Treacherous, Cowardly, Dishonest
and Destroying Our Nation:
Nothing British or Conservative about
David Cameron’s Party
and Destroying Our Nation:
Nothing British or Conservative about
David Cameron’s Party
You treated your conscience to a dose of guilt and then prayed to someone or other that things would stay the way they were as long as they could. That’s where you went wrong. You should have held fast to your Western contempt. It might have steeled you against disaster. Because that’s what’s brewing for you now, my friend, and you can’t do anything about it. When all is said and done, it will serve you right, and no one will stand up and fight it. Not even your own. Which just goes to show what a decadent lot you really are.
Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (1973)
Frank Ellis © 2010
Until very recently the Conservative Party used to believe that its elected members of parliament were charged with a solemn duty to advance Britain’s interests and to protect Britain’s territorial, economic, racial, legislative and political integrity from hostile forces, internal and external. That is no longer the case. What is now quite clear is that the Conservative Party, in pursuit of some Neo-Marxist multiracial utopia, has abandoned its allegiance to the British nation state, the monarchy, the nuclear family, the parochial, and above all to the idea that Britain as a white, north-west European nation is worth preserving. The Conservative Party’s open espousal of the viciously anti-white, racist doctrine of multiculturalism is in fact the most obvious and striking symptom of its moral and intellectual decay. Given that one of the central fallacies on which multiculturalism is based is that all races and cultures are the same then, according to this doctrine, no primacy or superiority can be attached to any indigenous population (only applies to white people): all are equal in ability and potential (though non-whites are recognised to be the bearers of unique spiritual and other intangible benefits which whites are duty bound to accept); all are to be globalised and standardised (though non-white indigenous peoples must be protected and nurtured, whereas whites are to become globalized helots). If you believe in the cult of multiculturalism you are: (i) not a conservative in any tradition, certainly not in any tradition derived from the thought of Burke, Disraeli, Salisbury and Powell; and (ii) you are unfit for any high office let alone worthy of becoming the Queen’s First Minister.
One consequence of multiculturalism is that the white population, the people who can rightly claim this land as theirs, are now expected to act and to speak in ways that demonstrate their support and commitment to multiculturalism. In other words, whites, as victims of these ugly policies, policies espoused by Labour and which will be continued if the Conservative Party wins the general election, must show support for something which actively encourages their racial and cultural dispossession. If they cannot bring themselves to state the vile lie – “diversity is our strength” – they must at the very least eschew any public criticism of the ethnic cleansing of whites, especially if they work in the Macphersonised public sector.
Since 1997 the changes affecting Britain as a direct consequence of the imposition of the doctrine of multiculturalism have been deep and far-reaching. They have changed this country overwhelmingly for the worse. The Conservative Party has done nothing to stop this Soviet-style agenda from being imposed. When, in the aftermath of the publication of the Macpherson Report (1999), the police were targeted and accused of being institutionally racist, William Hague, whose favourite pose is that of a straight talker, accepted the report’s findings in full. Later, during the 2001 general election campaign, when the outgoing Conservative Member of Parliament for East Yorkshire, John Townend, highlighted his constituents’ justified fears over mass immigration, Hague denounced him.
At every stage in this Labour government’s attempts to impose multiculturalism on Britain, the Conservative Party has connived and colluded with Labour. The Conservative Party has had endless opportunities to highlight the Neo-Marxist, politically-correct terror which has infected our society, yet it has done nothing. The odd Conservative MP might come out with the cliché - “this is political correctness gone mad” - just to give the impression to beleaguered constituents that he understands their concerns when some spiteful council decides to ban the flying of the England flag on 23rd April, but he does nothing. When teachers, university lecturers, police officers and nurses have been isolated and attacked often for completely harmless remarks, the Conservative Party remained silent. And let me remind Cameron of the way he treated Patrick Mercer, a former army officer, his erstwhile front bench spokesman on defence. When Mercer pointed out some of the facts of life in the British Army on race and race-related matters Cameron sacked him. Cameron does not deserve good people like Mercer. Sacking Mercer was all about playing to the gallery and demonstrating Cameron’s commitment to the poisonous cult of anti-racism: it was an act of cowardice. I can only hope that Mercer will refuse any post he might be offered in the future.
Multiculturalism has not led to the creation of some rainbow-coloured utopia in Britain. On the contrary, it has inflicted enormous damage: alienation, hypocrisy and isolation; bureaucratic and legislative creep; crime; diversity-damage; overpopulation and overcrowding; and the persecution of dissenters in ways that are all too redolent of the former Soviet Union and East Germany.
