planted trees surrounded by miles of concrete, glass, plastic and metal.

Our spiritual system must harmonize with nature.

Modern spirituality operates by defining death as alien, and by creating forms of intellectual compensation, by which one considers an eternal life or a moral absolute as superior to the order of nature. By thus avoiding the issue of death, such religions become dominated by it, and are correctly called death-religions, in no small part because they bring death to nature and thus to the original soul within each of us. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism seek to dominate nature, while Buddhism and primitive superstition seek to submit to it. It is better to find a balance, and to find for ourselves a place within nature as independent spiritual and moral agents, according to its principles.

This does not mean that we wish to wholly exclude religions such as Christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism from our belief, but that we believe it must be recognized that what we have now are interpretations of an original colored by the prejudices of our society, and that therefore we can return to the original interpretation and place it in a correct light. Nature and tribe and family come before abstract spiritual values, especially those which promise things not observable here on earth, and religions must be re-interpreted to reflect these values, which are most likely closer to the original state of those religions