Alienation, hypocrisy and isolation arise from the fear of saying what you think. A country in which you feel unable to say what you really think because you are too frightened or where you are not sure whether your interlocutor can be trusted is well on the way to losing its freedom. When people no longer trust one another the ties of genuine community, as opposed to the unctuous, ingratiating version peddled by the BBC, Hollywood and diversophiles, are dissolved and with them society. One consequence of this is that individuals look to the state for the solution to all their ills when the state has been the architect of their alienation and isolation from one another. This incidentally is also a characteristic of a totalitarian state. Even when people know that multiculturalism hurts them and their country, they cannot bring themselves to admit it and act accordingly. Here are some examples which I have logged over the last fifteen years or so.
In 2001, there was a huge increase in street muggings most of which were to do with the theft of mobile phones. One Monday morning, just before I was due to take a class at Leeds University, one of my female students turned up in a very bad state. Her clothing was dishevelled and face covered in tears. She also had all the makings of a nasty black eye. I did all I could to cheer her up. When she had stopped sobbing I asked her what had happened.
I learned that when she was walking into the University across Hyde Park, she was attacked. I asked who attacked her. “Just kids”, she replied. I felt she was being somewhat evasive. When I put it to her that she had been mugged by a gang of feral blacks she replied: “Yes, yes, but I’m not racist”. It turned out that the same girl had been badly beaten up by three big black girls in London some six weeks prior to the attack in Leeds. Note her inability psychologically to defend herself. It was if she felt guilty about what had happened. Here is another example. A student came to see me. She told me that she was not up to lessons. I asked why. On the day before she had arrived back in Leeds from London. Just outside the immediate precinct of Leeds Station she stopped to phone her mother to let her know that she had arrived. While on the phone she was punched in the face by a black mugger who stole her mobile phone. She related this incident quite calmly. When I pointed out to her that a lethal response would have been entirely appropriate had she been armed, she wandered off into a mini-tirade about “racism”. The truly alarming thing about these two incidents is not the physical assaults on two innocent young women – bad enough - but the utterly disturbing reaction of the victims themselves to what had befallen them: no healthy, normal and rational desire to see the perpetrators of these attacks punished just utter fear that any remarks that were in anyway critical of the attackers would be construed as “racism”. Relentless multicultural brainwashing in our primary and secondary education sectors is responsible.
A few years ago a favourite trick of Asian criminals and thugs in Leeds and Bradford - believe it or not Mr Cameron they do exist - was to use taxi drivers to help them rob students. The robbery works as follows. White students hire a taxi late at night. As the taxi departs the driver, an Asian of some description, speaks on his radio or mobile (in some alien, non-English tongue). What he is doing in fact is to inform some accomplices of the drop off point. The taxi reaches its destination. The student pays, steps out and makes his way home. The taxi departs. Two or three individuals exit the second car. They threaten the hapless student with a knife, forcing him into their car. They drive to Bradford. The student is forced to draw money out of an ATM. As long as he does as he is told he is unharmed, physically at any rate. He is then stripped naked and abandoned. This actually happened to one of my students in March 2000. He was markedly reluctant to acknowledge the racial dimension or even to concede that he had been the victim of a racial assault. It was striking how so many people tried to play down the fact that the attackers were Asians. One can take it absolutely for granted that had the victim been black or Asian and had the attackers been white, the cries of “racism” would have been deafening. Here is one final example from a member of the Leeds faculty. She told me that she had moved from Bradford to York. I asked her why: “I want a better education for my children”. I “deconstructed her discourse”, like one does in these circumstances: “You”, I replied, “do not want your child to be taught in a school where the majority do not speak English because you fear – quite rightly – that this will damage your child’s education”. Her predictable - and utterly cowardly - reaction: “Yes, but I’m not racist”.
The examples I have just cited – I could cite more – highlight what for me is the most sinister and alienating aspect of multiculturalism, not the all too obvious and complete failure of multiculturalism, but rather the huge differences between what people say publicly regarding multiculturalism and what they believe and say among a trusted circle of friends (just like the old Soviet Union by the way). I note for example that many of the people who tell me that “diversity” is a good thing avoid this same “diversity” at every opportunity. They flee the inner city to lily-white neighbourhoods or the shires, they marry whites and they socialise with whites. And outside of work they avoid non-whites at all costs. All very sensible, yet very few will openly admit that they do not want to live among blacks and other non-whites. This is one reason why all government attempts to promote racial mixing in housing – and if any government thought it could get away with it to compel the same – are doomed to failure.
When you press people about why they make changes in their lives, you tend to get coded responses: “quality of life”, “better education”, “too crowded in London” and “too much crime”. The common denominator is mass, non-white immigration. My quality of life is not improved when we allow immigrants from Africa and Islamic terror groups to come and live here. Nor is it right to allow alien and barbarous practices such as arranged marriages and female circumcision in this country. The education of white English children manifestly suffers if a critical mass of the children consists of immigrants who cannot speak English and who hate us. Mass legal/illegal immigration means that London and other cities are overflowing with people, one reason why there is a housing crisis in London and the south-east of England. The conclusion is quite clear: England is being overwhelmed by legal and illegal immigration and in the process England is being sacrificed so that a corrupt and cowardly political class can act out its racial and social engineering policies.
Hypocrisy on the part of the white middle classes is nothing new. Labour politicians who extolled the virtues of the working class and sought to destroy grammar schools and private schools made very sure that their children did not attend what one of Blair’s aides referred to as “bog standard comprehensives”. No, no, their children went to good fee-paying schools and from there to a good university. At every stage, as their children transited the primary, secondary and tertiary education system, the parents who loudly proclaimed their love of “diversity” took all possible measures to ensure that their progeny were, as far as possible, insulated from this wonderful gift of “diversity”. Bog standard comprehensives – the description is all too accurate – overflowing with immigrant children, the dreadful cacophony of alien tongues, freakish behaviour and clothing, lack of order, drugs, savagery, racial violence directed at whites and abysmal educational standards, were for the “masses”, as it were, emphatically not for all the Jemimas, Kates, Charlottes, and Williams, Bens and Joshuas.
Politicians of the two main parties know full well that they have no mandate for just letting our country be invaded and destroyed by high levels of legal/illegal immigration. In the first instance they have tried to make a case for the high levels of legal/illegal immigration, arguing that we benefit from it. They have failed, and they know they have failed. No one has ever explained to us, to me, how Britain benefits from allowing our inner cities to be overrun by hundreds of thousands of the Third World’s unemployed and unemployable. Take a look at France’s inner cities. What possible benefits does any white indigenous majority derive from its being racially and culturally dispossessed? When I walk the streets of a major British city observing and hearing the presence of thousands of aliens I do not feel “enriched”. Low-skilled, uneducated immigrants are a massive burden on our country. Sheer numbers are the problem. They bring cruel and bizarre cultural and religious customs with them and diseases - tuberculosis being one – which had long been eradicated, or so we believed, until we allowed the non-white legal/illegal immigrant invasion. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, do I wish to be invaded by high-skilled, white immigrants either: Britain is full.
No person, apart from Third World immigrants themselves and some diversophile extremists really believe that mass non-white immigration is good for Britain. Again, if people really believed that “diversity” was such a wonderful gift, they would not flee it at every opportunity and, of course, they would be demanding lots more of it. Or they might go and live the “diversity” dream in some of Britain’s cities or better still in Botswana, South Africa or Zimbabwe. The key to understanding what people really think and believe is to examine their behaviour rather than paying any regard to their ritual uttering of slogans: “diversity is our strength” and “vibrant multicultural inner city”. When diversophiles who have moved from London to the Somerset levels nevertheless insist that “diversity” is a very nice thing, this is another example of a white who wants to believe in the cult but has come up against the brutal, Third World squalor of London and cannot take it anymore. Something gives. Perhaps he has been mugged by some immigrant from Somalia or his daughter has had to fend off the unwelcome attentions of under age sexual predators at her “bog standard comprehensive”. Or maybe his wife was on her way home on the tube when she saw a gang of blacks threaten a well dressed young man – let’s assume he was an up and coming lawyer – and then stabbed him. His wife was so traumatised by what she saw that she has never travelled on the tube again: she has nightmares; she cannot concentrate at work; she cannot stand it any longer; she delivers her husband an ultimatum: we are leaving London. They move and then she is assailed by guilt. She has always considered herself fairly liberal. One of her friends on hearing that she and her husband had left London told her: “Well, Claire, I never would have guessed you were a racist”. Guilt gnaws away at her, but, encouragingly, there are signs of rebellion. She now starts to see news items in a different way. One day she meets some bloke called Frank in a pub. Frank loves his country and fears for its future. (Frank’s views are, well, frankly hellish). Frank asks her how long she has been living in the village: “Oh just a couple of months, we’ve moved from London”. Frank smells blood. “All that diversity in London got too much for you did it?” Claire cannot help herself: “But that’s racist, how can you say that? My husband and I both think that immigrants add something to our culture”. “Really”, Frank replies, “is that why you’ve done a runner then sweetheart?” Claire is confused, angry: “How dare you call me sweetheart, it’s sexist. It’s the intolerance of racists like you that causes all the problems”. Claire is, of course, intellectually brilliant: she has a first class degree in gender and Sapphic studies and Ebonics and her behaviour is consistent with the indoctrination she received at university (formerly a squalid, polytechnic and a now a squalid, and soon to be bankrupt, “new university”). Terence was right: truth breeds hatred. I have met hundreds of people like Claire. Universities, even proper ones, seethe with such hypocrites. Should I despise their disgusting hypocrisy or should I understand that they are weak, ovine, easily led and frightened and make allowances?
Bureaucratic and legislative creep is another destructive consequence of too many racial groups (races) and cultures resident in the same jurisdiction. Societies which are racially homogenous (if they do have racial minorities, they are very small minorities) and, as a consequence, share a great many cultural and ethical assumptions, can leave many areas of their citizens lives unregulated. There is an acceptance that many areas of a person’s life, subject to his obeying the law, are off limits to the state and its agencies. Such a society is blessed. Multiculturalism which is inimical to the liberal-democratic notion of society – the combination of “multicultural” and “society” is an oxymoron – creates tensions, pressures and resentments, which can only be resolved by the introduction and enforcement of harsh legislation. In fact the problems created by a policy of multiculturalism are never resolved – they are insurmountable – and what appears to the legislator and bureaucrat to be a solution is merely another layer of problems. Recommendation 12 of the Macpherson Report defines a racist incident as follows: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. When just about anything can be construed as “racism”, people will certainly be careful about what they say but the sensible response in order to avoid any chance of one’s being targeted is to avoid members of racial minorities altogether. White flight is just one symptom. This weakens any notion of society and certainly does nothing to promote “community”. More commissions are created and more inquiries are held to ascertain why racial and cultural minorities refuse to integrate and why whites are running away. The result is more punitive and unwieldy legislation all in the name of “diversity” that apparently highly desirable yet permanently elusive good.
Multiculturalism has resulted in a huge increase of violent crime, much of it on a scale quite unknown in this country prior to the advent of mass immigration, especially non-white immigration. Gun and knife crime in our big cities is largely, but not exclusively, a black problem. Wherever there are large concentrations of blacks, there is more crime, of all kinds, but especially violent crimes. This pattern can be observed worldwide. The less intelligent who find it almost impossible to hold down a regular job - and for whom in any case there may be no jobs - seek status and rewards through crime and rapine. The glorification of gun crime, drugs and casual savagery exert an especially toxic effect on the low IQ black teenager who lacks the intellectual resources and self-restraint to resist the blandishments of rap and hip hop. The message of rap is very simple: if you want her, take her; if you want something, take it; if someone shows you disrespect, kill them. Huge swathes of our inner cities are now lost to this Third-World barbarism. There is nothing here, absolutely nothing, to celebrate. That such a situation obtains in our inner cities bespeaks the cowardice of politicians and public sector agencies who have refused to acknowledge the gruesome reality. It should also be a matter of utter shame to our politicians; that means people like you Mr Cameron, your oleaginous confidant and black-crime denier, Boris Johnson and your supporters in the BBC and other left-wing media, which either from ideological conviction or from intellectual and moral cowardice, have refused to report the true state of affairs. As black lawlessness becomes ever more the norm in our inner cities, spilling out into the suburbs, white flight will continue relentlessly.
Diversity is a neo-Marxist concept which destroys any real sense of community. In order to impose the artificial construct of diversity on the unwilling indigenous white population, diversophiles and xenophiles seek to undermine the English language, the teaching of British history, our institutions and culture. The following examples – a very small sample it must be added - illustrate the ideologically corrupting influence on language of the diversophile agenda. The words that diversophiles have sought to replace are in brackets: “Gender” (“sex”); “gay” (“homosexual”); “faith community/school” (“religious denomination”/ “religious school”); “young people” (“teenager”); “asylum seekers” (“illegal immigrants”); “hate crime”/”racist” (“rational objection to some part of the diversophile/xenophile agenda”); and “militant” (“terrorist”). In all these examples the intention is to deceive. Diversity itself also hides a multitude of cruel and barbarous customs: voodoo and eating human body parts, usually as part of primitive African rituals; importing rare animals; arranged marriages; threatening to murder people who write books that offend Muslims (The Satanic Verses, 1988); murdering people who publicly attack multiculturalism (Pim Fortuyn and Van Gogh in Holland); female circumcision; and intermarriage among close relatives.
Mass legal and illegal immigration lead to overpopulation and overcrowding which destroy amenity, denude water resources and lead to the loss of valuable open spaces as a consequence of high density housing (often very expensive and of very poor quality). Mass immigration overwhelms the National Health Service, despite the huge sums of money that have been allocated to this part of the public sector since 1997. I bitterly resent having to pay taxes so that immigrants can come to this country and receive subsidies to implement their aggressive and biologically delinquent, personal breeding programmes. Polygamous breeders can stay in Nigeria.
Persecution of those who publicly dissent from the view that diversity is a blessing is now well established in the United States, Australia and Britain. The internal and practical contradictions of multiculturalism, widely perceived, mean that there is enormous and growing opposition to multiculturalism. In the aftermath of the Islamic terrorist atrocities of 11th September 2001 and the 7th July 2005, even government ministers realized that something was badly wrong. Nevertheless, at all levels in our education system, social services and policing the rule is that individuals who speak out against multiculturalism and the mindset of political correctness can expect to be punished. There can be no doubt that the decision to prosecute - to persecute - members of the British National Party (BNP) because the party highlighted some of the less attractive features of Islam was politically motivated and taken at the highest levels of government. If the intention was to break the BNP it clearly failed. The testimony of the two defendants was a master class in the dangers facing Britain. That both defendants were unanimously acquitted on all ten charges was indisputably a major victory for free speech and the truth.
Some idea of Cameron’s deep-seated hatred of truth tellers is evident in remarks he made about Griffin at a recent Conservative Party conference. Cameron referred to Nick Griffin MEP as ‘a ghastly piece of filth’. This is an appalling way to speak about an elected official. Moreover, it is highly inflammatory. It is the sort of language that will be heard by some Islamic fanatics who will interpret these cowardly and intemperate remarks as tacit incitement to murder Nick Griffin. I expect such remarks from aliens such as Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh and Dianne Abbot. However, I do not expect, nor do I wish to hear such language from the leader of the opposition and a potential prime minister of Britain. Nick Griffin has a wife and children. I hope Cameron’s words never come back to haunt him. Cameron would do well to offer Nick Griffin an unreserved and public apology.
Supporters of the Conservative Party and David Cameron’s espousal of multiculturalism might like to consider some future trends. The problems associated with immigration are mass - too many - and where there are too many non-white immigrants there will be – indeed there are - too many cultural and racial antagonisms which cannot be solved or rather politicians lack the courage and the will to solve them. It can be stated unequivocally that permitting mass non-white immigration has not created some multiracial utopia. It is not going to either. In America, multiculturalism is pushing the country towards possible racial partition some time in the twenty-first century and will inevitably reduce whites to a minority. Whether an absolute catastrophe can be avoided in this country in the decades ahead remains uncertain. But some of the signs are not good. While one can remain implacably opposed to mass, non-white immigration, one can, in principle, tolerate some very limited level of non-white immigration, subject as always to the test of how the white indigenous population will benefit: lone immigrants have to adapt; they must learn English; they must adapt to our folkways, customs and traditions; they cannot live in ghettos (there are too few of them); and they can, with time, earn acceptance and respect.
Large numbers are another matter. They tend to re-create examples of what they have left behind. There is less pressure for all to learn the language and adapt to mainstream British culture and to “the-way-we-do-things”. As numbers grow there is competition for housing, benefits and education. The white indigenous population starts to feel threatened. In Britain this racial transition has been very rapid. It was only twenty years after Windrush when Enoch Powell issued his famous warning. Over forty years on the situation is immeasurably worse. What marks the precise threshold when we cross from low level and tolerable immigration – defined as being tolerable to the white, host society – and move towards to mass non-white immigration is not easy to define even for professional demographers. But one thing can be stated with complete certainty: there is huge unease among the white indigenous population in Britain about the country’s racial make up and what this bodes for the future.
Mass non-white immigration can all too easily become self-perpetuating. As the immigrant invasion continues so the notion of what one means by “host society” and “tolerable” changes quite dramatically. Large numbers of immigrants who originate from failed, barbarous, Third-World states (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and sub-Saharan Africa) and who have acquired British citizenship will not necessarily be sympathetic to the hopes and fears of the white, indigenous population. Why should they be? They want to displace them, the aim of any invader. Armed with the right to vote, these immigrants can exert considerable electoral leverage and secure ever more “tolerant” policies towards their fellow non-whites which for the indigenous white may well be utterly “intolerable”. If the main threat to the racial and cultural stability of Britain both in the short and long term stems from mass non-white immigration, mass white immigration is also a threat. Permitting the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, which even by the routine and endemic corruption of Brussels are hopelessly corrupt states, only benefits unscrupulous employers and further strains already malfunctioning public services.
Whether they are cognizant of it or not, those who permit and encourage mass immigration into Britain are pursuing a huge, unplanned exercise in nation building. Britain’s own failures in this area – Iraq in the 1920s, Palestine, the partition of India, the unnatural and brutal division of Ireland and the meltdown in Iraq post-2003 – have been so disastrous that one would have thought they would have compelled politicians to reject any such plans for Britain. Where there are racial and cultural differences nation building can only be achieved through violence and any such artificially constructed nation will eventually be destroyed in violence. Nations may be seen as a contract which individuals make with their fellows. Where there are too many “others” there can be no contract, then government, often by the application of harsh legislation, must step in to regulate the disputes and allocate resources which should properly be left to individuals making their own decisions. The persecution of whites in the USA in the name of affirmative action and equal opportunities is an example. Swedes have been traditionally willing to tolerate levels of high taxation in order to support the welfare state because their country has always been racially homogenous. Once racial minorities in Sweden become too big and too troublesome, support for high taxation will break down or Swedes like their fellow Europeans will suffer and complain in silence. Racial and cultural differences matter.
For the time being, the clear and present danger - to use the American expression - to Britain comes from Islamic terrorism. The extraordinary feature of this terrorism is not the attacks of 7th July 2005 and the others that have been thwarted by the security services but the heroically passive response of the white indigenous majority population to a large, growing and resentful minority in their midst which makes no secret of its hatred and loathing of Britain. One might argue that this is an example of that famous British tolerance. On the contrary, it is not an exercise in tolerance to permit the country, a country one’s ancestors defended from past enemies so that we, today, can live in freedom, to be invaded by the Third World. The reason why white indigenous Britons are not more openly vocal in resisting multiculturalism is because they have seen the despicable and cowardly measures which have been taken against those who dissent. If you are heavily mortgaged with two children, you may decide that keeping your mouth shut is a wiser option. There are however other forms of resistance which are still legal. White flight from racial minorities has already been mentioned. Wealthy parents and those parents prepared to make the necessary sacrifices can send their children to good private schools. Another option is to leave Britain altogether. The trouble is that many of the favoured destinations – Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Spain - have similar problems of their own. In all these countries there are large numbers of whites who collude with non-whites in order to bring about what they believe will be a multiracial utopia. As in Britain, these people are oblivious to historical and contemporary evidence, which shows that multiracial/multiethnic states are inherently unstable.
If historical and contemporary evidence shows that multiracial/multiethnic states are unstable, at what stage does a state become unstable, essentially a failing and eventually a failed state, and what happens when it fails? Immigration to Britain even with the loss of whites to emigration cannot continue at the rates we are witnessing. Publicly the government, the BBC and the press might dismiss the BNP as a racist party but they will reflect in private that the BNP is starting to attract voters who until recently would not have voted for such a demonized party. The reason they are now willing to give the BNP a chance is because they see – and they are surely correct in this – that the two main parties have abandoned them. They see the huge mismatch between what politicians say about multiculturalism and what happens in their own neighbourhood. The white who is told that multiculturalism is a good thing for Britain resembles the former citizen of the Soviet Union who was endlessly bullied and harangued with astonishing production figures and about how communism was triumphing over the West while he lived in squalor and amid crippling shortages.
The electoral success of the BNP is a warning to the government that the question of legal/illegal immigration will have to be addressed. It will not be enough for tough rhetoric. Tough action is required. One course of action that would be particularly attractive to a beleaguered government would be to declare an amnesty for all existing illegal immigrants, possibly as many as 2,000,000, with the simultaneous announcement of apparently tough new border controls to prevent further illegal immigration. (It is possible that such an announcement made at a time when the BNP - or any other party for that matter - was about to achieve major electoral success might weaken that party’s appeal). An amnesty, essentially an act of appeasement, would be disastrous for Britain. It would simply encourage further mass immigration in the hope that there would be yet another amnesty. The promise of tougher legislation would also be a sham. Existing legislation provides for the expulsion of unwanted aliens and illegal immigrants. Politicians are too frightened to act or want to see the white population overwhelmed and dispossessed.
So, unwanted, illegal immigration continues and Britain’s population rises inexorably. What would life be like in Britain when our population rises to 80,000,000 or even 90,000,000? Regardless of whether these new immigrants were white or non-white some of the consequences are clearly predictable. Take the question of housing and private property. These immigrants will have to be housed. If we try to protect our green belt areas already under intense pressure in the South East of England then we shall have to go for very high density housing with all the social and crime problems that go with such housing. Or we may decide to create whole new cities and towns. Planning laws would be dumped. Legislation providing for the creation and protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks would be rescinded. Who knows whether it would ever get that bad but one thing is quite clear: whole areas of Britain which most of us would never regard as being at risk would attract the attention of government desperate to house all these immigrants.
Housing on this scale has horrendous cost implications. Who will pay for these immigrants to be housed? Desperate chancellors will resort to desperate taxation measures. One option would be to impose extra taxes on the sale of houses and use the money to pay for these new houses. Compulsory purchase of private land at prices well below what land could command on the open market would become the norm. Single dwellers now own a large part of Britain’s housing stock. In instances where they lived in a dwelling whose total floor space was greater than the government norm (yes there would eventually be such a thing), they, too, could be the target of compulsory purchase orders and be made to live in smaller dwellings situated in diversity-rich areas. Their former houses would then be used to accommodate immigrants with very large families, especially those inclined to polygamy. Or these owners could be compelled to take in lodgers (the rent would be set by government). In short, there would be no limit to what a rapacious and cruel government – Conservative or Labour - could inflict and will try to inflict on whites in the name of diversity. Look at what has already happened.
If all these scenarios seem far-fetched then one should consider the way in which the institution of free speech has been progressively undermined in this country and the on-going attempts to weaken its status. If that can happen to free speech, other freedoms are at risk as well. One fictional episode from Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (1973), a novel which deals with an immigration invasion of the West, stunningly anticipates the degree to which multiracial fanatics will go in order to impose their savage agenda. In Raspail’s novel representatives of something called The Non-European Commonwealth Committee have taken over London and one of their non-negotiable demands is that the Queen’s ‘younger son marry a Pakistani’. ‘To destroy a symbol’, asks the author, ‘or to make it their own?’ (p.286). One might be tempted to dismiss this as gruesome, dystopian satire yet when the Parekh Report, a thinly-veiled and sometimes bitter attack on the white indigenous population of Britain, was launched in October 2000, Kate Gavron, one of those responsible for the launch, opined that: ‘It would have been great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine what sort of message that would have sent out.’ (The Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2000, p.1). Gavron’s willingness to consider interfering in that most intimate sphere of a person’s life in order to build some multiracial utopia reveals and confirms the same totalitarian impulse which underpins the oppressive provisions and recommendations of The Macpherson Report. Both Macpherson and Gavron – and they are by no means alone – sought to destroy the private world so that there can be no hiding place from multiculturalism. Recommendation 39 of The Macpherson Report is clearly aimed at securing the right to spy on the views of British citizens as a way of imposing a politically correct view of race.
It is a certainty that as ever more immigrants pour into Britain harsher legislation will be needed to silence and to discredit opposition. A question that arises here is just how violent Britain’s multicultural future will be. There are two sides to this question. The first and obvious consideration will be the on-going threat of Islamic terror attacks in Britain. A second consideration is organized violence and counter-terror on the part of white indigenous groups which, in the first instance, would respond to the threat of Islam.
The official policy of multiculturalism makes the task of Islamic terrorists much easier. Like the black criminal, the terrorists know that the “racist” card can be very effective in deterring the attentions of the police. What in the BBC’s speech code are referred to as “leaders of the Muslim community” are very quick to claim that Muslims are being persecuted and that we the white indigenous population must be sympathetic to Islam - that we must respect it – though they never really explain why people in this country should feel well disposed towards immigrants who hate us so much that they are prepared to become homicide-suicide bombers. This failure to deal with incipient Islamic terrorism and its networks means that some two decades of neglect have made the task of penetrating and destroying these networks immensely difficult. Obvious and easily accessible targets and options for Islamic terrorist organisations seeking to inflict as much chaos and destruction on Britain as possible are: cultural targets; infrastructure targets; and urban insurgency.
Cultural targets are not as spectacular as attacks on infrastructure targets but such attacks would be easier to carry out if only because the targets would in most cases be less protected and more easily accessible. Possible scenarios would be the destruction or infliction of severe damage on Stonehenge; Saint Paul’s Cathedral; York Minster; Canterbury Cathedral; The British Museum; The British Library, and the listed buildings associated with, say, William Shakespeare and Sir Isaac Newton. Universities would be very vulnerable and would result in mass deaths. Attacking cultural targets would serve to underline the “clash of civilizations”; that the physical and intellectual embodiment of the West was under attack as well.
Infrastructure targets are typically power stations, utilities, oil installations, water resources (poisoning), rail and air networks, hospitals, business and economic targets, computer and information networks. All are vulnerable to attacks. Railway networks are extremely vulnerable. Derailing a high speed train with small amounts of explosive on the track would be easy to carry out and would cause mass casualties and disruption, especially in the South East. Sustained attacks would inflict massive damage on economic and business activity.
Britain is especially vulnerable to an Islamic-directed insurgency. The intifada against Israeli troops and the recent insurgency in Iraq provide a template. Well-coordinated attacks on the security forces with the use of explosives, small-arms and rocket launchers are achievable goals for would-be insurgents. The gross failure on the part of the Home Office to police British borders and especially the failure to hunt down, to round up and to deport the 2,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country make the task of the terrorists all the more easier. If some 2,000,000 illegal immigrants can enter Britain, then the task of bringing in weapons and explosives poses no problem for determined and well-funded groups.
The post-modern terrorism pioneered by al Qaeda or perhaps the post-modern world in which the organisation has developed provides pointers to some form of lawful and rational armed resistance on the part of the white indigenous population to the facts of the their racial and cultural dispossession. Central to so much of the promotion of multiculturalism and globalisation is the assertion that the nation state is obsolescent and with it the traditional cultures and allegiances associated therewith. Now this view may be the current fashion in British political circles and is certainly an article of faith throughout the bureaucracies of the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) but it commands very little support outside of these tax-payer subsidised organisations. If the British government, for example, despite the obvious and very widespread hostility to the EU in Britain, continues to transfer ever more powers to the large, unaccountable and fiscally corrupt bureaucracies of the EU, why should British citizens be bound by laws made by a government that is not loyal to its own citizens and their perfectly legitimate, cultural, racial and historical interests? Put another way, if the nation state is on the way to becoming an irrelevance in the twenty-first century to whom or to what political entity should the British citizen offer his loyalty (and his taxes)? A British government that quite deliberately connives to allow some 2,000,000 illegal immigrants to enter this country and then fails to remove them is either grossly negligent or pursuing an agenda that it does not wish to see challenged. Either way it violates the contract that exists between the government and the governed. The relentless growth of the EU means that we are less and less governed and more and more ruled, and ruled arbitrarily and unaccountably, by people who at best are indifferent to, or frequently hostile to, the historical, cultural, economic, racial and political interests of Britain. A government that promotes globalisation and multiculturalism because, it believes, among other things, the nation state retains no significance, cannot then selectively arrogate to itself the right to insist that we obey the laws of this allegedly defunct entity. The laws of the nation state only command obedience when the nation state itself is recognised as the sole, properly constituted authority (the national parliament) for the making and enacting of laws. A nation state or rather the government of a nation state that transfers these powers to a third party in the absence of any express and explicit mandate (← another complicated question), foregoes any claim on the obedience and loyalty of its citizens.
Bloodless and formal though this argument may be it has long term consequences which may not be bloodless. If we are well on the way to witnessing the final destruction of Westminster’s sovereignty which could not have happened without the willing and aggressively active participation of British politicians – British Conservatives have been by far the most duplicitous - then we are in the middle of truly historical change, certainly as far as England is concerned. The stealthy, treacherous and mendacious manner in which Westminster has been undermined and powers transferred to Brussels could at some stage justify a widespread and determined campaign of civil disobedience (or worse).
Projections for the growth of the non-white population in Britain are staggering and the implications for stability are horrendous. There will come a time when even the white middle classes who currently display the most heroic hypocrisy regarding all things multicultural will find that they can no longer insulate themselves from being overwhelmed: there will be nowhere to run to; good private schools will be beyond their means; and it will be very difficult to avoid immigrants because of the sheer numbers. I take it for granted that as the number of non-white immigrants entering this country rises, and the strains, already evident, get worse that laws emanating from Brussels and designed to criminalise all opposition to multiculturalism will become much harsher. We can expect legislation designed to criminalise any spoken or written scepticism of multiculturalism as a matter of course. I do not see how any kind of political and social stability, let alone racial harmony would be possible in Britain were the numbers of non-white immigrants, already large, to spiral out of control. We may already have passed the point of no return.
Politicians would be wrong to assume that permanent passivity on the part of the white indigenous majority population is a given. The words of America’s Declaration of Independence come to mind:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that man-kind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These are words to inspire us as well. All Britons have the right to resist tyranny, home-grown or foreign, with all means at their disposal. There may come a time where there is no other option. It strikes this author as wholly proper and reasonable that what, in the case of England and then Britain, has taken centuries to build, should continue to inspire the devotion and loyalty of its citizens; that we do have obligations to protect what has been bequeathed to us by time and place; that it is right and proper that we honour our dead; that vast numbers of aliens cannot simply join our tribe and family. Otherwise we, the white indigenous population, and our children, will lose everything. The Conservative Party which used to believe in the sanctity of nation has lost its soul and betrayed us all. Now, this party conspires to reduce us to a mass of human refuse, little better than savages, at the mercy of fate and the racist gloating of the BBC, so that we are the plaything of every apparatchik and venal politician-prostitute.